list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around X-Men [Film Series] 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_Film_Series/230922/default.aspx Title: X-Men [Film Series]
Number of Lists: 4
Number of blog posts: 4
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:01:33 GMTX-Men [Film Series]444http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s230922.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/X_Men_Film_Series/230922/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/6/40879.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/6/2009 6:00:58 PM
Body: Forget trying to maneuver your way through all the mixed reactions to Watchmen crowding the interweb today. There’s only one question you need to answer, apparently, in order to make up your mind whether or not to see the highly anticipated adaptation: are you okay with a massive blue penis in an R-rated comic book movie, or will you be offended and demand an apology from the MPAA? Over at the site Movieguide, which is partnered with The Christian Film & Television Commission, organization chairman and “spokesmen” (is he multiple people?) Dr. Ted Baehr is quoted as saying Watchmen should have received an NC-17 rating for its constant display of male anatomy, and he claims the MPAA has agreed to bring the complaint to their ratings board. And finally, with the defensive against nudity being necessary to any film, Baehr says, “After all, would ‘Casablanca’ become an even better work of art if the script contained a bunch of “f” words, or if Ingrid Bergman appeared completely nude? Definitely not!” Well, personally I wouldn’t have a problem if Bogie cursed a lot, though I agree that Bergman was always great despite always having her clothes on. As for the blue penis issue, though, I have to remind folks that blue-skinned nudity is not the same as realistic flesh-colored nudity, and that whether it’s Rebecca Romijn in the X-Men films or a digital replica of Billy Crudup in Watchmen or the eagerly awaited Smurfette shower scene in Sony’s upcoming Smurfs movie, the ratings board will likely be okay with it. As will most anyone else that doesn’t have a lame obligation to excessively puritanical groups like the CFTVC. Sample quotes and links from those internerds who disagree with Baehr, as well as some who actually agree, after the jump: The good folks at Vulture had already posted a round-up of ‘glowing’ reviews for Dr. Manhattan’s “wang” earlier today, and they were also the ones to direct our attention to Baehr’s penis protest, which they believe is “probably unintentionally selling a few thousand tickets to see it in IMAX.” Vulture found the story via Fark.com, which has a lengthy commenter discussion going now on the Watchmen wang and which classic film actresses we’d all most like to have seen do nudity, plus this excellent quote from the X-rated Casablanca: “I’m shocked,… SHOCKED to find that nudity is going on in this movie!” In a thoughtful article titled “In Defense of the Penis” from The American Prospect’s blog, Phoebe Connelly writes, “Yes to the blue penis. Let’s hope it makes people pause to consider why it’s discomfiting to have male nudity displayed, not for laughs, and not part of some art house epic, but just as a side-bit character trait that no one seems to remark on.” Anghus Houvouras has a similar defense, titled “Going Full Frontal: Watchmen busts out the blue penis,” at Encore Online. Here’s an excerpt: Surely there has to be a difference between just seeing sexual organs and watching them in action. That very difference separates a movie like Last Tango in Paris from a skin flick like Yank My Doodle, It’s A Dandy. It seems like since the ‘50s, America has been embroiled in penis prohibition. “As for all the controversy about Dr. Manhattan’s blue, glowing penis,” writes Jim Genzano at phillyist, “I don’t really get it. Yes, it is a little jarring to see a penis just sitting there, nonchalantly, in the middle of a mainstream American movie. But it’s just a penis. It’s really not that big a deal.” “Frankly, people are making too much of a big deal about this,” writes Erik at RandomChatter. “It was never gratuitous in the film. Yes, it was there, but it’s not like it was swinging around in circles or anything.” Commenting at the Watchmen page on ChristianAnswers.net, 17-year-old Rachael claims to have looked away for most of the film’s sexual content, but writes that Dr. Manhattan’s “genitilia was understated and easy to overlook.” Madame Arcati bypasses reviewing the film to solely and favorably review the penis, and raises a point many Watchmen watchers will be having: “Filmgoers who are not fanboys/girls of Alan Moore’s creation may wonder why Dr M does not simply wear a loincloth or a fetching thong. This is a good question. After all, he does put on a suit for a talk show. So he is cognisant of human decency.” The Baehr brethren: “If you take your kids to see ‘Watchmen,’ you’re a moron,” writes conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel, on her own site. “It’s rated ‘R’–which should kinda sorta be a hint–but it really deserves an ‘NC-17″…Oh, and don’t forget another superhero’s swinging computer-generated penis frequently in your face on-screen.” In response to a Patrick Goldstein post responding to Schlussel’s review, John Nolte at Big Hollywood defends the conservative critic, though he isn’t necessarily condeming the cock, as it were: Water’s wet, the sky is blue, and “Watchmen” is marketing to kids. Sure there may be the rare straggler every once in a while, but you go to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and it’s like opening a hothouse filled with hungry baby chicks. For or against a film, they all sound alike because they all think alike. When it comes to film, Debbie and I don’t always agree, but I like her style, and love that she’s out there. Score one for diversity. Commenting at Slashdot, “Culture20 (968837)” writes: The problems with R ratings, is that they’re “Adult supervision required”, and are usually applied when only one of “graphic sex” “full frontal nudity” “realistic sadism” “exploding bloody messes” “attempted rape” “adult language” or “soft-core porn” exists. _All_ of these exist throughout Watchmen, so it really should have been rated NC-17 “No one under 17, ever”. Crosswalk.com, which does point out that Manhattan is often wearing “no underwear,” goes so far as to deem even it’s own review of Watchmen “not appropriate for young readers.” The review at Plugged In Online does the same. At least those in America can see the penis if they want. Due to censorship in the United Arab Emirates, we get the following complaint at the UAE community blog: In the last 20 minutes of the film someone has seen fit to cut the movie like a 4 year old on a sugar-rush– The problem? A giant glowing blue penis of a certain character (who just happens to be a main character); this means that any full-body shots of him are cut (along with any narrative/audio) which in turn leads to a highly confusing last 20 minutes. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:00:58 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/6/2009 6:00:58 PMForget trying to maneuver your way through all the mixed reactions to Watchmen crowding the interweb today. There’s only one question you need to answer, apparently, in order to make up your mind whether or not to see the highly anticipated adaptation: are you okay with a massive blue penis in an R-rated comic book movie, or will you be offended and demand an apology from the MPAA? Over at the site Movieguide, which is partnered with The Christian Film & Television Commission, organization chairman and “spokesmen” (is he multiple people?) Dr. Ted Baehr is quoted as saying Watchmen should have received an NC-17 rating for its constant display of male anatomy, and he claims the MPAA has agreed to bring the complaint to their ratings board. And finally, with the defensive against nudity being necessary to any film, Baehr says, “After all, would ‘Casablanca’ become an even better work of art if the script contained a bunch of “f” words, or if Ingrid Bergman appeared completely nude? Definitely not!” Well, personally I wouldn’t have a problem if Bogie cursed a lot, though I agree that Bergman was always great despite always having her clothes on. As for the blue penis issue, though, I have to remind folks that blue-skinned nudity is not the same as realistic flesh-colored nudity, and that whether it’s Rebecca Romijn in the X-Men films or a digital replica of Billy Crudup in Watchmen or the eagerly awaited Smurfette shower scene in Sony’s upcoming Smurfs movie, the ratings board will likely be okay with it. As will most anyone else that doesn’t have a lame obligation to excessively puritanical groups like the CFTVC. Sample quotes and links from those internerds who disagree with Baehr, as well as some who actually agree, after the jump: The good folks at Vulture had already posted a round-up of ‘glowing’ reviews for Dr. Manhattan’s “wang” earlier today, and they were also the ones to direct our attention to Baehr’s penis protest, which they believe is “probably unintentionally selling a few thousand tickets to see it in IMAX.” Vulture found the story via Fark.com, which has a lengthy commenter discussion going now on the Watchmen wang and which classic film actresses we’d all most like to have seen do nudity, plus this excellent quote from the X-rated Casablanca: “I’m shocked,… SHOCKED to find that nudity is going on in this movie!” In a thoughtful article titled “In Defense of the Penis” from The American Prospect’s blog, Phoebe Connelly writes, “Yes to the blue penis. Let’s hope it makes people pause to consider why it’s discomfiting to have male nudity displayed, not for laughs, and not part of some art house epic, but just as a side-bit character trait that no one seems to remark on.” Anghus Houvouras has a similar defense, titled “Going Full Frontal: Watchmen busts out the blue penis,” at Encore Online. Here’s an excerpt: Surely there has to be a difference between just seeing sexual organs and watching them in action. That very difference separates a movie like Last Tango in Paris from a skin flick like Yank My Doodle, It’s A Dandy. It seems like since the ‘50s, America has been embroiled in penis prohibition. “As for all the controversy about Dr. Manhattan’s blue, glowing penis,” writes Jim Genzano at phillyist, “I don’t really get it. Yes, it is a little jarring to see a penis just sitting there, nonchalantly, in the middle of a mainstream American movie. But it’s just a penis. It’s really not that big a deal.” “Frankly, people are making too much of a big deal about this,” writes Erik at RandomChatter. “It was never gratuitous in the film. Yes, it was there, but it’s not like it was swinging around in circles or anything.” Commenting at the Watchmen page on ChristianAnswers.net, 17-year-old Rachael claims to have looked away for most of the film’s sexual content, but writes that Dr. Manhattan’s “genitilia was understated and easy to overlook.” Madame Arcati bypasses reviewing the film to solely and favorably review the penis, and raises a point many Watchmen watchers will be having: “Filmgoers who are not fanboys/girls of Alan Moore’s creation may wonder why Dr M does not simply wear a loincloth or a fetching thong. This is a good question. After all, he does put on a suit for a talk show. So he is cognisant of human decency.” The Baehr brethren: “If you take your kids to see ‘Watchmen,’ you’re a moron,” writes conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel, on her own site. “It’s rated ‘R’–which should kinda sorta be a hint–but it really deserves an ‘NC-17″…Oh, and don’t forget another superhero’s swinging computer-generated penis frequently in your face on-screen.” In response to a Patrick Goldstein post responding to Schlussel’s review, John Nolte at Big Hollywood defends the conservative critic, though he isn’t necessarily condeming the cock, as it were: Water’s wet, the sky is blue, and “Watchmen” is marketing to kids. Sure there may be the rare straggler every once in a while, but you go to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and it’s like opening a hothouse filled with hungry baby chicks. For or against a film, they all sound alike because they all think alike. When it comes to film, Debbie and I don’t always agree, but I like her style, and love that she’s out there. Score one for diversity. Commenting at Slashdot, “Culture20 (968837)” writes: The problems with R ratings, is that they’re “Adult supervision required”, and are usually applied when only one of “graphic sex” “full frontal nudity” “realistic sadism” “exploding bloody messes” “attempted rape” “adult language” or “soft-core porn” exists. _All_ of these exist throughout Watchmen, so it really should have been rated NC-17 “No one under 17, ever”. Crosswalk.com, which does point out that Manhattan is often wearing “no underwear,” goes so far as to deem even it’s own review of Watchmen “not appropriate for young readers.” The review at Plugged In Online does the same. At least those in America can see the penis if they want. Due to censorship in the United Arab Emirates, we get the following complaint at the UAE community blog: In the last 20 minutes of the film someone has seen fit to cut the movie like a 4 year old on a sugar-rush– The problem? A giant glowing blue penis of a certain character (who just happens to be a main character); this means that any full-body shots of him are cut (along with any narrative/audio) which in turn leads to a highly confusing last 20 minutes. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog 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/2008/12/17/38487.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/17/2008 1:00:53 PM
Body: The Academy Awards barely recognize comedic talent in film, so it’s kind of ironic that the Oscars have typically been hosted by a comedic personality. Since the Academy primarily honors serious movies and performances, it’d be more fitting to have Sean Penn leading the show. But TV audiences love a funny variety program, and the tradition has worked out well thanks to humorists like Will Rogers, Bob Hope and Billy Crystal, so the comedy has been a constant. This year, however, the ceremony will feature Hugh Jackman as emcee, and the joke-filled monologue has been axed. But is it still ironic that an actor best known for playing a superhero is hosting an award show that fails to regularly celebrate blockbuster franchises like his X-Men series? And are the producers capitalizing on this irony by hiring Jackman, who will certainly be promoting his upcoming spin-off, X-Men Origins: Wolverine? When the choice was announced, plenty of people immediately thought of the ratings-boosting possibility of having Jackman wear his Wolverine costume while performing his hosting duties. For an Oscars ceremony that may end up nominating a superhero film for Best Picture and will be secretly recognizing Robert Downey Jr.’s performance in Iron Man as much as in Tropic Thunder (if he’s indeed nominated for the latter), the singing, dancing Australian is quite appropriate for the gig. But despite his ratings appeal to comic geeks and old ladies who read People magazine, could this relatively humorless host be setting himself up for a roast? Here’s hoping he’s at least better than the following Oscars embarrassments: Jerry Lewis (1956, 1957, 1959) It was his third time as a co-host, and it was also his last, but the thing that may have done him in was hardly his fault. The awards concluded with the presentation of Gigi as Best Picture, yet the telecast still had 20 minutes of airtime to fill. First, there was an awkward Oscar-winner group-sing rendition of “There’s No Business Like Show Business,” during which Lewis kept shouting, “Keep singing!” Then, the over-the-top actor (whose fellow co-hosts included Bob Hope, Laurence Olivier, David Niven, Tony Randall and Mort Sahl), attempted to ad-lib jokes for the remainder of the program. NBC ended up pulling the plug early and ran a short film instead. Exactly 50 years later, Lewis will (somewhat controversially) return to the Academy Awards this February to receive the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. And as long as he doesn’t say anything homophobic (it might be tough if Milk is prominently showcased), he could potentially make up for old times by clowning around for a 20 minute-long acceptance speech. Chris Rock (2005) One of the problems with comedians as Oscars hosts is that they tend to ridicule Hollywood, and though the people at home may enjoy seeing movie stars’ egos deflated, the stars themselves are not always laughing. This is supposed to be a self-congratulatory celebration, after all. Occasional jabs are fine, but Rock took the mockery to a new level. Even if Sean Penn was too outraged by the Jude Law offense, it’s true Rock could have been a little less insulting to the crowd he was addressing. Not only did he label specific films as “sucking,” he showed the Academy just how obsolete their awards are with a clip of regular moviegoers naming non-nominated movies as their favorites of the year. It was no surprise that Rock was not asked back. Chevy Chase (1987, 1988) At least Rock was funny enough to come away from his experience undamaged, perhaps because the Academy should have expected little else from choosing him. And it did help that Penn’s humorlessness actually assisted Rock’s mockery of the Hollywood ego. On the other hand, Chase’s opening address in 1988 to the “Hollywood phonies,” was not really that amusing a joke nor was it appreciated by the elite crowd. This was his second duty as an Oscar host, having shared the gig with Goldie Hawn and Paul “Crocodile Dundee” Hogan the year before. But he was similarly not asked back after using his time on stage to knock critics and nominees and also to be so immature as to pretend to pick his nose. Is it any coincidence that Chase’s career also took a downward turn in 1989? David Letterman (1995) Even less fitting than a comedic actor to host the Academy Awards is a comedic talk show host. But it worked for so many years with Johnny Carson, so Letterman was given a shot. His “Oprah, Uma” shtick really wasn’t too awful, but it has infamously become one of the low points in Oscar history. Worse than its initial appearance, though, are the revisits to the joke, for self-mockery. Letterman’s return for a self-deprecating cameo the following year was appreciable, but continued callbacks have been even lamer than the original offense. Less memorable yet more awkward was the Late Show tie-in of a stupid pet trick assisted by a clearly uncomfortable Tom Hanks. Let us hope the Academy never thinks to ask Jay Leno to host or we’ll be similarly be subjected to “Jaywalking at the Oscars.” Nobody (1939, 1942, 1948, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1988) The only thing worse than Jay Leno hosting is nobody hosting. The ceremony has failed to have a leader on multiple occasions, including those years the Academy went with numerous co-hosts, which they labeled “Friends of Oscar.” In 1971, that group consisted of 33 members. That’s more than there were awards categories. Some awards shows work without a clear host, as such an event only necessitates an announcer to introduce presenters, but one of the most entertaining parts of the Oscars is always the opening monologue. Interestingly enough, Hugh Jackman is reportedly not doing one of those, so he could very well be just as bad as having no host at all. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:00:53 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/17/2008 1:00:53 PMThe Academy Awards barely recognize comedic talent in film, so it’s kind of ironic that the Oscars have typically been hosted by a comedic personality. Since the Academy primarily honors serious movies and performances, it’d be more fitting to have Sean Penn leading the show. But TV audiences love a funny variety program, and the tradition has worked out well thanks to humorists like Will Rogers, Bob Hope and Billy Crystal, so the comedy has been a constant. This year, however, the ceremony will feature Hugh Jackman as emcee, and the joke-filled monologue has been axed. But is it still ironic that an actor best known for playing a superhero is hosting an award show that fails to regularly celebrate blockbuster franchises like his X-Men series? And are the producers capitalizing on this irony by hiring Jackman, who will certainly be promoting his upcoming spin-off, X-Men Origins: Wolverine? When the choice was announced, plenty of people immediately thought of the ratings-boosting possibility of having Jackman wear his Wolverine costume while performing his hosting duties. For an Oscars ceremony that may end up nominating a superhero film for Best Picture and will be secretly recognizing Robert Downey Jr.’s performance in Iron Man as much as in Tropic Thunder (if he’s indeed nominated for the latter), the singing, dancing Australian is quite appropriate for the gig. But despite his ratings appeal to comic geeks and old ladies who read People magazine, could this relatively humorless host be setting himself up for a roast? Here’s hoping he’s at least better than the following Oscars embarrassments: Jerry Lewis (1956, 1957, 1959) It was his third time as a co-host, and it was also his last, but the thing that may have done him in was hardly his fault. The awards concluded with the presentation of Gigi as Best Picture, yet the telecast still had 20 minutes of airtime to fill. First, there was an awkward Oscar-winner group-sing rendition of “There’s No Business Like Show Business,” during which Lewis kept shouting, “Keep singing!” Then, the over-the-top actor (whose fellow co-hosts included Bob Hope, Laurence Olivier, David Niven, Tony Randall and Mort Sahl), attempted to ad-lib jokes for the remainder of the program. NBC ended up pulling the plug early and ran a short film instead. Exactly 50 years later, Lewis will (somewhat controversially) return to the Academy Awards this February to receive the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. And as long as he doesn’t say anything homophobic (it might be tough if Milk is prominently showcased), he could potentially make up for old times by clowning around for a 20 minute-long acceptance speech. Chris Rock (2005) One of the problems with comedians as Oscars hosts is that they tend to ridicule Hollywood, and though the people at home may enjoy seeing movie stars’ egos deflated, the stars themselves are not always laughing. This is supposed to be a self-congratulatory celebration, after all. Occasional jabs are fine, but Rock took the mockery to a new level. Even if Sean Penn was too outraged by the Jude Law offense, it’s true Rock could have been a little less insulting to the crowd he was addressing. Not only did he label specific films as “sucking,” he showed the Academy just how obsolete their awards are with a clip of regular moviegoers naming non-nominated movies as their favorites of the year. It was no surprise that Rock was not asked back. Chevy Chase (1987, 1988) At least Rock was funny enough to come away from his experience undamaged, perhaps because the Academy should have expected little else from choosing him. And it did help that Penn’s humorlessness actually assisted Rock’s mockery of the Hollywood ego. On the other hand, Chase’s opening address in 1988 to the “Hollywood phonies,” was not really that amusing a joke nor was it appreciated by the elite crowd. This was his second duty as an Oscar host, having shared the gig with Goldie Hawn and Paul “Crocodile Dundee” Hogan the year before. But he was similarly not asked back after using his time on stage to knock critics and nominees and also to be so immature as to pretend to pick his nose. Is it any coincidence that Chase’s career also took a downward turn in 1989? David Letterman (1995) Even less fitting than a comedic actor to host the Academy Awards is a comedic talk show host. But it worked for so many years with Johnny Carson, so Letterman was given a shot. His “Oprah, Uma” shtick really wasn’t too awful, but it has infamously become one of the low points in Oscar history. Worse than its initial appearance, though, are the revisits to the joke, for self-mockery. Letterman’s return for a self-deprecating cameo the following year was appreciable, but continued callbacks have been even lamer than the original offense. Less memorable yet more awkward was the Late Show tie-in of a stupid pet trick assisted by a clearly uncomfortable Tom Hanks. Let us hope the Academy never thinks to ask Jay Leno to host or we’ll be similarly be subjected to “Jaywalking at the Oscars.” Nobody (1939, 1942, 1948, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1988) The only thing worse than Jay Leno hosting is nobody hosting. The ceremony has failed to have a leader on multiple occasions, including those years the Academy went with numerous co-hosts, which they labeled “Friends of Oscar.” In 1971, that group consisted of 33 members. That’s more than there were awards categories. Some awards shows work without a clear host, as such an event only necessitates an announcer to introduce presenters, but one of the most entertaining parts of the Oscars is always the opening monologue. Interestingly enough, Hugh Jackman is reportedly not doing one of those, so he could very well be just as bad as having no host at all. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/1/31952.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/1/2008 11:00:51 AM
Body: Will Smith’s new superhero movie, Hancock, may be receiving terrible reviews, but it’s sure to make a lot of money. It is a Will Smith movie, after all. The fact that it’s an original superhero title (meaning not adapted from a comic book or other source material), however, means that if it is a success, it will be the rare movie of its kind to be such. Superhero movies may be huge right now, but really only the pre-sold properties, those with a build-in audience, make the big bucks. A number of original superhero movies are just as worthy of your attention as the Spider-Mans, the Iron Mans, the Batmans and the X-Mens. Sure, much of the time, non-adapted superheroes are lame, as in the cases of Blankman and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But just check out any of the following ten titles and see why it sometimes pays off to put your trust in an unfamiliar hero. The Incredibles - This one did it all: won an Oscar; received favorable reviews across the board; did blockbuster business in theaters and ancillaries (its the sole original superhero movie to break $100 million, domestically, a feat it far surpassed by actually grossing more than $260 million); and featured the single greatest superhero gag (above) ever seen. So there’s proof that a superhero movie can be good and do well without being based on another property. Unbreakable - The only film by M. Night Shyamalan I can enjoy repeatedly and perhaps the only superhero movie besides Batman Begins that audiences can kind of believe might be plausible in the real world. Also, it is perhaps the one origin-story superhero tale that doesn’t necessitate a sequel. The ending may have been anticlimactic, but the scene shown above (I wish the clip began earlier, from the train station scene forward) is one of the greatest superhero fight sequences ever put on film. The Matrix - Meanwhile, this is one origin-story superhero movie that shouldn’t have received a sequel, despite it’s needing one. Or maybe it just shouldn’t have been given the sequels it was given. In a way, the first installment is the perfect superhero movie for the age of video games, because Neo really only has powers in the virtual world. Unfortunately, the subsequent installments ruin this concept. Sky High - It looks really cheesy, but this Harry Potter for the superhero set is actually really clever and consistently entertaining. The common high school plot, in which an unpopular kid becomes popular and ends up screwing over his old friends, is ingeniously lent to the superteen subgenre. It may not hold a candle to the teen metaphors of X2: X-Men United, but it makes those initial Xavier School scenes from the first X-Men look wasteful. Darkman - Long before he sold his soul to the Spider-Man franchise, Sam Raimi created this original superhero tale. I wasn’t really a fan when it came out, but I’d now take it over any of the Spidey movies — even Spider-Man 2. RoboCop - The best superhero tales are really about humanity, not superhumanity, and this satirical sci-fi actioner certainly fits that qualification. It’s not surprising that for the sequel to RoboCop, comic book legend Frank Miller was brought in as a screenwriter, nor is it surprising that the franchise spawned multiple comic book series. Super Fuzz - This one is purely a guilty pleasure, as it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s kind of like Police Academy meets Superman meets Ernest Borgnine. Supah Supah! The Toxic Avenger - Another guilty pleasure, but also a great idea for a superhero movie. These days it’s uncommon to see such a ruthlessly violent superhero, but in his time, Toxie was like a parallel to supervillain protagonists of horror movies, like Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger, for who we continually rooted. Mr. Freedom - Change the communist villains to terrorists, and this would have been ripe for a remake a few years back. The Bush Administration was actually referring to this 1969 superhero farce, about a costumed crusader single-handedly battling the Cold War, whenever it uttered the phrase “enemies of freedom.” Special - I haven’t actually seen this movie, and I’ve been told it’s not quite as great as I expect it to be, but the trailer alone is good enough for me. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:00:51 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/1/2008 11:00:51 AM Will Smith’s new superhero movie, Hancock, may be receiving terrible reviews, but it’s sure to make a lot of money. It is a Will Smith movie, after all. The fact that it’s an original superhero title (meaning not adapted from a comic book or other source material), however, means that if it is a success, it will be the rare movie of its kind to be such. Superhero movies may be huge right now, but really only the pre-sold properties, those with a build-in audience, make the big bucks. A number of original superhero movies are just as worthy of your attention as the Spider-Mans, the Iron Mans, the Batmans and the X-Mens. Sure, much of the time, non-adapted superheroes are lame, as in the cases of Blankman and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But just check out any of the following ten titles and see why it sometimes pays off to put your trust in an unfamiliar hero. The Incredibles - This one did it all: won an Oscar; received favorable reviews across the board; did blockbuster business in theaters and ancillaries (its the sole original superhero movie to break $100 million, domestically, a feat it far surpassed by actually grossing more than $260 million); and featured the single greatest superhero gag (above) ever seen. So there’s proof that a superhero movie can be good and do well without being based on another property. Unbreakable - The only film by M. Night Shyamalan I can enjoy repeatedly and perhaps the only superhero movie besides Batman Begins that audiences can kind of believe might be plausible in the real world. Also, it is perhaps the one origin-story superhero tale that doesn’t necessitate a sequel. The ending may have been anticlimactic, but the scene shown above (I wish the clip began earlier, from the train station scene forward) is one of the greatest superhero fight sequences ever put on film. The Matrix - Meanwhile, this is one origin-story superhero movie that shouldn’t have received a sequel, despite it’s needing one. Or maybe it just shouldn’t have been given the sequels it was given. In a way, the first installment is the perfect superhero movie for the age of video games, because Neo really only has powers in the virtual world. Unfortunately, the subsequent installments ruin this concept. Sky High - It looks really cheesy, but this Harry Potter for the superhero set is actually really clever and consistently entertaining. The common high school plot, in which an unpopular kid becomes popular and ends up screwing over his old friends, is ingeniously lent to the superteen subgenre. It may not hold a candle to the teen metaphors of X2: X-Men United, but it makes those initial Xavier School scenes from the first X-Men look wasteful. Darkman - Long before he sold his soul to the Spider-Man franchise, Sam Raimi created this original superhero tale. I wasn’t really a fan when it came out, but I’d now take it over any of the Spidey movies — even Spider-Man 2. RoboCop - The best superhero tales are really about humanity, not superhumanity, and this satirical sci-fi actioner certainly fits that qualification. It’s not surprising that for the sequel to RoboCop, comic book legend Frank Miller was brought in as a screenwriter, nor is it surprising that the franchise spawned multiple comic book series. Super Fuzz - This one is purely a guilty pleasure, as it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s kind of like Police Academy meets Superman meets Ernest Borgnine. Supah Supah! The Toxic Avenger - Another guilty pleasure, but also a great idea for a superhero movie. These days it’s uncommon to see such a ruthlessly violent superhero, but in his time, Toxie was like a parallel to supervillain protagonists of horror movies, like Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger, for who we continually rooted. Mr. Freedom - Change the communist villains to terrorists, and this would have been ripe for a remake a few years back. The Bush Administration was actually referring to this 1969 superhero farce, about a costumed crusader single-handedly battling the Cold War, whenever it uttered the phrase “enemies of freedom.” Special - I haven’t actually seen this movie, and I’ve been told it’s not quite as great as I expect it to be, but the trailer alone is good enough for me. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog