list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around X-Men: The Last Stand 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/X_Men_The_Last_Stand/230921/default.aspx Title: X-Men: The Last Stand
Year: 2006
Director: Brett Ratner
Plot: The explosive X-Men motion picture trilogy officially draws to a close with this release that finds Rush Hour director Brett Ratner stepping in for Bryan Singer to tell the tale of a newly discovered mutant "cure," and the polarizing effect it has on mutant/man relations. With the pressure on mutants to give up their powers and pledge alliance with the human race reaching a critical turning point, Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) urges tolerance and understanding as his nemesis Magneto (Ian McKellen) gathers a powerful resistance in preparation for the ultimate war against humankind. Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, and James Marsden return to reprise the roles they played in the previous two X-Men films, with Kelsey Grammer and Vinnie Jones joining the cast as Beast and Juggernaut respectively. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 36
Number of Lists: 56
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:05:09 GMTX-Men: The Last Stand2006Brett RatnerThe explosive <a href=/films/140800/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>X-Men</a> motion picture trilogy officially draws to a close with this release that finds <a href=/films/128809/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Rush Hour</a> director <a href="/players/P___231725/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brett Ratner</a> stepping in for <a href="/players/P___193696/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bryan Singer</a> to tell the tale of a newly discovered mutant "cure," and the polarizing effect it has on mutant/man relations. With the pressure on mutants to give up their powers and pledge alliance with the human race reaching a critical turning point, Professor Charles Xavier (<a href="/players/P____68265/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Patrick Stewart</a>) urges tolerance and understanding as his nemesis Magneto (<a href="/players/P____47684/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ian McKellen</a>) gathers a powerful resistance in preparation for the ultimate war against humankind. <a href="/players/P___269258/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Hugh Jackman</a>, <a href="/players/P_____5863/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Halle Berry</a>, <a href="/players/P___198605/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anna Paquin</a>, and <a href="/players/P___232716/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James Marsden</a> return to reprise the roles they played in the previous two <a href=/films/140800/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>X-Men</a> films, with <a href="/players/P____28139/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kelsey Grammer</a> and <a href="/players/P___242472/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Vinnie Jones</a> joining the cast as Beast and Juggernaut respectively. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide36Tag Target (>10)561243http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t90086h5szb.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/X_Men_The_Last_Stand/230921/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/5/40271.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/5/2009 12:01:20 PM
Body: Are you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:01:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/5/2009 12:01:20 PMAre you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/28/33192.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/28/2008 6:00:54 PM
Body: The third part in Universal’s rebooted Mummy franchise takes the series in a new direction. Rather than set in Egypt and dealing again with the same old villain, Imhotep, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor brings us to China and gives us a different sort of preserved corpse baddie. And it looks like the change could actually add some freshness to the franchise. Of course, history would hint that such a move for the Mummy movies is a bad idea. While it seems beneficial in theory to redirect the focus of a series with the third installment, especially if the first sequel was too much a repetition of the original (a la The Mummy Returns), in practice many threequels mistakenly alter things for the worse. These aren’t necessarily the worst threequels ever made (*cough* X-Men: The Last Stand); they’re just some movies that took their series in a completely wrong turn. Halloween III: Season of the Witch - Now viewed as an unfortunate detour in a long series involving the slasher Michael Myers, this misstep can apparently be blamed on John Carpenter and co-writer/producer Debra Hill, who agreed to a second sequel to Halloween only if it didn’t involve Myers. But what was the point? Sure, a franchise can work with unrelated sequels, but after two movies dealing with the same villain, it seems odd to switch it up so late in the game. Still, if this wasn’t such a terrible movie in general, it’s possible Halloween III could have worked as an intended beginning to an anthology franchise. Batman Forever - I typically like to consider Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies a separate series from Tim Burton’s, but the few returning cast members (Michael Gough, Pat Hingle) are evidence that this is indeed a threequel to the 1989 Batman. Not that you’d otherwise know it from the complete change in tone from dark to candy colored (never mind the recast Batman/Bruce Wayne). Hopefully Christopher Nolan will continue with the latest run so someone like Shawn Levy doesn’t take over and make the caped crusader silly again. Another Thin Man - Honestly, I could watch all of the Thin Man movies over and over until I die (Nora Charles is the most perfect woman ever written into creation), but this third installment of the alcohol-happy detective series commits one of the cardinal sins of sequels: it introduces a child. What fun is a couple of bickering, drunken lovers who also solve murders with a baby along for the ride? Even if the kid does end up being played by a very young Dean Stockwell by the fifth installment. The Mummy movies committed the same annoyance/error with the second movie (for Tomb of the Dragon Emperor the son is now thankfully an adult). Look Who’s Talking Now - While the Thin Man movies were good enough with a cute dog and didn’t need to add in a cute kid, the Look Who’s Talking movies were inversely just fine with cute, talking babies and didn’t need to add in talking animals. Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles - Yet another threequel guilty of having a kid add-on. But it also commits the other annoying sin of relocating the franchise to a new setting. The rural meets urban fish out of water stuff doesn’t work nearly as much in L.A. as it does in NYC. Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 - No threequel is going to be good if the main star drops out of the series and the sidekick attempts to take the place of the leading man. Well, maybe it would be okay if Iron Man 3 starred Terrence Howard only as War Machine, and maybe this movie would have actually worked if Jerry Reed stayed in the big rig and it was titled Smokey and the Trucker. But as it went down, the substitution just made us miss Burt Reynolds more. Home Alone 3 - As far as replacements go, I don’t know what is worse, changing up the whole character and family, as was done with Home Alone 3, which basically just repeated the storyline of the original movie, or the made-for-TV Home Alone 4, which recast characters from the first two movies. Either way, Fox should have just continued the series with Macauley Culkin, despite the fact that he was growing way out of his cute years by the end of the second movie. Home Alone 3 should have brought John Hughes back to focusing on high school kids and made it like a mix of Home Alone and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, in which a teenage Kevin throws a wild house party when accidentally left home alone. Again. Ghostbusters: The Video Game - I know that video games are surpassing the movies in terms of favored entertainment, but I’m pretty bummed that the third Ghostbusters movie has become a video game rather than an actual threequel. Superman III - Some of us may have a soft spot for both Richard Pryor’s appearance and the selfish Superman, but otherwise this threequel suffers dearly from having such lame villains. Especially after the awesomeness of General Zod and friends in part II. The wrong turn, though, is not just lame villains but the complete lack of Lex Luthor, a necessity for Superman movies for those of us who never read the comics and can’t get behind a pseudo Luthor like Robert Vaughn’s “Ross Webster”. Actually, I guess it’s not so much the lack of Luthor as it is the blatant substitution for him, as well as for the diminished use of Lois Lane. The franchise didn’t exactly get back on course by bringing Gene Hackman’s Luthor in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Friday the 13th Part 3 - It’s perfectly debatable whether or not this slasher series took a misstep when it gave Jason a hockey mask and made him an icon. Like a number of other horror franchises, this one became less scary and more amusing beginning with the third installment. Entertaining, sure, but a wrong turn for some horror franchises. It certainly didn’t help matters having that laugh track: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:00:54 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/28/2008 6:00:54 PM The third part in Universal’s rebooted Mummy franchise takes the series in a new direction. Rather than set in Egypt and dealing again with the same old villain, Imhotep, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor brings us to China and gives us a different sort of preserved corpse baddie. And it looks like the change could actually add some freshness to the franchise. Of course, history would hint that such a move for the Mummy movies is a bad idea. While it seems beneficial in theory to redirect the focus of a series with the third installment, especially if the first sequel was too much a repetition of the original (a la The Mummy Returns), in practice many threequels mistakenly alter things for the worse. These aren’t necessarily the worst threequels ever made (*cough* X-Men: The Last Stand); they’re just some movies that took their series in a completely wrong turn. Halloween III: Season of the Witch - Now viewed as an unfortunate detour in a long series involving the slasher Michael Myers, this misstep can apparently be blamed on John Carpenter and co-writer/producer Debra Hill, who agreed to a second sequel to Halloween only if it didn’t involve Myers. But what was the point? Sure, a franchise can work with unrelated sequels, but after two movies dealing with the same villain, it seems odd to switch it up so late in the game. Still, if this wasn’t such a terrible movie in general, it’s possible Halloween III could have worked as an intended beginning to an anthology franchise. Batman Forever - I typically like to consider Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies a separate series from Tim Burton’s, but the few returning cast members (Michael Gough, Pat Hingle) are evidence that this is indeed a threequel to the 1989 Batman. Not that you’d otherwise know it from the complete change in tone from dark to candy colored (never mind the recast Batman/Bruce Wayne). Hopefully Christopher Nolan will continue with the latest run so someone like Shawn Levy doesn’t take over and make the caped crusader silly again. Another Thin Man - Honestly, I could watch all of the Thin Man movies over and over until I die (Nora Charles is the most perfect woman ever written into creation), but this third installment of the alcohol-happy detective series commits one of the cardinal sins of sequels: it introduces a child. What fun is a couple of bickering, drunken lovers who also solve murders with a baby along for the ride? Even if the kid does end up being played by a very young Dean Stockwell by the fifth installment. The Mummy movies committed the same annoyance/error with the second movie (for Tomb of the Dragon Emperor the son is now thankfully an adult). Look Who’s Talking Now - While the Thin Man movies were good enough with a cute dog and didn’t need to add in a cute kid, the Look Who’s Talking movies were inversely just fine with cute, talking babies and didn’t need to add in talking animals. Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles - Yet another threequel guilty of having a kid add-on. But it also commits the other annoying sin of relocating the franchise to a new setting. The rural meets urban fish out of water stuff doesn’t work nearly as much in L.A. as it does in NYC. Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 - No threequel is going to be good if the main star drops out of the series and the sidekick attempts to take the place of the leading man. Well, maybe it would be okay if Iron Man 3 starred Terrence Howard only as War Machine, and maybe this movie would have actually worked if Jerry Reed stayed in the big rig and it was titled Smokey and the Trucker. But as it went down, the substitution just made us miss Burt Reynolds more. Home Alone 3 - As far as replacements go, I don’t know what is worse, changing up the whole character and family, as was done with Home Alone 3, which basically just repeated the storyline of the original movie, or the made-for-TV Home Alone 4, which recast characters from the first two movies. Either way, Fox should have just continued the series with Macauley Culkin, despite the fact that he was growing way out of his cute years by the end of the second movie. Home Alone 3 should have brought John Hughes back to focusing on high school kids and made it like a mix of Home Alone and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, in which a teenage Kevin throws a wild house party when accidentally left home alone. Again. Ghostbusters: The Video Game - I know that video games are surpassing the movies in terms of favored entertainment, but I’m pretty bummed that the third Ghostbusters movie has become a video game rather than an actual threequel. Superman III - Some of us may have a soft spot for both Richard Pryor’s appearance and the selfish Superman, but otherwise this threequel suffers dearly from having such lame villains. Especially after the awesomeness of General Zod and friends in part II. The wrong turn, though, is not just lame villains but the complete lack of Lex Luthor, a necessity for Superman movies for those of us who never read the comics and can’t get behind a pseudo Luthor like Robert Vaughn’s “Ross Webster”. Actually, I guess it’s not so much the lack of Luthor as it is the blatant substitution for him, as well as for the diminished use of Lois Lane. The franchise didn’t exactly get back on course by bringing Gene Hackman’s Luthor in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Friday the 13th Part 3 - It’s perfectly debatable whether or not this slasher series took a misstep when it gave Jason a hockey mask and made him an icon. Like a number of other horror franchises, this one became less scary and more amusing beginning with the third installment. Entertaining, sure, but a wrong turn for some horror franchises. It certainly didn’t help matters having that laugh track: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/9/30977.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/9/2008 1:24:53 PM
Body: This review contains major spoilers for "X-Men: The Last Stand". In case the trailers and TV ads haven´t made it clear enough, "X-Men: The Last Stand" revolves around a cure for the mutant X gene. In layman´s terms, scientists have found a way to make any mutant a "normal" human being, without their powers of telekinesis, optic blasts, furry blue skin, a metal skeleton or power over the weather. And that "cure" (as it is called in the movie) turns from a voluntary program to a weapon when Magneto (Sir Ian McKellan) challenges it. The major problem with this third movie in the theatrical "X-Men" isn´t in front of the camera. Rather, it´s behind. The director of the first two films, Bryan Singer, was onboard to helm this one also. However, the new "Superman" film came calling while "The Last Stand" was languishing somewhere on the development track. So Singer passed on this film in favor of "Superman Returns". He brought his production crew with him to the new, leaving "Rush Hour" director Brett Ratner to lead this film. To put it as succinctly as possible, it shows. This film, above and beyond the first two entries, required Singer´s (or someone along that line) experiences, sensibilities and touch. Singer brought an un-comic book feel to a comic book movie. You believed these people existed and what they were going through was real. Without him, what was a series about ideas first and action second reversed its priorities. This is an action movie with good ideas desperately trying to get out. To second guess the film and the decisions behind it is foolish. It can´t be changed now. However, there is enough meaty material here to make two films. There is the aforementioned cure storyline and the ramifications of the idea. Then there´s the reincarnation of Jean Grey as the Phoenix (last seen saving the mutants at the end of "X-Men United"). Then there´s the death-a-minute of major characters. But let´s take each of these one at a time. It was only a matter of time before the anti-mutant sentiments we´ve seen through the first two films culminated in a scientist trying to reverse mutations. This particular storyline starts out with Warren Worthington II finding his son (ostensibly named Warren Worthington III) trying to cut off a pair of white wings on his back as a young child. Flash forward to the present and this "cure" is being bandied about by the government and Worthington as a way for mutants to be "normal". However, the caveat is the procedure is entirely voluntary. When the news breaks, our protagonists are divided. Rogue (Anna Paquin) is for it, because it would allow her to touch her boyfriend Bobby Drake aka Iceman (Shawn Ashmore). Keep in mind Rogue´s mutant power is taking another mutant´s power and using it herself. She nearly killed Wolverine in the first film this way. On the other side is Storm (Halle Berry), who repeatedly asks "Since when are we a disease?". Straddling the line is the new mutant Dr. Hank McCoy (Beast, played by Kelsey Grammar). Presumably after the second movie, a Division of Mutant Affairs was created within the government. The cure was created without his input. For him, his furry blue skin is a tell-tale sign of being a mutant. Why wouldn´t he want to regress to human status? What passes for arguments for and against the cure are slim. There is a scene in which Worthington III is forced to take the cure. He inevitably breaks free and, in a shot seen in every single trailer, flies out of the glass building where he is being held. Frankly, there is an entire movie´s worth of material here to mine in relation to the cure. There should be debates both on grand and personal scales. There should be more activism on the part of mutants as well as "normal" people. But there isn´t. Magneto, obviously, is firmly against the very idea of a cure and, in a moment of pure lunacy, decides to announce to the country that his Brotherhood will fight back. Let´s contemplate that for a moment. Do you declare on television you´re about to start a war? Of course not. It lets your adversaries know you´re coming and to prepare. If you´re going to start a grassroots resistance, you don´t make public declarations. However, it does allow the president to utter one of the movie´s most ludicrious lines (and ideas). His response to Magneto is that if he wants a fight, the country will give him one. Excuse me, but how, exactly, do you fight people that can phase through walls, control your mind, change the weather and who knows what else? Why, you use the so-called voluntary cure as a weapon. And that´s exactly what happens. The first victim is Mystique, who is being held prisoner by the government. Magneto and his band break her out, only to have a cure bullet meant for Magneto hit her. She instantly regresses from her blue skinned personae to human flesh. Magneto, showing no remorse, leaves her, saying she´s no longer one of them. The Phoenix storyline intersects the cure in that the first major confrontation between Magneto´s Brotherhood and the X-Men (well, just Xavier, Wolverine and Storm) happens at Jean´s childhood home. Xavier, it appears has been controlling Jean´s mind as long as he´s known her, well aware of her ability to turn into the all-powerful Phoenix. Inside, with Xavier trying to get into her mind and Magneto attempting to get her on his side, she attacks Xavier, making him the second person she´s killed in the movie (the first being Cyclops). After this, Magneto and Phoenix unite to launch their pre-emptive strike. Which they do in what has to be considered the movie´s action set piece. Magneto moves the Golden Gate Bridge to Alcatraz Island-the home of the cure and mutant responsible for it-for the final battle. The rest of the movie is very by the numbers, involving explosions, mild expletives and the good guys predictably winning the day. Speaking of the characters knocked off in this movie (in one form of another): the aforementioned Mystique and Xavier, Cyclops (in a role hardly needing James Marsden), Rogue (she goes for the mutant cure), Magneto (he gets cured courtesy of a neat trick by Wolverine and Colossus) and Jean. The overwhelming emotion by everyone I was with after the movie ended: why? Why was it so necessary to kill or otherwise kick these people out of the franchise? I´ve been told that, in the last scene, Magneto does regain part of his ability. I looked for this and never saw it. Additionally, in the post-credits tag, we hear Xavier´s voice come out of a comatose body. This idea fits in with what has been previously established in the film. An argument can be made that Rogue, Mystique, Xavier and Magneto aren´t dead. The cure is going to regress and Xavier has been reincarnated. But that still leaves the maddeningly simply demise of Cyclops, a character as integral to the X-Men as Wolverine. This is "X-Men" Lite, in the same way "The Chronicles of Narnia" was "Lord of the Rings" for the kids.. The best parts of the last two movies have been jettisoned in favor the summer movie crowd. That in and of itself isn´t a major problem; it´s exactly what should be expected from a Memorial Day movie. But, based on the pedigree established previously, this is a massive letdown on every level. From the story and even to the special effects (most notably the opening de-aging effect for Xavier and Magneto), it´s disappointing.
]]>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:24:53 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/9/2008 1:24:53 PMThis review contains major spoilers for "X-Men: The Last Stand". In case the trailers and TV ads haven&acute;t made it clear enough, "X-Men: The Last Stand" revolves around a cure for the mutant X gene. In layman&acute;s terms, scientists have found a way to make any mutant a "normal" human being, without their powers of telekinesis, optic blasts, furry blue skin, a metal skeleton or power over the weather. And that "cure" (as it is called in the movie) turns from a voluntary program to a weapon when Magneto (Sir Ian McKellan) challenges it. The major problem with this third movie in the theatrical "X-Men" isn&acute;t in front of the camera. Rather, it&acute;s behind. The director of the first two films, Bryan Singer, was onboard to helm this one also. However, the new "Superman" film came calling while "The Last Stand" was languishing somewhere on the development track. So Singer passed on this film in favor of "Superman Returns". He brought his production crew with him to the new, leaving "Rush Hour" director Brett Ratner to lead this film. To put it as succinctly as possible, it shows. This film, above and beyond the first two entries, required Singer&acute;s (or someone along that line) experiences, sensibilities and touch. Singer brought an un-comic book feel to a comic book movie. You believed these people existed and what they were going through was real. Without him, what was a series about ideas first and action second reversed its priorities. This is an action movie with good ideas desperately trying to get out. To second guess the film and the decisions behind it is foolish. It can&acute;t be changed now. However, there is enough meaty material here to make two films. There is the aforementioned cure storyline and the ramifications of the idea. Then there&acute;s the reincarnation of Jean Grey as the Phoenix (last seen saving the mutants at the end of "X-Men United"). Then there&acute;s the death-a-minute of major characters. But let&acute;s take each of these one at a time. It was only a matter of time before the anti-mutant sentiments we&acute;ve seen through the first two films culminated in a scientist trying to reverse mutations. This particular storyline starts out with Warren Worthington II finding his son (ostensibly named Warren Worthington III) trying to cut off a pair of white wings on his back as a young child. Flash forward to the present and this "cure" is being bandied about by the government and Worthington as a way for mutants to be "normal". However, the caveat is the procedure is entirely voluntary. When the news breaks, our protagonists are divided. Rogue (Anna Paquin) is for it, because it would allow her to touch her boyfriend Bobby Drake aka Iceman (Shawn Ashmore). Keep in mind Rogue&acute;s mutant power is taking another mutant&acute;s power and using it herself. She nearly killed Wolverine in the first film this way. On the other side is Storm (Halle Berry), who repeatedly asks "Since when are we a disease?". Straddling the line is the new mutant Dr. Hank McCoy (Beast, played by Kelsey Grammar). Presumably after the second movie, a Division of Mutant Affairs was created within the government. The cure was created without his input. For him, his furry blue skin is a tell-tale sign of being a mutant. Why wouldn&acute;t he want to regress to human status? What passes for arguments for and against the cure are slim. There is a scene in which Worthington III is forced to take the cure. He inevitably breaks free and, in a shot seen in every single trailer, flies out of the glass building where he is being held. Frankly, there is an entire movie&acute;s worth of material here to mine in relation to the cure. There should be debates both on grand and personal scales. There should be more activism on the part of mutants as well as "normal" people. But there isn&acute;t. Magneto, obviously, is firmly against the very idea of a cure and, in a moment of pure lunacy, decides to announce to the country that his Brotherhood will fight back. Let&acute;s contemplate that for a moment. Do you declare on television you&acute;re about to start a war? Of course not. It lets your adversaries know you&acute;re coming and to prepare. If you&acute;re going to start a grassroots resistance, you don&acute;t make public declarations. However, it does allow the president to utter one of the movie&acute;s most ludicrious lines (and ideas). His response to Magneto is that if he wants a fight, the country will give him one. Excuse me, but how, exactly, do you fight people that can phase through walls, control your mind, change the weather and who knows what else? Why, you use the so-called voluntary cure as a weapon. And that&acute;s exactly what happens. The first victim is Mystique, who is being held prisoner by the government. Magneto and his band break her out, only to have a cure bullet meant for Magneto hit her. She instantly regresses from her blue skinned personae to human flesh. Magneto, showing no remorse, leaves her, saying she&acute;s no longer one of them. The Phoenix storyline intersects the cure in that the first major confrontation between Magneto&acute;s Brotherhood and the X-Men (well, just Xavier, Wolverine and Storm) happens at Jean&acute;s childhood home. Xavier, it appears has been controlling Jean&acute;s mind as long as he&acute;s known her, well aware of her ability to turn into the all-powerful Phoenix. Inside, with Xavier trying to get into her mind and Magneto attempting to get her on his side, she attacks Xavier, making him the second person she&acute;s killed in the movie (the first being Cyclops). After this, Magneto and Phoenix unite to launch their pre-emptive strike. Which they do in what has to be considered the movie&acute;s action set piece. Magneto moves the Golden Gate Bridge to Alcatraz Island-the home of the cure and mutant responsible for it-for the final battle. The rest of the movie is very by the numbers, involving explosions, mild expletives and the good guys predictably winning the day. Speaking of the characters knocked off in this movie (in one form of another): the aforementioned Mystique and Xavier, Cyclops (in a role hardly needing James Marsden), Rogue (she goes for the mutant cure), Magneto (he gets cured courtesy of a neat trick by Wolverine and Colossus) and Jean. The overwhelming emotion by everyone I was with after the movie ended: why? Why was it so necessary to kill or otherwise kick these people out of the franchise? I&acute;ve been told that, in the last scene, Magneto does regain part of his ability. I looked for this and never saw it. Additionally, in the post-credits tag, we hear Xavier&acute;s voice come out of a comatose body. This idea fits in with what has been previously established in the film. An argument can be made that Rogue, Mystique, Xavier and Magneto aren&acute;t dead. The cure is going to regress and Xavier has been reincarnated. But that still leaves the maddeningly simply demise of Cyclops, a character as integral to the X-Men as Wolverine. This is "X-Men" Lite, in the same way "The Chronicles of Narnia" was "Lord of the Rings" for the kids.. The best parts of the last two movies have been jettisoned in favor the summer movie crowd. That in and of itself isn&acute;t a major problem; it&acute;s exactly what should be expected from a Memorial Day movie. But, based on the pedigree established previously, this is a massive letdown on every level. From the story and even to the special effects (most notably the opening de-aging effect for Xavier and Magneto), it&acute;s disappointing. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/14/29179.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/14/2008 4:00:52 PM
Body: There’s been a lot of talk lately about all the mutant cameos appearing in the X-Men spin-off X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but we haven’t heard much about any characters set to show up in the other spin-off, X-Men Origins: Magneto. Until now. According to George “El Guapo” Roush at The Latino Review, the Magneto film will feature either Beast or Nightcrawler. The uncertainty over which lies in the fact that, while on a visit to a creature effects shop, Roush saw a photo (or rendering) of a blue-costumed character who he was told is a young Beast (played by Kelsey Grammar in X-Men: The Last Stand). Yet the character is described by Roush as having a tail, which suggests that the effects person was mistaken and that it’s really a young Nightcrawler (played by Alan Cumming in X2: X-Men United). Roush has printed an update acknowledging the Nightcrawler possibility but doesn’t understand why the effects guy would have had it wrong. Of course, fans of the Marvel comic books should see the greater logic of having Nightcrawler (aka Kurt Wagner) in the film, as he and Magneto both originally come from Germany. Plus, there might then be room for a cameo from Mystique (played by Rebecca Romijn in the film series), who happens to be Nightcrawler’s mom. Featuring a young Beast, on the other hand, has no relevance except for in the whole mutant-human relations aspect. Plus, if he shows up in Magneto, he probably won’t get to show up in The Avengers, as I’ve suggested. After all, Marvel Studios really needs to intro Magneto’s kids, who grow up to be Avengers members Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and there’s really no need to have toooo much crossing-over going on. Anyway, I guess we’ll just have to wait a bit to find out which character is actually appearing in Magneto (if Marvel had wanted the info out already, it would have announced it, right?). For now, we can only damn Marvel for creating so many blue-skinned/furred characters. [via JoBlo] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 14 May 2008 20:00:52 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/14/2008 4:00:52 PMThere’s been a lot of talk lately about all the mutant cameos appearing in the X-Men spin-off X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but we haven’t heard much about any characters set to show up in the other spin-off, X-Men Origins: Magneto. Until now. According to George “El Guapo” Roush at The Latino Review, the Magneto film will feature either Beast or Nightcrawler. The uncertainty over which lies in the fact that, while on a visit to a creature effects shop, Roush saw a photo (or rendering) of a blue-costumed character who he was told is a young Beast (played by Kelsey Grammar in X-Men: The Last Stand). Yet the character is described by Roush as having a tail, which suggests that the effects person was mistaken and that it’s really a young Nightcrawler (played by Alan Cumming in X2: X-Men United). Roush has printed an update acknowledging the Nightcrawler possibility but doesn’t understand why the effects guy would have had it wrong. Of course, fans of the Marvel comic books should see the greater logic of having Nightcrawler (aka Kurt Wagner) in the film, as he and Magneto both originally come from Germany. Plus, there might then be room for a cameo from Mystique (played by Rebecca Romijn in the film series), who happens to be Nightcrawler’s mom. Featuring a young Beast, on the other hand, has no relevance except for in the whole mutant-human relations aspect. Plus, if he shows up in Magneto, he probably won’t get to show up in The Avengers, as I’ve suggested. After all, Marvel Studios really needs to intro Magneto’s kids, who grow up to be Avengers members Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and there’s really no need to have toooo much crossing-over going on. Anyway, I guess we’ll just have to wait a bit to find out which character is actually appearing in Magneto (if Marvel had wanted the info out already, it would have announced it, right?). For now, we can only damn Marvel for creating so many blue-skinned/furred characters. [via JoBlo] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/13/28828.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 4:10:59 AM
Body: Although there is a change in director for this installment, you not going to be surprised by anything you see in the third and supposedly final X-Men film. My fellow bloggers will remember that I was not a fan of the first film and sort of liked the second, but the flaws of both exist in the third, and that's too bad, because this movie could have been the best of the series if it hadn't been an action movie. It has a premise that makes you think but is in a genre where thinking is not encouraged. If you were black, and a pill could make you white, would you take it? Or if you were gay, and a shot would make you straight, would you make the doctor's appoinment? The plot of this film revolves around The Cure, a (you guessed it) "cure" for mutants, which causes them to become fully human. Naturally, this causes great debate in the muntant community. Some welcome because it will finally enable them to have a normal life, others find the very idea insulting. Magneto (Sir Ian McKellan) finally takes the oppurtinity to declare all out war on humanity, and he is aided by Phoenix (Famke Jannsen) an evil version of Jean Grey, who appeared to die in the last film. As the film builds to its climax, a lot of popular charcters die (for real, apparently) and new mutants are introduced. I particulaly liked The Beast (an unrecognizable Kelsey Grammar), a weird looking guy who gets made fun of a lot but is in the President's cabinet. What's wrong with the film? First, it doesn't follow through on its ideas. All three films try to establish some sort of metaphor between mutants and minority groups, but we never know exactly which minority group they are supposed to represent, or what it means to be a mutant. Are they another type of human, or are they a new species? If they are a new species, what are the philosophical implications of this? Another is the constant use of special effects- we are shown so many amazing things that we become desinstitzed to them. Most of the characters are not compelling, and this time around, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) was really annoying. Why is he the most popular character when he has the lamest power? In fact, the heros of this film are bland and interchanble, most distunguished only by their superpower. Which brings us to Magneto. It is a problem when the most charismatic character in your movie is the villian. It is also a problem that Magneto's arguments seem to make a little more sense than the X-Men's. He is the only person who actully does anything, everyone else is content to maintain the status quo, and that status quo is lame. It is regretful that he uses violence, but his goals seem to be correct. A movie with some actual dialouge of ideas between Magneto and Professor X (Patrick Stewart) might have worked, and cost a lot less money. Ian McKellan is so good in this part that he outshines the other actors, you get the feeling that Magneto is a character like Stalin, Che Guevera or Malcolm X, depending on your point of view. You will notice that I am not arguing against the X-Men (which I am unfamiler with aside from the movies), science fiction, or even comic books (which I read and enjoyed growing up). I do however, wish to complain against the action movie genre. I am really tired of a movies with dumb action sequences, no thoughts, lame style and dumb dialouge. In order to work, these films should have not relied on stunts but ideas and character, and be a political epic, directed by someone like David Lean. If Bryan Singer and Rattner were not going to follow up on their ideas inteligently, they shouldn't have raised them. X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 08:10:59 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/13/2008 4:10:59 AMAlthough there is a change in director for this installment, you not going to be surprised by anything you see in the third and supposedly final X-Men film. My fellow bloggers will remember that I was not a fan of the first film and sort of liked the second, but the flaws of both exist in the third, and that's too bad, because this movie could have been the best of the series if it hadn't been an action movie. It has a premise that makes you think but is in a genre where thinking is not encouraged. If you were black, and a pill could make you white, would you take it? Or if you were gay, and a shot would make you straight, would you make the doctor's appoinment? The plot of this film revolves around The Cure, a (you guessed it) "cure" for mutants, which causes them to become fully human. Naturally, this causes great debate in the muntant community. Some welcome because it will finally enable them to have a normal life, others find the very idea insulting. Magneto (Sir Ian McKellan) finally takes the oppurtinity to declare all out war on humanity, and he is aided by Phoenix (Famke Jannsen) an evil version of Jean Grey, who appeared to die in the last film. As the film builds to its climax, a lot of popular charcters die (for real, apparently) and new mutants are introduced. I particulaly liked The Beast (an unrecognizable Kelsey Grammar), a weird looking guy who gets made fun of a lot but is in the President's cabinet. What's wrong with the film? First, it doesn't follow through on its ideas. All three films try to establish some sort of metaphor between mutants and minority groups, but we never know exactly which minority group they are supposed to represent, or what it means to be a mutant. Are they another type of human, or are they a new species? If they are a new species, what are the philosophical implications of this? Another is the constant use of special effects- we are shown so many amazing things that we become desinstitzed to them. Most of the characters are not compelling, and this time around, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) was really annoying. Why is he the most popular character when he has the lamest power? In fact, the heros of this film are bland and interchanble, most distunguished only by their superpower. Which brings us to Magneto. It is a problem when the most charismatic character in your movie is the villian. It is also a problem that Magneto's arguments seem to make a little more sense than the X-Men's. He is the only person who actully does anything, everyone else is content to maintain the status quo, and that status quo is lame. It is regretful that he uses violence, but his goals seem to be correct. A movie with some actual dialouge of ideas between Magneto and Professor X (Patrick Stewart) might have worked, and cost a lot less money. Ian McKellan is so good in this part that he outshines the other actors, you get the feeling that Magneto is a character like Stalin, Che Guevera or Malcolm X, depending on your point of view. You will notice that I am not arguing against the X-Men (which I am unfamiler with aside from the movies), science fiction, or even comic books (which I read and enjoyed growing up). I do however, wish to complain against the action movie genre. I am really tired of a movies with dumb action sequences, no thoughts, lame style and dumb dialouge. In order to work, these films should have not relied on stunts but ideas and character, and be a political epic, directed by someone like David Lean. If Bryan Singer and Rattner were not going to follow up on their ideas inteligently, they shouldn't have raised them. X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) http://www.spout.com/groups/Trailer_Park/Wolverine_and_the_X_Men/567/28369/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Trailer Park
Post Date: 5/8/2008 3:53:49 PM
Body: I was blown away by the trailer for the Wolverine and the X-Men series that's going to be airing on television this Fall. It's everything and more the third installment of the X-Men movies (X-Men: The Last Stand) should have been and brings back all those feelings of murderous rage towards Brett Ratner for screwing it up. Check it out: http://marvel.com/news/moviestories.3499?bcpid=1534576510&bctid=1539906042
]]>Thu, 08 May 2008 19:53:49 GMTmercurialTrailer Park5/8/2008 3:53:49 PMI was blown away by the trailer for the Wolverine and the X-Men series that's going to be airing on television this Fall. It's everything and more the third installment of the X-Men movies (X-Men: The Last Stand) should have been and brings back all those feelings of murderous rage towards Brett Ratner for screwing it up. Check it out: http://marvel.com/news/moviestories.3499?bcpid=1534576510&amp;bctid=1539906042 http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/6/28232.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/6/2008 11:01:12 AM
Body: Now that we’re sure there’s an Avengers movie on the way, and that it will be tied into the movies Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, Ant-Man and Captain America (full title: The First Avenger: Captain America), it’s time to begin speculating on what other characters will be cast to fill out the team’s roster. In addition to the four characters starring in their own preceding titles, as well as cameo-man Nick Fury, there’s a good chance we’ll see Vision and Black Widow rounding out an even six team members. Yet I speculate on the basis that I haven’t picked up an issue of any Avengers title in at least a decade. Still, I’m excited about the film and have hopes of seeing at least one of my favorite, deserving superheroes end up on the big screen in The Avengers since none of them will likely get their own movie. Plus, a bunch of them allow for more Marvel movie tie-ins. So, I ask that Marvel Studios feature a lucky seven teammates and showcase at least one of the following come 2011: Ms. Marvel – Neither a favorite nor too familiar a character for me, but seeing as comic book movies are so lacking in female superheroines these days, I feel The Avengers needs at least one other woman besides the Black Widow. And as a bonus, there could be a post credits cameo from Anna Paquin, as X-Men’s Rogue. Then, if there’s ever an X-Men 4, or if Rogue gets to appear in a Gambit movie — or god forbid her own solo release — the girl could finally fly (at Ms. Marvel’s expense, of course) Hawkeye – Back when I was reading comics, Hawkeye was on the West Coast Avengers team, but there’s no reason he couldn’t be back in New York for the movie. At least let him cameo in order to refer to the existence of the other team, which would never get its own film. I feel Iron Man already (unintentionally) hints at the importance of Hawkeye when the terrorist Raza mentions the historical significance of the bow and arrow, so why not write the archer in? Oh, and don’t dare change the colors of his costume. It’s one of my favorite superhero color schemes of all time. Quicksilver – Who wouldn’t like to see this speedy character in a movie? Or multiple movies? I’m not sure if X-Men Origins: Magneto will be out prior to The Avengers, but there’s a great opportunity to introduce Magneto’s kids in that movie, with a possible post credits cameo from the kids all grown up. One of which will be Quicksilver, dressed in his blue uniform with the sash-like lightning bolt, played by whoever will play him in The Avengers. Scarlet Witch – Of course, if you’re going to have Quicksilver, you must also have his twin sister. And she too would be introduced first in the Magneto movie. Black Panther – Seeing as how John Singleton can’t get his Black Panther movie greenlit, perhaps we need to see the African superhero in a team-based film first and later receive his solo outing. Hopefully Marvel and Paramount don’t think they’ve already sufficiently filled their black quota for the film with Nick Fury. The Wasp – Though I never paid much attention to her, The Wasp has been around since the inception of the Avengers and so she should probably get a role in the movie. We could certainly use more ladies in the mix, even if they are miniature. Of course, unless she lands a significant part in the Ant-Man film (which might actually come after The Avengers), it could easily be argued that one small superhero is enough. The Hulk – It’s possible that Marvel is already planning to involve the Hulk in the Avengers movie, especially since this summer’s The Incredible Hulk is rumored to be tied-in with a cameo from Tony Stark/Iron Man. Yet despite the character’s involvement in the founding of The Avengers, the Hulk is a little too overpowering for a team-based movie, especially in his giant, CG-rendered motion picture form. Perhaps a cameo would be nice, though, if Universal allows it. Namor (Sub-Mariner) – Another character who is set to receive his own film, which just doesn’t seem to be on the fast track of late. Introduce him in The Avengers and then spin him off into oceanic adventures by his lonesome. Moondragon – I’m not too familiar with this character, but in case I didn’t make it clear: WE NEED MORE LADIES. But why Moondragon over Tigra, She-Hulk, Spider-Woman or any other superheroine? Because bald women are super sexy in science fiction and comic book movies (see Star Trek: The Motion Picture; Alien³; V for Vendetta). Beast – Sure, we already saw him in action in X-Men: The Last Stand, but we could do with more continuity tie-ins, right? If Kelsey Grammar would be interested, Marvel should consider featuring the blue-furred mutant in his second team-based movie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 06 May 2008 15:01:12 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/6/2008 11:01:12 AM Now that we’re sure there’s an Avengers movie on the way, and that it will be tied into the movies Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, Ant-Man and Captain America (full title: The First Avenger: Captain America), it’s time to begin speculating on what other characters will be cast to fill out the team’s roster. In addition to the four characters starring in their own preceding titles, as well as cameo-man Nick Fury, there’s a good chance we’ll see Vision and Black Widow rounding out an even six team members. Yet I speculate on the basis that I haven’t picked up an issue of any Avengers title in at least a decade. Still, I’m excited about the film and have hopes of seeing at least one of my favorite, deserving superheroes end up on the big screen in The Avengers since none of them will likely get their own movie. Plus, a bunch of them allow for more Marvel movie tie-ins. So, I ask that Marvel Studios feature a lucky seven teammates and showcase at least one of the following come 2011: Ms. Marvel – Neither a favorite nor too familiar a character for me, but seeing as comic book movies are so lacking in female superheroines these days, I feel The Avengers needs at least one other woman besides the Black Widow. And as a bonus, there could be a post credits cameo from Anna Paquin, as X-Men’s Rogue. Then, if there’s ever an X-Men 4, or if Rogue gets to appear in a Gambit movie — or god forbid her own solo release — the girl could finally fly (at Ms. Marvel’s expense, of course) Hawkeye – Back when I was reading comics, Hawkeye was on the West Coast Avengers team, but there’s no reason he couldn’t be back in New York for the movie. At least let him cameo in order to refer to the existence of the other team, which would never get its own film. I feel Iron Man already (unintentionally) hints at the importance of Hawkeye when the terrorist Raza mentions the historical significance of the bow and arrow, so why not write the archer in? Oh, and don’t dare change the colors of his costume. It’s one of my favorite superhero color schemes of all time. Quicksilver – Who wouldn’t like to see this speedy character in a movie? Or multiple movies? I’m not sure if X-Men Origins: Magneto will be out prior to The Avengers, but there’s a great opportunity to introduce Magneto’s kids in that movie, with a possible post credits cameo from the kids all grown up. One of which will be Quicksilver, dressed in his blue uniform with the sash-like lightning bolt, played by whoever will play him in The Avengers. Scarlet Witch – Of course, if you’re going to have Quicksilver, you must also have his twin sister. And she too would be introduced first in the Magneto movie. Black Panther – Seeing as how John Singleton can’t get his Black Panther movie greenlit, perhaps we need to see the African superhero in a team-based film first and later receive his solo outing. Hopefully Marvel and Paramount don’t think they’ve already sufficiently filled their black quota for the film with Nick Fury. The Wasp – Though I never paid much attention to her, The Wasp has been around since the inception of the Avengers and so she should probably get a role in the movie. We could certainly use more ladies in the mix, even if they are miniature. Of course, unless she lands a significant part in the Ant-Man film (which might actually come after The Avengers), it could easily be argued that one small superhero is enough. The Hulk – It’s possible that Marvel is already planning to involve the Hulk in the Avengers movie, especially since this summer’s The Incredible Hulk is rumored to be tied-in with a cameo from Tony Stark/Iron Man. Yet despite the character’s involvement in the founding of The Avengers, the Hulk is a little too overpowering for a team-based movie, especially in his giant, CG-rendered motion picture form. Perhaps a cameo would be nice, though, if Universal allows it. Namor (Sub-Mariner) – Another character who is set to receive his own film, which just doesn’t seem to be on the fast track of late. Introduce him in The Avengers and then spin him off into oceanic adventures by his lonesome. Moondragon – I’m not too familiar with this character, but in case I didn’t make it clear: WE NEED MORE LADIES. But why Moondragon over Tigra, She-Hulk, Spider-Woman or any other superheroine? Because bald women are super sexy in science fiction and comic book movies (see Star Trek: The Motion Picture; Alien³; V for Vendetta). Beast – Sure, we already saw him in action in X-Men: The Last Stand, but we could do with more continuity tie-ins, right? If Kelsey Grammar would be interested, Marvel should consider featuring the blue-furred mutant in his second team-based movie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/2/20/25365.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/20/2008 10:00:59 AM
Body: Apparently there was no lesson learned from Spider-Man 3. I guess all the criticisms of that movie’s having too many characters didn’t exactly balance negatively enough against its worldwide gross of nearly $900 million. So, prepare for the possibility that other comic book adaptations will make the same attempt for box office gold by saturating their plots with familiar and highly demanded heroes and villains. This week the geek circles have been all abuzz about the all-star casting for X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which has now been confirmed by the trades and so far includes Taylor Kitsch as Gambit, Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool, Black Eyed Peas’ will.i.am as John Wraith/Kestrel, Liev Schrieber as Victor Creed/Sabretooth (I can’t wait to see Schrieber with blond muttonchops), Danny Huston as Col. William Stryker and Lynn Collins as Silver Fox. Also, there’s rumor that the Blob will show up in the film, too. Some of these characters will only be showing up for minor appearances, and it’s certainly appropriate to have an X-Men spin-off that features a whole slew of characters, but it still seems like an overload. Even the last X-Men movie felt too packed with supporting mutants. As a veteran reader of the comics, I should be as overjoyed as the rest of the fanboys, but I must point out that when I would pick up a copy of Wolverine’s solo title(s), I would do so with the expectation that the loner-by-nature hero would actually be on a solo mission — or maybe on occasion would have no more than a teen-girl sidekick. I understand that this is the origin story, and most of these casted characters figure into that plot (where’s Maverick?), but the additions of Deadpool, Gambit and the Blob, no matter how long they’re on screen, seems to be a desperate attempt at pleasing the fanbase. Doesn’t Fox realize that we’ll all be showing up even if its just Hugh Jackman and a single villain (my choice would have been Omega Red). Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:00:59 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/20/2008 10:00:59 AMApparently there was no lesson learned from Spider-Man 3. I guess all the criticisms of that movie’s having too many characters didn’t exactly balance negatively enough against its worldwide gross of nearly $900 million. So, prepare for the possibility that other comic book adaptations will make the same attempt for box office gold by saturating their plots with familiar and highly demanded heroes and villains. This week the geek circles have been all abuzz about the all-star casting for X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which has now been confirmed by the trades and so far includes Taylor Kitsch as Gambit, Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool, Black Eyed Peas’ will.i.am as John Wraith/Kestrel, Liev Schrieber as Victor Creed/Sabretooth (I can’t wait to see Schrieber with blond muttonchops), Danny Huston as Col. William Stryker and Lynn Collins as Silver Fox. Also, there’s rumor that the Blob will show up in the film, too. Some of these characters will only be showing up for minor appearances, and it’s certainly appropriate to have an X-Men spin-off that features a whole slew of characters, but it still seems like an overload. Even the last X-Men movie felt too packed with supporting mutants. As a veteran reader of the comics, I should be as overjoyed as the rest of the fanboys, but I must point out that when I would pick up a copy of Wolverine’s solo title(s), I would do so with the expectation that the loner-by-nature hero would actually be on a solo mission — or maybe on occasion would have no more than a teen-girl sidekick. I understand that this is the origin story, and most of these casted characters figure into that plot (where’s Maverick?), but the additions of Deadpool, Gambit and the Blob, no matter how long they’re on screen, seems to be a desperate attempt at pleasing the fanbase. Doesn’t Fox realize that we’ll all be showing up even if its just Hugh Jackman and a single villain (my choice would have been Omega Red). Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/bigjefflebowski/archive/2008/1/1/23398.aspx Post By: BigJeffLebowski
Post To: BigJeffLebowski Blog
Post Date: 1/1/2008 11:02:37 AM
Body: There are so many wonderful things I would like to say about Juno. That its cast is impeccable, that its soundtrack conveys the perfect emotions, that its details ring both true and hilarious. But most of all, I want to say how good -- no, how GREAT -- watching it made me feel.Ellen Page plays the eponymous sixteen year old heroine with a startingly endearing blend of precociousness, arrogance, cynicism, feigned independence, and aloof self-determination that is so right in so many ways, I cannot help but declare -- after having seen her only in this, Hard Candy, and X-Men: The Last Stand (in my reviews for all of which I've swooned for this girl) -- that Page is going to be among the greatest actresses of her generation. It would have been so easy for a film like this to degrade into silliness or ugliness, and yet somehow, Diablo Cody, Jason Reitman, and Page have colluded to create one of the greatest cinematic outcasts and one of the most unique, interesting, beguilling, and utterly irresistable coming of age films I've ever seen. It's a winner, and it's a classic.Juno (both the film and the character) has an interesting sneak attack, a way of skittering into your heart through the back door and falling asleep on the couch before you're even aware of its/her presence. And it's aware of this. There's an effortless charm, an intrinsic inveiglement that stems from being so awkward and so ill at ease that there is no alternative (excluding self destruction, a masturbatory martyrdom that this film is miles above) other than to fully embrace that which is uniquely you. Page nails it. Cody nails it. And Michael Cera has built an entire career upon it. Anyone who doesn't like Cera has deep seated issues which they need to resolve on their own terms. From Arrested Development to Superbad to Juno, Cera has shown an interesting arc as an actor. Every line of dialogue and every action is utterly believable; Cera may play variations upon the same character, but he invests that character with everything he's got and plays it like his life depends upon it.And that's the charm of Juno: these characters know who they are and where their boundaries lie. They are not ones to be bogged down by relativism or morbidity. Instead, they celebrate their quirks, their limitations and their passions, without regard for what others may think. The film's greatest moment, which unabashedly put a lump in my throat and a misty coat over my vision, is when Juno tells Paulie Bleeker (Cera) that he's the coolest person she's ever met without even trying to be, and he confides "I try really hard, actually." It's a moment of honesty that few films -- hell, few people -- would dare. These are people who understand they are not mass-marketable. They will appeal to their small coterie of friends, and they will cherish them for all their flaws and failings as much as for their virtues. But if they're going to be disliked by the world at large, they're going to be disliked on their own terms.Characters like these could travel one of three roads: they could try to fit in with the so called popular kids and feel the sting of rejection, they could actively alienate people to prove a point, or they could become irrepressibly themselves in spite of the social acceptance they may forfeit. To many, the last two options may seem like the same thing in different words, but anyone who appreciates this film with their heart in addition to their brain will know that one will leave you empty whereas one will leave you edified. And those are the people who will champion these characters and smile uncontrollably during the film's indefectible finale.
]]>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:02:37 GMTBigJeffLebowskiBigJeffLebowski Blog1/1/2008 11:02:37 AMThere are so many wonderful things I would like to say about Juno. That its cast is impeccable, that its soundtrack conveys the perfect emotions, that its details ring both true and hilarious. But most of all, I want to say how good -- no, how GREAT -- watching it made me feel.Ellen Page plays the eponymous sixteen year old heroine with a startingly endearing blend of precociousness, arrogance, cynicism, feigned independence, and aloof self-determination that is so right in so many ways, I cannot help but declare -- after having seen her only in this, Hard Candy, and X-Men: The Last Stand (in my reviews for all of which I&#39;ve swooned for this girl) -- that Page is going to be among the greatest actresses of her generation. It would have been so easy for a film like this to degrade into silliness or ugliness, and yet somehow, Diablo Cody, Jason Reitman, and Page have colluded to create one of the greatest cinematic outcasts and one of the most unique, interesting, beguilling, and utterly irresistable coming of age films I&#39;ve ever seen. It&#39;s a winner, and it&#39;s a classic.Juno (both the film and the character) has an interesting sneak attack, a way of skittering into your heart through the back door and falling asleep on the couch before you&#39;re even aware of its/her presence. And it&#39;s aware of this. There&#39;s an effortless charm, an intrinsic inveiglement that stems from being so awkward and so ill at ease that there is no alternative (excluding self destruction, a masturbatory martyrdom that this film is miles above) other than to fully embrace that which is uniquely you. Page nails it. Cody nails it. And Michael Cera has built an entire career upon it. Anyone who doesn&#39;t like Cera has deep seated issues which they need to resolve on their own terms. From Arrested Development to Superbad to Juno, Cera has shown an interesting arc as an actor. Every line of dialogue and every action is utterly believable; Cera may play variations upon the same character, but he invests that character with everything he&#39;s got and plays it like his life depends upon it.And that&#39;s the charm of Juno: these characters know who they are and where their boundaries lie. They are not ones to be bogged down by relativism or morbidity. Instead, they celebrate their quirks, their limitations and their passions, without regard for what others may think. The film&#39;s greatest moment, which unabashedly put a lump in my throat and a misty coat over my vision, is when Juno tells Paulie Bleeker (Cera) that he&#39;s the coolest person she&#39;s ever met without even trying to be, and he confides &quot;I try really hard, actually.&quot; It&#39;s a moment of honesty that few films -- hell, few people -- would dare. These are people who understand they are not mass-marketable. They will appeal to their small coterie of friends, and they will cherish them for all their flaws and failings as much as for their virtues. But if they&#39;re going to be disliked by the world at large, they&#39;re going to be disliked on their own terms.Characters like these could travel one of three roads: they could try to fit in with the so called popular kids and feel the sting of rejection, they could actively alienate people to prove a point, or they could become irrepressibly themselves in spite of the social acceptance they may forfeit. To many, the last two options may seem like the same thing in different words, but anyone who appreciates this film with their heart in addition to their brain will know that one will leave you empty whereas one will leave you edified. And those are the people who will champion these characters and smile uncontrollably during the film&#39;s indefectible finale. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_Five_deceptively_intriguing_trailers/190/16363/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: tmoney
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/26/2007 2:05:07 AM
Body: Great topic. I have to admit, even the trailer for 23 made me want to vomit. It's possible we saw two different trailers. And I totally agree about watching trailers as a favorite part about going to the movie. In fact, when there is a movie I really want to see, odds are I have been anticipating it for months upon months mostly just based on the trailer. I'm actually going to list movies that were just very different than the trailer because it is not often I am severely dissapointed by a film (as I usually follow critics recommendations before I actually see it).1. Fur - I don't know if anybody saw the trailer but it made the film look so creepy and mysterious. Turned out it was just Hollywood schlock.2. A Dirty Shame - This was a John Waters film, and the trailer I thought looked hilarious. It wasn't. It was slap stick, screw ball, perverted humour that only a junior higher would be enthralled by.3. Noi - The beauty of this trailer absolutely took my breath away. And I liked the film very much, the mood and style of the film was completely different than the trailer would lead you to believe. Watch the trailer for this if you can find it, it is beautiful! 4. X-Men 3 - Okay I am never one to get excited about comic book movies, but I must say this trailer made it look really X-citing (hahaha i'm so clever!). It wasn't. This film was a piece.5. V For Vendetta - I thought this would be really cool from the trailer. But I felt all the themes were spoon fed, and all emotions were a hammer on the head. But I did like when they danced to Cat Power and Antony and the Johnsons on the juke box (a couple of my favorite artists). I had hyped this movie up a lot before I saw it. And there are trailers which are deceivingly bad: 28 Days Later - This film I was actually pleasantly surprised by to say the least. The trailer had some heavy metal band blasting, and goofy looking titles. I thought it was going to be terrible, but I loved it. The trailer was "Americanized", and was very deceptive.The New World - Made it look like a war film, with melodrama throughout, but in turn was a beautiful, contemplative, and poetic tone poem.
]]>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 06:05:07 GMTtmoneyTop 57/26/2007 2:05:07 AMGreat topic. I have to admit, even the trailer for 23 made me want to vomit. It&#39;s possible we saw two different trailers. And I totally agree about watching trailers as a favorite part about going to the movie. In fact, when there is a movie I really want to see, odds are I have been anticipating it for months upon months mostly just based on the trailer. I&#39;m actually going to list movies that were just very different than the trailer because it is not often I am severely dissapointed by a film (as I usually follow critics recommendations before I actually see it).1. Fur - I don&#39;t know if anybody saw the trailer but it made the film look so creepy and mysterious. Turned out it was just Hollywood schlock.2. A Dirty Shame - This was a John Waters film, and the trailer I thought looked hilarious. It wasn&#39;t. It was slap stick, screw ball, perverted humour that only a junior higher would be enthralled by.3. Noi - The beauty of this trailer absolutely took my breath away. And I liked the film very much, the mood and style of the film was completely different than the trailer would lead you to believe. Watch the trailer for this if you can find it, it is beautiful! 4. X-Men 3 - Okay I am never one to get excited about comic book movies, but I must say this trailer made it look really X-citing (hahaha i&#39;m so clever!). It wasn&#39;t. This film was a piece.5. V For Vendetta - I thought this would be really cool from the trailer. But I felt all the themes were spoon fed, and all emotions were a hammer on the head. But I did like when they danced to Cat Power and Antony and the Johnsons on the juke box (a couple of my favorite artists). I had hyped this movie up a lot before I saw it. And there are trailers which are deceivingly bad: 28 Days Later - This film I was actually pleasantly surprised by to say the least. The trailer had some heavy metal band blasting, and goofy looking titles. I thought it was going to be terrible, but I loved it. The trailer was "Americanized", and was very deceptive.The New World - Made it look like a war film, with melodrama throughout, but in turn was a beautiful, contemplative, and poetic tone poem. 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/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 319

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 460

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:02 GMT319111460Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:25:18 GMT7553101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/angel/MemberTagFilms.aspxangel
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 40

]]>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:00:29 GMT2232740Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/goodvsevil/MemberTagFilms.aspxgoodvsevil
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 67

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:42:51 GMT7422567Tag 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 http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cure/MemberTagFilms.aspxcure
Number of films tagged: 172

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 14

]]>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:43:49 GMT1721114Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Mutants/MemberTagFilms.aspxMutants
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 17

]]>Mon, 04 May 2009 03:32:05 GMT131117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/protest/MemberTagFilms.aspxprotest
Number of films tagged: 79

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 25

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:21:32 GMT791025Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/resurrection/MemberTagFilms.aspxresurrection
Number of films tagged: 134

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 11

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:48:04 GMT1341011Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/wolverine/MemberTagFilms.aspxwolverine
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 6

]]>Sat, 14 Feb 2009 09:56:11 GMT466Tag