list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Crash 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/Crash/239971/default.aspx Title: Crash
Year: 2005
Director: Paul Haggis
Plot: Issues of race and gender cause a group of strangers in Los Angeles to physically and emotionally collide in this drama from director and screenwriter Paul Haggis. Graham (Don Cheadle) is a police detective whose brother is a street criminal, and it hurts him to know his mother cares more about his ne'er-do-well brother than him. Graham's partner is Ria (Jennifer Esposito), who is also his girlfriend, though she has begun to bristle at his emotional distance, as well as his occasional insensitivity over the fact he's African-American and she's Hispanic. Rick (Brendan Fraser) is an L.A. district attorney whose wife, Jean (Sandra Bullock), makes little secret of her fear and hatred of people unlike herself. Jean's worst imaginings about people of color are confirmed when her SUV is carjacked by two African-American men -- Anthony (Chris Bridges, aka Ludacris), who dislikes white people as much as Jean hates blacks, and Peter (Larenz Tate), who is more open minded. Cameron (Terrence Howard) is a well-to-do African-American television producer with a beautiful wife, Christine (Thandie Newton). While coming home from a party, Cameron and Christine are pulled over by Officer Ryan (Matt Dillon), who subjects them to a humiliating interrogation (and her to an inappropriate search) while his new partner, Officer Hansen (Ryan Phillippe), looks on. Daniel (Michael Pena) is a hard-working locksmith and dedicated father who discovers that his looks don't lead many of his customers to trust him. And Farhad (Shaun Toub) is a Middle Eastern shopkeeper who is so constantly threatened in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that he decided he needs a gun to defend his family. Crash was the first directorial project for award-winning television and film writer Haggis. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 228
Number of Lists: 133
Number of blog posts: 21
Number of discussion threads: 25
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:37:31 GMTCrash2005Paul HaggisIssues of race and gender cause a group of strangers in Los Angeles to physically and emotionally collide in this drama from director and screenwriter <a href="/players/P___274585/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Paul Haggis</a>. Graham (<a href="/players/P____12587/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Don Cheadle</a>) is a police detective whose brother is a street criminal, and it hurts him to know his mother cares more about his ne'er-do-well brother than him. Graham's partner is Ria (<a href="/players/P___237368/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jennifer Esposito</a>), who is also his girlfriend, though she has begun to bristle at his emotional distance, as well as his occasional insensitivity over the fact he's African-American and she's Hispanic. Rick (<a href="/players/P____24843/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brendan Fraser</a>) is an L.A. district attorney whose wife, Jean (<a href="/players/P_____9472/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sandra Bullock</a>), makes little secret of her fear and hatred of people unlike herself. Jean's worst imaginings about people of color are confirmed when her SUV is carjacked by two African-American men -- Anthony (Chris Bridges, aka <a href="/players/P___362190/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ludacris</a>), who dislikes white people as much as Jean hates blacks, and Peter (<a href="/players/P____69926/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Larenz Tate</a>), who is more open minded. Cameron (<a href="/players/P____33528/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Terrence Howard</a>) is a well-to-do African-American television producer with a beautiful wife, Christine (<a href="/players/P____52472/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Thandie Newton</a>). While coming home from a party, Cameron and Christine are pulled over by Officer Ryan (<a href="/players/P____19210/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Matt Dillon</a>), who subjects them to a humiliating interrogation (and her to an inappropriate search) while his new partner, Officer Hansen (<a href="/players/P___200610/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ryan Phillippe</a>), looks on. Daniel (Michael Pena) is a hard-working locksmith and dedicated father who discovers that his looks don't lead many of his customers to trust him. And Farhad (Shaun Toub) is a Middle Eastern shopkeeper who is so constantly threatened in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that he decided he needs a gun to defend his family. Crash was the first directorial project for award-winning television and film writer Haggis. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide228Tag Target (>10)13321253http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t78383ff85h.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Crash/239971/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_September_28_The_Infinite_Sad/625/44118/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/5/2009 1:35:33 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] Sorry for the delay but I've been in a Six Feet Under k-hole for the past week and haven't been doing much of else. The final episode of the series had me crying like almost never before and it got me thinking about how much I enjoy a good cry. The raw emotion, the circling thoughts of this or that that keep the tears streaming down your face, the feeling of suffocating in your throat: not too much in this life compares to it. [/quote] A good cry is something that can be a cap on a really great movie for me as well. I find myself crying for lots of different reasons in films though. [quote user="mercurial"] And probably the best cry I've ever had in a movie is The Shawshank Redemption. Gets me crying like a baby every time I watch it. [/quote] Dude, there's something about it. I don't know what it is. But even if it's ALL I see, whenever the very last couple minutes of The Shawshank Redemption start playing, the tears just start welling up. Although the one film moment that might get the tears going even stronger and more reliably would be the final big breakdown from Lee J. Cobb's character. I get goosebumps and almost start crying just reading a transcript of it! I think it may be the most perfect moment in cinema for me. I've also had tears of happiness well up in my eyes for strange kind of happy moments too. When the new Star Wars movies came out, I would almost start crying just as the opening theme started playing and the familiar logo and text scroll started running. Sometimes it's a perfect blend of what just seems like overpowering truth. Humor, sadness, reality, absurdity, all perfectly portrayed. The end of Dr. Strangelove for instance. Tears come to my eyes here too. Most of the film of The Seventh Seal hits me too because of the truth of every character's struggle. Oh and I just remembered, what might be the best rival for that monologue in 12 Angry Men would be the monologue in Fargo by Margie in the cop car hauling away Gaear Grimsrud. So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it. Ah! That sums it up so perfectly! You just have to shed a tear for everything it says. Then of course there are times when I really HATE a movie for making me cry. Because it's total manipulation. In other words, it throws up certain images and sounds and music that we already have some emotional attachment to outside of the film and edits them together in a way that makes you cry. But if the actual story of the film is total bullshit, then that's manipulation. The cry doesn't flow freely from the complete work of the film. It's just a psychological trick. One of the biggest examples here would be I Am Sam. People naturally have an immediate strong reaction to cute, innocent and defenseless people being taken advantage of. Who is more stereotypically innocent and defenseless than mentally retarded people and children? And when you throw in a vague oppresive authority system and one dementional villains, the only final blow you really need is Beatles music, the most loved pop music in the world. The tears flow, but not because of any context of the film, because of outside contexts. Paul Haggis pulls this same kind of crap with Million Dollar Baby and Crash.
]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:35:33 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme10/5/2009 1:35:33 PM[quote user="mercurial"] Sorry for the delay but I've been in a Six Feet Under k-hole for the past week and haven't been doing much of else. The final episode of the series had me crying like almost never before and it got me thinking about how much I enjoy a good cry. The raw emotion, the circling thoughts of this or that that keep the tears streaming down your face, the feeling of suffocating in your throat: not too much in this life compares to it. [/quote] A good cry is something that can be a cap on a really great movie for me as well. I find myself crying for lots of different reasons in films though. [quote user="mercurial"] And probably the best cry I've ever had in a movie is The Shawshank Redemption. Gets me crying like a baby every time I watch it. [/quote] Dude, there's something about it. I don't know what it is. But even if it's ALL I see, whenever the very last couple minutes of The Shawshank Redemption start playing, the tears just start welling up. Although the one film moment that might get the tears going even stronger and more reliably would be the final big breakdown from Lee J. Cobb's character. I get goosebumps and almost start crying just reading a transcript of it! I think it may be the most perfect moment in cinema for me. I've also had tears of happiness well up in my eyes for strange kind of happy moments too. When the new Star Wars movies came out, I would almost start crying just as the opening theme started playing and the familiar logo and text scroll started running. Sometimes it's a perfect blend of what just seems like overpowering truth. Humor, sadness, reality, absurdity, all perfectly portrayed. The end of Dr. Strangelove for instance. Tears come to my eyes here too. Most of the film of The Seventh Seal hits me too because of the truth of every character's struggle. Oh and I just remembered, what might be the best rival for that monologue in 12 Angry Men would be the monologue in Fargo by Margie in the cop car hauling away Gaear Grimsrud. So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it. Ah! That sums it up so perfectly! You just have to shed a tear for everything it says. Then of course there are times when I really HATE a movie for making me cry. Because it's total manipulation. In other words, it throws up certain images and sounds and music that we already have some emotional attachment to outside of the film and edits them together in a way that makes you cry. But if the actual story of the film is total bullshit, then that's manipulation. The cry doesn't flow freely from the complete work of the film. It's just a psychological trick. One of the biggest examples here would be I Am Sam. People naturally have an immediate strong reaction to cute, innocent and defenseless people being taken advantage of. Who is more stereotypically innocent and defenseless than mentally retarded people and children? And when you throw in a vague oppresive authority system and one dementional villains, the only final blow you really need is Beatles music, the most loved pop music in the world. The tears flow, but not because of any context of the film, because of outside contexts. Paul Haggis pulls this same kind of crap with Million Dollar Baby and Crash. http://www.spout.com/groups/It_s_a_Wonderful_Night_for_Oscar/Re_81st_Oscars_Sh_t_or_Shinola/46/41200/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 3/23/2009 1:28:57 PM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="Risselada"] Well it's like any situation with the media. It goes back and forth. The media tries to sense what people want and they give it back to them plus a little bit more. Then people get what they want plus a little bit of media invention or embellishment. They start to accept the little bit extra that was presented of it and think they want more of it. The media sees what they want and gives them more and then adds a little more... etc. So no doubt as the show was televised people took more interest. And as people took more interest, they advertised it more. And probably as it got to be more well known, movie studios started advertising actors or other people who worked on their films as oscar winners. And people already have enough of a celebrity worship that to see all these celebrities in a room honoring each other, they take stock in that kind of thing. I guess I'm kind of just repeating what you already acknowledged. I'm not sure why. I won't deny that obviously many people give Oscar cred. I mean that's what the debate is about here. SHOULD we be giving the Oscar cred though? I'm saying that I'm not often inclinded to because of all the reasons we've been talking about. [/quote] Right. It's simply important to acknowledge that the Academy and the Oscars and the people who find them important aren't really at fault for blowing them, perhaps, out of proportion. The media is a whole separate entity that can be tried, convicted, and sentenced for sensationalizing anything and everything all the time, and it's a whole separate convo that could last for years. [/quote] Well no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the Academy and the Media AND the public are all equally responsible. They they all keep fueling the sensationalization. They are not completely separate, but all tied together. Heck, the Academy is Hollywood and Hollywood is media. And often ownership of Hollywood entities own all other media outlets. [quote user="pippin06"] Should we be giving Oscar cred? I think the answer is taste again. I think it's valid for even an incestuous (inbred...family reunion...thingy) to issue awards to the members. I think what they nominate is a fair representation of deserving films. I think the Academy gets it right at least some of the time when they choose winners, but that's my opinion. When I'm watching Oscar nominees, frequently from years past because I can only watch so many films at a time, and I like to change it up, I tend to think about what else got nominated and compare. I tend to subscribe to at least some of the Best picks. Is it because they won the Oscar? Arguably yes (I like to compare), arguably no (I care less about the winners). I'm more inclined to nominees rather than winners, but that's just me again. I think the Academy has as much right as anyone to award themselves. It's just like the Grand Awards, which are awarded by a committee comprised of theater community members, some from the community theaters in GR and some from the college theaters. Who better to issue those awards than the people actually working in the areas? If you don't buy that, maybe someone (I leave that to the public to nominate just who) should start up an Oscars voted on by the people. Oh wait, that's the People's Choice Awards. There's the Indie awards for the Independent filmmakers and the Critics Choice for the critics and the Guild awards for all levels of production....that's why in this group, I've tried to present other filmmaking awards that tend to inform Oscar anyway. But it all comes down to taste. Enough people put stock in awards as validation (whether winning or watching the winning), but you might not. [/quote] It's perfectly fine with me if people want to award themselves, but when it's the biggest and most famous award show in the world and the results with knowingly dictate not only what kinds of movies most people will see and come to accept as good but also what kinds of movies will continue to receive future funding. When the movies that win are movies that I find present skewed or unchallenging worldviews, I find that frustrating. If they would at least change the awards from being the "best" in a category to the "favorite" in a category that would be nice too. [quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="Risselada"] And then it gets more frustrating when people take a lot of stock in an award that I feel picks winners that I don't necessarily appreciate as much as some of the "competition". But then again, there are times when I like things that may be called subversive. And without having a mass of people liking and doing things that I don't agree with, there would be no enjoyment in being subversive. It's not that I WANT to be subversive just for it's own sake (I hope not) it just doesn't seem like the world is going to change. I guess when we are rewarding art it's especially subjective. But I think if you look through history you will find that the best art usually is subversive and only truely recognized as the best after time. The best artists are not recognized often by their peers. This is a generalization of a complicated issue. I do certainly like finding out what films receive acclaim from other filmmakers, especially onces I respect. But it doesn't need to have all of the dopey glitz and glamour for me, and there doesn't have to be just one winner. I guess that's why I like certain lists, like the Sight and Sound poll for instance. [/quote] You hit on an important point: Oscar hype tends more to the present than to timelessness. The deserving Best movies are still discussed decades later (i.e. Gone with the Wind or the Godfather) while other movies, whether nominated and lost (Star Wars; Citizen Kane) or not nominated (Psycho, snubbed for Best Picture/Director, though it won Original Screenplay and was nominated for others), don't need Oscar to validate their artistic excellence because people are championing them years later. Look at the AFI lists (which is why I am also compiling them in this group). Not everyone even subscribes to those, but many of the films on the Greatest lists never won Oscars, or won less than notorious Oscar prizes. That doesn't mean that Oscar's presence in the present doesn't count for something: it's a time capsule snapshot of what was discussed as "great" for the appropriate year, and it's a yardstick by which to measure and compare other good films. And the dopey glitz and glamor are appealing to some, ok :-D. I like the glitz and glamour. Sometimes, people just want fluff and entertainment...hence the silly awards show. Art is subjective, but I maintain that it's up to you. Take them or leave them, the Oscars are relevant, even if they're not relevant to you. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. As to the Academy itself, actually there are dissenting opinions. The face of the Academy has changed quite substantially. First, the membership is larger. It's more diverse, not only in culture but in age. The fact that a film like Slumdog even got nominated is a testament to how much it's changed (it's from India, it's not cut according to a "classic" cloth). And there is much talk, usually every year, about snubbed contenders. But it's a voting membership. It is a club, and a somewhat exclusive one, but it's not the type of fraternity of homogenous thinkers you might be inclined to regard it as. The majority of votes wins. So, a film like The Wrestler (which would not have been nominated ten years ago) probably won't beat a feel-good like Slumdog Millionaire, because the membership is massive, and it's a mass, and masses tend toward certain types of films, and the mass is changing in its group dynamic. The Academy used to be comprised of older, non-ethnic type men because that's who started the tradition...but the tradition is breaking. Maybe not in step or in time with some people's pulses (ahem). At this point, I encourage any member of the group, actually, to discuss barometers or rankings or polls or awards that mean something to you and explain why. Because I understand the antipathy toward the Oscars, but I'll remain a steadfast supporter because, chances are, it'll expose me to some films I might not have otherwise considered. But maybe something else means more to you, like Rizzo mentioned the Sight and Sound polls. I don't mean to duplicate the Movie Polls group (there was a similar poll not too long ago), but we're dissecting this in such an in-depth way, I think it's worthwhile to offer it up as an alternative. I might not be able to convince you that the Oscars are worthwhile, so maybe something else will be more valid to you...or maybe nothing will be. Say it here. [/quote] I just don't find the fact that a movie from India won is really a testament to much change at all, relative to the huge scope of what is really out there. Where a movie is from does not affect me as much as what it's saying or how it says it. I guess it's not fair for me to pass judgement Slumdog Millionaire it until I've actually seen it though, so I won't say much more about it. But in general the Academy seems to award movies that tackle important issues but give simple or cliche answers and are often manipulative towards an audiences emtion in a false way to bring them to that kind of emotional response. Sadly I've heard reviews of Slumdog Millionaire from people I respect who seem to say this fits in that category. Since I can't say for sure since I haven't seen it, I'll hold off judgement. But I have seen best picture winners Million Dollar Baby (what's with the million dollar motif here??) and Crash, and those are some examples. Because I'm a geek about my movie ratings and stats and such, I decided to check on what my average overall movie rating is vs. the average rating I gave for Best Picture Oscar winners. Out of about 1,181 feature length movies proper that I have rated, my average rating is 7.5250. Out of 33 of the Best Picture Oscar winners I have seen my average rating is 7.7727. There is only about a 3% difference between those numbers. So basically left to my own method of what movies I end up seeing compared to the Oscar winners, my level of enjoyment is pretty negligable. Or in otherwords, the average Best Picture Oscar winner that I've seen is not any better to me than than any other average movie I see. I would be interested in seeing the stats on Best Picture Oscar nominees, but getting those stats will probably take a lot longer, and I doubt there will be much difference there either.
]]>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:28:57 GMTRisseladaIt's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!3/23/2009 1:28:57 PM[quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="Risselada"] Well it's like any situation with the media. It goes back and forth. The media tries to sense what people want and they give it back to them plus a little bit more. Then people get what they want plus a little bit of media invention or embellishment. They start to accept the little bit extra that was presented of it and think they want more of it. The media sees what they want and gives them more and then adds a little more... etc. So no doubt as the show was televised people took more interest. And as people took more interest, they advertised it more. And probably as it got to be more well known, movie studios started advertising actors or other people who worked on their films as oscar winners. And people already have enough of a celebrity worship that to see all these celebrities in a room honoring each other, they take stock in that kind of thing. I guess I'm kind of just repeating what you already acknowledged. I'm not sure why. I won't deny that obviously many people give Oscar cred. I mean that's what the debate is about here. SHOULD we be giving the Oscar cred though? I'm saying that I'm not often inclinded to because of all the reasons we've been talking about. [/quote] Right. It's simply important to acknowledge that the Academy and the Oscars and the people who find them important aren't really at fault for blowing them, perhaps, out of proportion. The media is a whole separate entity that can be tried, convicted, and sentenced for sensationalizing anything and everything all the time, and it's a whole separate convo that could last for years. [/quote] Well no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the Academy and the Media AND the public are all equally responsible. They they all keep fueling the sensationalization. They are not completely separate, but all tied together. Heck, the Academy is Hollywood and Hollywood is media. And often ownership of Hollywood entities own all other media outlets. [quote user="pippin06"] Should we be giving Oscar cred? I think the answer is taste again. I think it's valid for even an incestuous (inbred...family reunion...thingy) to issue awards to the members. I think what they nominate is a fair representation of deserving films. I think the Academy gets it right at least some of the time when they choose winners, but that's my opinion. When I'm watching Oscar nominees, frequently from years past because I can only watch so many films at a time, and I like to change it up, I tend to think about what else got nominated and compare. I tend to subscribe to at least some of the Best picks. Is it because they won the Oscar? Arguably yes (I like to compare), arguably no (I care less about the winners). I'm more inclined to nominees rather than winners, but that's just me again. I think the Academy has as much right as anyone to award themselves. It's just like the Grand Awards, which are awarded by a committee comprised of theater community members, some from the community theaters in GR and some from the college theaters. Who better to issue those awards than the people actually working in the areas? If you don't buy that, maybe someone (I leave that to the public to nominate just who) should start up an Oscars voted on by the people. Oh wait, that's the People's Choice Awards. There's the Indie awards for the Independent filmmakers and the Critics Choice for the critics and the Guild awards for all levels of production....that's why in this group, I've tried to present other filmmaking awards that tend to inform Oscar anyway. But it all comes down to taste. Enough people put stock in awards as validation (whether winning or watching the winning), but you might not. [/quote] It's perfectly fine with me if people want to award themselves, but when it's the biggest and most famous award show in the world and the results with knowingly dictate not only what kinds of movies most people will see and come to accept as good but also what kinds of movies will continue to receive future funding. When the movies that win are movies that I find present skewed or unchallenging worldviews, I find that frustrating. If they would at least change the awards from being the "best" in a category to the "favorite" in a category that would be nice too. [quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="Risselada"] And then it gets more frustrating when people take a lot of stock in an award that I feel picks winners that I don't necessarily appreciate as much as some of the "competition". But then again, there are times when I like things that may be called subversive. And without having a mass of people liking and doing things that I don't agree with, there would be no enjoyment in being subversive. It's not that I WANT to be subversive just for it's own sake (I hope not) it just doesn't seem like the world is going to change. I guess when we are rewarding art it's especially subjective. But I think if you look through history you will find that the best art usually is subversive and only truely recognized as the best after time. The best artists are not recognized often by their peers. This is a generalization of a complicated issue. I do certainly like finding out what films receive acclaim from other filmmakers, especially onces I respect. But it doesn't need to have all of the dopey glitz and glamour for me, and there doesn't have to be just one winner. I guess that's why I like certain lists, like the Sight and Sound poll for instance. [/quote] You hit on an important point: Oscar hype tends more to the present than to timelessness. The deserving Best movies are still discussed decades later (i.e. Gone with the Wind or the Godfather) while other movies, whether nominated and lost (Star Wars; Citizen Kane) or not nominated (Psycho, snubbed for Best Picture/Director, though it won Original Screenplay and was nominated for others), don't need Oscar to validate their artistic excellence because people are championing them years later. Look at the AFI lists (which is why I am also compiling them in this group). Not everyone even subscribes to those, but many of the films on the Greatest lists never won Oscars, or won less than notorious Oscar prizes. That doesn't mean that Oscar's presence in the present doesn't count for something: it's a time capsule snapshot of what was discussed as "great" for the appropriate year, and it's a yardstick by which to measure and compare other good films. And the dopey glitz and glamor are appealing to some, ok :-D. I like the glitz and glamour. Sometimes, people just want fluff and entertainment...hence the silly awards show. Art is subjective, but I maintain that it's up to you. Take them or leave them, the Oscars are relevant, even if they're not relevant to you. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. As to the Academy itself, actually there are dissenting opinions. The face of the Academy has changed quite substantially. First, the membership is larger. It's more diverse, not only in culture but in age. The fact that a film like Slumdog even got nominated is a testament to how much it's changed (it's from India, it's not cut according to a "classic" cloth). And there is much talk, usually every year, about snubbed contenders. But it's a voting membership. It is a club, and a somewhat exclusive one, but it's not the type of fraternity of homogenous thinkers you might be inclined to regard it as. The majority of votes wins. So, a film like The Wrestler (which would not have been nominated ten years ago) probably won't beat a feel-good like Slumdog Millionaire, because the membership is massive, and it's a mass, and masses tend toward certain types of films, and the mass is changing in its group dynamic. The Academy used to be comprised of older, non-ethnic type men because that's who started the tradition...but the tradition is breaking. Maybe not in step or in time with some people's pulses (ahem). At this point, I encourage any member of the group, actually, to discuss barometers or rankings or polls or awards that mean something to you and explain why. Because I understand the antipathy toward the Oscars, but I'll remain a steadfast supporter because, chances are, it'll expose me to some films I might not have otherwise considered. But maybe something else means more to you, like Rizzo mentioned the Sight and Sound polls. I don't mean to duplicate the Movie Polls group (there was a similar poll not too long ago), but we're dissecting this in such an in-depth way, I think it's worthwhile to offer it up as an alternative. I might not be able to convince you that the Oscars are worthwhile, so maybe something else will be more valid to you...or maybe nothing will be. Say it here. [/quote] I just don't find the fact that a movie from India won is really a testament to much change at all, relative to the huge scope of what is really out there. Where a movie is from does not affect me as much as what it's saying or how it says it. I guess it's not fair for me to pass judgement Slumdog Millionaire it until I've actually seen it though, so I won't say much more about it. But in general the Academy seems to award movies that tackle important issues but give simple or cliche answers and are often manipulative towards an audiences emtion in a false way to bring them to that kind of emotional response. Sadly I've heard reviews of Slumdog Millionaire from people I respect who seem to say this fits in that category. Since I can't say for sure since I haven't seen it, I'll hold off judgement. But I have seen best picture winners Million Dollar Baby (what's with the million dollar motif here??) and Crash, and those are some examples. Because I'm a geek about my movie ratings and stats and such, I decided to check on what my average overall movie rating is vs. the average rating I gave for Best Picture Oscar winners. Out of about 1,181 feature length movies proper that I have rated, my average rating is 7.5250. Out of 33 of the Best Picture Oscar winners I have seen my average rating is 7.7727. There is only about a 3% difference between those numbers. So basically left to my own method of what movies I end up seeing compared to the Oscar winners, my level of enjoyment is pretty negligable. Or in otherwords, the average Best Picture Oscar winner that I've seen is not any better to me than than any other average movie I see. I would be interested in seeing the stats on Best Picture Oscar nominees, but getting those stats will probably take a lot longer, and I doubt there will be much difference there either. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/27/40699.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/27/2009 6:01:44 PM
Body: Two more days until we find out who wins this year’s Academy Awards! Okay, so the exclamation point is more than forced. It’s been quite awhile since we’ve had even an ounce of excitement about the Oscars. But we mustn’t let predictability get us down. Sure, even the still-uncertain races (Penn vs. Rourke; Winslet vs. Streep; Man on Wire vs. Trouble the Water) are anything but interesting, because the everyman of 2009 couldn’t care less about who gave the year’s better performance and would probably be fine shrugging his shoulders at the TV screen in the event of a tie (or, better yet, irresolution). However, there’s one thing people keep forgetting about the Academy: they’re full of surprises. So, rather than just go with the easy, “predictable” predictions, we attempted to guess who and what will Crash the Oscars this year with a surprise victory — preferably the kind that adds an “ing” to “upset.” And once again, we’d like to extend the forecasting fun to you. What surprises do you expect and/or hope for? Or, if you’re down with the boring route, what “certain” winners do you truly believe in? And why? The most accurate comments will be reprinted in our final Oscar column on Monday. Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button If the Academy didn’t continually cause controversial commotion with Best Picture picks like Shakespeare in Love and Crash, we wouldn’t have very much to talk about the morning after, or years later. So, in a way it’s exciting and somewhat necessary to have the occasional baffling or infuriating upsets in the top category. The one film that would piss off more people this year than any other, even more than The Reader, is Benjamin Button, especially since it pretty much already had the (dis)honor of being an undeserving Best Picture winner 15 years ago. Best Director: Stephen Daldry (The Reader) If Benjamin Button is to win Best Picture, then Danny Boyle should probably still win Best Director, because often in the years of controversial Best Picture upsets the director’s prize still goes to the (critical) favorite. Think of Steven Spielberg in ’99 and Ang Lee in ’06. But just to prove the Oscars are completely out of touch, we have to go with the Academy favorites of Daldry and the Holocaust. Both Fincher and Boyle are Oscar newbies and may have their turn with some future, more lackluster effort. Best Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) For this category, we’re looking to the 2008 presidential election. Let’s consider Meryl Streep to be the older, more experienced, and typically well-respected candidate, who will lose to the young novice in her very first bid. Where that puts thought-to-be-a-lock Kate Winslet in the analogy is not important. As long as people keep mentioning Obama in their reasoning for why Slumdog Millionaire will win Best Picture, it’s just as fair to recognize Hathaway as the most Obama-like choice for Best Actress. Best Actor: undetermined As much as a tie in this category would be a surprising and slightly satisfying turn of events (even though it would be more appropriate in the Best Actress race, since Streep will forever be compared to Katherine Hepburn, who tied with Barbara Streisand 30 years ago), we’re looking to another political race of last year for the Best Actor decision. All we’ll know Sunday night is that it’s still down to Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. But don’t worry, we’ll find out who actually wins in a few months. Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) Just as Judy Davis probably deserved the Supporting Actress Oscar more for her performance in a Woody Allen film 16 years ago, Penelope Cruz probably deserves it more this year, also for a Woody Allen film. But Tomei is the champion of Oscar surprises, and we could very well see a repeat of 1993. At least this time she’s a little more worthy. Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) Okay, there’s no chance of a surprise here. Because if the Oscar goes to anyone but Ledger, a crazed fan will likely blow up the Kodak. And the Academy must presume that Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister won’t conveniently have access to the detonator this time. Best Adapted Screenplay:  Eric Roth and Robin Swicord (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Never mind the tremendous amount of work Roth put into expanding a very short story into a very, very long film. His and Swicord’s true triumph is in how they were able to rewrite Forrest Gump and repackage it well enough to fool $242 million-worth of moviegoers. Hollywood is surely obligated to reward the duo for pulling off such a double-tiered adaptation and such a well-played moneymaking scheme. Best Original Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Docter (WALL-E) Yes, a lot of people are predicting this to win the Oscar, and so it won’t be quite as much a surprise as a win for Frozen River would be. But the real shocker is going to be when Kung Fu Panda wins Best Animated Feature, a repeat of its glory at the Annies, and Academy logic once again goes completely out the window. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:01:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/27/2009 6:01:44 PMTwo more days until we find out who wins this year’s Academy Awards! Okay, so the exclamation point is more than forced. It’s been quite awhile since we’ve had even an ounce of excitement about the Oscars. But we mustn’t let predictability get us down. Sure, even the still-uncertain races (Penn vs. Rourke; Winslet vs. Streep; Man on Wire vs. Trouble the Water) are anything but interesting, because the everyman of 2009 couldn’t care less about who gave the year’s better performance and would probably be fine shrugging his shoulders at the TV screen in the event of a tie (or, better yet, irresolution). However, there’s one thing people keep forgetting about the Academy: they’re full of surprises. So, rather than just go with the easy, “predictable” predictions, we attempted to guess who and what will Crash the Oscars this year with a surprise victory — preferably the kind that adds an “ing” to “upset.” And once again, we’d like to extend the forecasting fun to you. What surprises do you expect and/or hope for? Or, if you’re down with the boring route, what “certain” winners do you truly believe in? And why? The most accurate comments will be reprinted in our final Oscar column on Monday. Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button If the Academy didn’t continually cause controversial commotion with Best Picture picks like Shakespeare in Love and Crash, we wouldn’t have very much to talk about the morning after, or years later. So, in a way it’s exciting and somewhat necessary to have the occasional baffling or infuriating upsets in the top category. The one film that would piss off more people this year than any other, even more than The Reader, is Benjamin Button, especially since it pretty much already had the (dis)honor of being an undeserving Best Picture winner 15 years ago. Best Director: Stephen Daldry (The Reader) If Benjamin Button is to win Best Picture, then Danny Boyle should probably still win Best Director, because often in the years of controversial Best Picture upsets the director’s prize still goes to the (critical) favorite. Think of Steven Spielberg in ’99 and Ang Lee in ’06. But just to prove the Oscars are completely out of touch, we have to go with the Academy favorites of Daldry and the Holocaust. Both Fincher and Boyle are Oscar newbies and may have their turn with some future, more lackluster effort. Best Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) For this category, we’re looking to the 2008 presidential election. Let’s consider Meryl Streep to be the older, more experienced, and typically well-respected candidate, who will lose to the young novice in her very first bid. Where that puts thought-to-be-a-lock Kate Winslet in the analogy is not important. As long as people keep mentioning Obama in their reasoning for why Slumdog Millionaire will win Best Picture, it’s just as fair to recognize Hathaway as the most Obama-like choice for Best Actress. Best Actor: undetermined As much as a tie in this category would be a surprising and slightly satisfying turn of events (even though it would be more appropriate in the Best Actress race, since Streep will forever be compared to Katherine Hepburn, who tied with Barbara Streisand 30 years ago), we’re looking to another political race of last year for the Best Actor decision. All we’ll know Sunday night is that it’s still down to Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. But don’t worry, we’ll find out who actually wins in a few months. Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) Just as Judy Davis probably deserved the Supporting Actress Oscar more for her performance in a Woody Allen film 16 years ago, Penelope Cruz probably deserves it more this year, also for a Woody Allen film. But Tomei is the champion of Oscar surprises, and we could very well see a repeat of 1993. At least this time she’s a little more worthy. Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) Okay, there’s no chance of a surprise here. Because if the Oscar goes to anyone but Ledger, a crazed fan will likely blow up the Kodak. And the Academy must presume that Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister won’t conveniently have access to the detonator this time. Best Adapted Screenplay:  Eric Roth and Robin Swicord (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Never mind the tremendous amount of work Roth put into expanding a very short story into a very, very long film. His and Swicord’s true triumph is in how they were able to rewrite Forrest Gump and repackage it well enough to fool $242 million-worth of moviegoers. Hollywood is surely obligated to reward the duo for pulling off such a double-tiered adaptation and such a well-played moneymaking scheme. Best Original Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Docter (WALL-E) Yes, a lot of people are predicting this to win the Oscar, and so it won’t be quite as much a surprise as a win for Frozen River would be. But the real shocker is going to be when Kung Fu Panda wins Best Animated Feature, a repeat of its glory at the Annies, and Academy logic once again goes completely out the window. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/2/40168.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/2/2009 5:01:22 PM
Body: With Danny Boyle’s DGA win over the weekend, Slumdog Millionaire achieved a near-impossible feat; it became even more favored to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Once thought to be an underdog, Slumdog has been pretty much unstoppable throughout the awards season, even picking up the undeserved top honor at the SAG Awards, and has never fallen from its position of frontrunner since it took the lead months ago. Yet last week, the internet was populated by talk of a Slumdog backlash, and for the first time in weeks, other Best Picture candidates were seriously being discussed as slightly plausible victors. The two titles considered most likely to be a threat to Boyle’s film are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Milk, with little concern for either Frost/Nixon or The Reader. However, while the former candidate is probably a sure thing to lose, the latter film should not yet be dismissed. Before the Academy Award nominations were announced last month, The Reader wasn’t even thought to be a contender for any major category except Best Supporting Actress. Now, among its five nominations, it’s up for three higher-tiered Oscars, including Best Picture. So, we can’t rightly continue underestimating its potential. This isn’t to say that we are predicting The Reader to win Best Picture; Slumdog is still the safest bet for the top prize. But odds for The Reader do need to be adjusted, as its chances are a lot closer to, if not better than, secondary favorites Benjamin Button and Milk. Of course, as the it stands now, the film should be an appealing choice for any gamblers out there, because a surprise Best Picture win for The Reader would pay out big time. So, our immediate apologies to betters if the following seven factors have any influence on professional oddsmakers out there. The Cancel-Out Factor Let’s begin with the simplest argument, which has also been used recently as evidence that Milk’s chances for the top award have gone up: Whether due to a backlash or not, Slumdog’s lead may be shortening, and Benjamin Button may be gaining. So, the two films could cancel each other out and The Reader, not Milk, could sneak forward. Or, to give Milk the same credit as others are giving it, the three favorites cancel each other out and The Reader makes an even greater leap forward. The Stephen Daldry Factor Now for the weakest, but not completely implausible argument: It’s clear the Academy loves Stephen Daldry, as they’ve nominated him for Best Director every time he’s made a movie. Unfortunately for him, there’s no way he’ll win his category this year, because no director has ever won the Oscar without at least being nominated for the DGA award. So, Boyle remains a lock for Best Director, but Daldry’s fans could try and make a serious push for the film to win Best Picture. It would be a somewhat ironic win, since Daldry’s first nomination came for a film that wasn’t even nominated for the top award (Billy Elliot). The Posthumous Oscars Factor (aka the Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella Factor) Thanks to a special exception the Academy made for The Reader, there are now three posthumous Oscar nominees. Heath Ledger is most definitely going to win Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Dark Knight, but what about Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella? The two are among The Reader’s four producers named to receive trophies if the film wins Best Picture. Academy members could consider this a year to pay special honor to the artists they’ve lost, and that would mean voting for two of their favorite filmmaking talents. On the other hand, though, with Pollack having previously won two Oscars (out of six nominations) and Minghella having previously won one (out of three nominations), it’s not as if the voters will feel as much of an obligation as they would if neither had been honored before. Still, never underestimate the power of the celebrity death cult. The Harvey Weinstein Factor It’s been awhile since Harvey’s heyday at the Oscars. While heading Miramax, he managed a couple surprise victories in the Best Picture category, and at the 2003 awards, Harvey actually had a connection to four of the five Best Picture nominees. He used to be known as someone not to be reckoned with when it came to his desire for Academy Awards. But it’s taken years for The Weinstein Co. to see one of its films in contention for the top prize. So, will Harvey once again show great influence over the Academy? According to Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger, Harvey’s been advised not to go crazy with the Oscar campaigning this year, partly for economic reasons and partly because his chances are considered low. But Karger thinks he’s still going to “go whole hog,” because “otherwise he wouldn’t be Harvey Weinstein.” And when Harvey goes whole hog, things like Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan happen. Seriously, there are already those who believe the whole Slumdog backlash thing was started by a certain “truth-and ethically challenged mogul” who would benefit from such a smear campaign. The Schindler’s List Factor As much as we all like to joke about the Academy’s Holocaust fetish, no Holocaust movie is a sure thing for Best Picture (especially if such a film is the one non-Harvey Weinstein-related nominee). But one Holocaust film in particular is the Academy’s pride and joy: Schindler’s List. If Slumdog Millionaire continues its awards season sweep, garnering top kudos from the WGA, the BAFTAs and finally the Oscars, it will actually become a more-honored film than Schindler’s List, which holds the current record for awards season domination. Unfortunately for Spielberg’s film, as noted by In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley, there were no BFCA or SAG ensemble awards back then. So, due to more opportunities, Slumdog could break the record rather unfairly. For Schindler’s List-loving members of the Academy, that might be an incentive to vote for The Reader, a fellow Holocaust film, instead of for Slumdog, which nobody could reasonably argue is better than the 1994 Best Picture-winner. The Tolerance Factor One of the major arguments in favor of Milk’s chances are that a Best Picture win for that film would make up for the Brokeback Mountain loss three years ago. And the Academy might vote for Milk in order to prove it is tolerant. But in a way, honoring Crash over Brokeback Mountain was a display of tolerance, only one that focused on race rather than sexual orientation. The Reader could be this year’s Crash, and not just because it’s one of the most critically hated Best Picture candidates in years. An argument against the aforementioned Schindler’s List Factor is that The Reader is almost like an anti-Holocaust film, because it attempts to make the audience sympathize with a concentration camp guard who slaughtered many Jewish prisoners. If the Academy should really feel the need to again prove its members are tolerant, honoring The Reader, which allegorically deals with Germany’s struggle to come to terms with its Nazi past, would be an even stronger display of this than would honoring a film focusing on gay rights. The again, the latter action may potentially be easier for some voters. The Surprise Factor Okay, this is actually the simplest argument: the Oscars are full of surprises. From Marisa Tomei’s out-numbered defeat of the British (and Australian) in 1992 to the shocking 1936 win by write-in candidate Hal Mohr to the unexpected Best Picture wins by non-frontrunners Chariots of Fire, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago and Crash (among others), the Academy should never be underestimated when it comes to their aim with monkey wrenches. So, the best reason not to dismiss The Reader in the Best Picture race is that all Oscars races are anyone’s game up until the envelopes are opened and the winners are named. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:01:22 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/2/2009 5:01:22 PMWith Danny Boyle’s DGA win over the weekend, Slumdog Millionaire achieved a near-impossible feat; it became even more favored to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Once thought to be an underdog, Slumdog has been pretty much unstoppable throughout the awards season, even picking up the undeserved top honor at the SAG Awards, and has never fallen from its position of frontrunner since it took the lead months ago. Yet last week, the internet was populated by talk of a Slumdog backlash, and for the first time in weeks, other Best Picture candidates were seriously being discussed as slightly plausible victors. The two titles considered most likely to be a threat to Boyle’s film are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Milk, with little concern for either Frost/Nixon or The Reader. However, while the former candidate is probably a sure thing to lose, the latter film should not yet be dismissed. Before the Academy Award nominations were announced last month, The Reader wasn’t even thought to be a contender for any major category except Best Supporting Actress. Now, among its five nominations, it’s up for three higher-tiered Oscars, including Best Picture. So, we can’t rightly continue underestimating its potential. This isn’t to say that we are predicting The Reader to win Best Picture; Slumdog is still the safest bet for the top prize. But odds for The Reader do need to be adjusted, as its chances are a lot closer to, if not better than, secondary favorites Benjamin Button and Milk. Of course, as the it stands now, the film should be an appealing choice for any gamblers out there, because a surprise Best Picture win for The Reader would pay out big time. So, our immediate apologies to betters if the following seven factors have any influence on professional oddsmakers out there. The Cancel-Out Factor Let’s begin with the simplest argument, which has also been used recently as evidence that Milk’s chances for the top award have gone up: Whether due to a backlash or not, Slumdog’s lead may be shortening, and Benjamin Button may be gaining. So, the two films could cancel each other out and The Reader, not Milk, could sneak forward. Or, to give Milk the same credit as others are giving it, the three favorites cancel each other out and The Reader makes an even greater leap forward. The Stephen Daldry Factor Now for the weakest, but not completely implausible argument: It’s clear the Academy loves Stephen Daldry, as they’ve nominated him for Best Director every time he’s made a movie. Unfortunately for him, there’s no way he’ll win his category this year, because no director has ever won the Oscar without at least being nominated for the DGA award. So, Boyle remains a lock for Best Director, but Daldry’s fans could try and make a serious push for the film to win Best Picture. It would be a somewhat ironic win, since Daldry’s first nomination came for a film that wasn’t even nominated for the top award (Billy Elliot). The Posthumous Oscars Factor (aka the Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella Factor) Thanks to a special exception the Academy made for The Reader, there are now three posthumous Oscar nominees. Heath Ledger is most definitely going to win Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Dark Knight, but what about Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella? The two are among The Reader’s four producers named to receive trophies if the film wins Best Picture. Academy members could consider this a year to pay special honor to the artists they’ve lost, and that would mean voting for two of their favorite filmmaking talents. On the other hand, though, with Pollack having previously won two Oscars (out of six nominations) and Minghella having previously won one (out of three nominations), it’s not as if the voters will feel as much of an obligation as they would if neither had been honored before. Still, never underestimate the power of the celebrity death cult. The Harvey Weinstein Factor It’s been awhile since Harvey’s heyday at the Oscars. While heading Miramax, he managed a couple surprise victories in the Best Picture category, and at the 2003 awards, Harvey actually had a connection to four of the five Best Picture nominees. He used to be known as someone not to be reckoned with when it came to his desire for Academy Awards. But it’s taken years for The Weinstein Co. to see one of its films in contention for the top prize. So, will Harvey once again show great influence over the Academy? According to Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger, Harvey’s been advised not to go crazy with the Oscar campaigning this year, partly for economic reasons and partly because his chances are considered low. But Karger thinks he’s still going to “go whole hog,” because “otherwise he wouldn’t be Harvey Weinstein.” And when Harvey goes whole hog, things like Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan happen. Seriously, there are already those who believe the whole Slumdog backlash thing was started by a certain “truth-and ethically challenged mogul” who would benefit from such a smear campaign. The Schindler’s List Factor As much as we all like to joke about the Academy’s Holocaust fetish, no Holocaust movie is a sure thing for Best Picture (especially if such a film is the one non-Harvey Weinstein-related nominee). But one Holocaust film in particular is the Academy’s pride and joy: Schindler’s List. If Slumdog Millionaire continues its awards season sweep, garnering top kudos from the WGA, the BAFTAs and finally the Oscars, it will actually become a more-honored film than Schindler’s List, which holds the current record for awards season domination. Unfortunately for Spielberg’s film, as noted by In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley, there were no BFCA or SAG ensemble awards back then. So, due to more opportunities, Slumdog could break the record rather unfairly. For Schindler’s List-loving members of the Academy, that might be an incentive to vote for The Reader, a fellow Holocaust film, instead of for Slumdog, which nobody could reasonably argue is better than the 1994 Best Picture-winner. The Tolerance Factor One of the major arguments in favor of Milk’s chances are that a Best Picture win for that film would make up for the Brokeback Mountain loss three years ago. And the Academy might vote for Milk in order to prove it is tolerant. But in a way, honoring Crash over Brokeback Mountain was a display of tolerance, only one that focused on race rather than sexual orientation. The Reader could be this year’s Crash, and not just because it’s one of the most critically hated Best Picture candidates in years. An argument against the aforementioned Schindler’s List Factor is that The Reader is almost like an anti-Holocaust film, because it attempts to make the audience sympathize with a concentration camp guard who slaughtered many Jewish prisoners. If the Academy should really feel the need to again prove its members are tolerant, honoring The Reader, which allegorically deals with Germany’s struggle to come to terms with its Nazi past, would be an even stronger display of this than would honoring a film focusing on gay rights. The again, the latter action may potentially be easier for some voters. The Surprise Factor Okay, this is actually the simplest argument: the Oscars are full of surprises. From Marisa Tomei’s out-numbered defeat of the British (and Australian) in 1992 to the shocking 1936 win by write-in candidate Hal Mohr to the unexpected Best Picture wins by non-frontrunners Chariots of Fire, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago and Crash (among others), the Academy should never be underestimated when it comes to their aim with monkey wrenches. So, the best reason not to dismiss The Reader in the Best Picture race is that all Oscars races are anyone’s game up until the envelopes are opened and the winners are named. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/22/39777.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/22/2009 10:01:03 AM
Body: The nominations for the 81st Annual Academy Awards were announced this morning, and they likely have upset a large number of people in the comic book geek community. Yes, the most obvious snubs have to do with The Dark Knight, which failed to garner nods for Best Picture, Best Director or even Best Screenplay — yes, obviously Heath Ledger was at least nominated. And at least the comic book adaptation did get a few craft awards, including Best Cinematography. Could we blame the Academy’s usual penchant for Holocaust movies? Perhaps, since The Reader was a surprise nominee for Best Picture and Best Director. What else was overlooked and what else was shockingly present? My immediate thoughts after the jump: Kate Winslet will not be able to achieve the same kind of double-duty win she achieved at the Golden Globes, because despite the surprising noms for The Reader, the film did not recieve a Best Supporting Actress nod. Fortunately, she did at least acquire a nomination for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road. And maybe as a consolation for her lack of two nominations, the Academy will feel it’s their obligation to give her the Oscar. Winslet is joined in the lead actress category by expected nominees Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway and also by non-sure things Angelina Jolie and Melissa Leo. The glaring “snub” is of course Golden Globe winner Sally Hawkins, who is the most upsetting omission in the eyes of this blogger. I’d even expected Cate Blanchett over Jolie, who can now make the Oscars a family affair since the other half of Brangelina is also nominated, for Best Actor. Waltz with Bashir somehow didn’t make it into the Best Animated Film trio, although nobody should attack Bolt because of this snub (surely you didn’t see it, and it is indeed worthy). Bashir did at least receive recognition in the Best Foreign Film category, which it will most surely win. Many people thought Gran Torino came out just at the right time to garner Clint Eastwood an acting nomination and maybe even a Best Picture nod, as well. But what could have been this year’s Crash is nowhere to be found among the nominees. As if The Dark Knight snubs weren’t enough to get young audiences protesting this year’s Oscars, there were also no Best Original Song nods for High School Musical 3 or even expected nominee Miley Cyrus, who cowrote a song for Bolt with Jeffrey Steele. And speaking of this category, is there any reason that there are only three nominees, none of which are for predicted winner Bruce Springsteen? I almost always have at least one issue with the Best Original Screenplay category, but if Courtney Hunt’s script for Frozen River is one of the best of the year, then Jenny Lumet, Woody Allen and Charlie Kaufman should all just pack up and retire. Wait, nevermind, because it’s snubs like these that have us once again saying that the Oscars are a joke. For the full list of nominees, head to Oscar.com. Or, if you don’t like drop menus, Variety. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:01:03 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/22/2009 10:01:03 AMThe nominations for the 81st Annual Academy Awards were announced this morning, and they likely have upset a large number of people in the comic book geek community. Yes, the most obvious snubs have to do with The Dark Knight, which failed to garner nods for Best Picture, Best Director or even Best Screenplay — yes, obviously Heath Ledger was at least nominated. And at least the comic book adaptation did get a few craft awards, including Best Cinematography. Could we blame the Academy’s usual penchant for Holocaust movies? Perhaps, since The Reader was a surprise nominee for Best Picture and Best Director. What else was overlooked and what else was shockingly present? My immediate thoughts after the jump: Kate Winslet will not be able to achieve the same kind of double-duty win she achieved at the Golden Globes, because despite the surprising noms for The Reader, the film did not recieve a Best Supporting Actress nod. Fortunately, she did at least acquire a nomination for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road. And maybe as a consolation for her lack of two nominations, the Academy will feel it’s their obligation to give her the Oscar. Winslet is joined in the lead actress category by expected nominees Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway and also by non-sure things Angelina Jolie and Melissa Leo. The glaring “snub” is of course Golden Globe winner Sally Hawkins, who is the most upsetting omission in the eyes of this blogger. I’d even expected Cate Blanchett over Jolie, who can now make the Oscars a family affair since the other half of Brangelina is also nominated, for Best Actor. Waltz with Bashir somehow didn’t make it into the Best Animated Film trio, although nobody should attack Bolt because of this snub (surely you didn’t see it, and it is indeed worthy). Bashir did at least receive recognition in the Best Foreign Film category, which it will most surely win. Many people thought Gran Torino came out just at the right time to garner Clint Eastwood an acting nomination and maybe even a Best Picture nod, as well. But what could have been this year’s Crash is nowhere to be found among the nominees. As if The Dark Knight snubs weren’t enough to get young audiences protesting this year’s Oscars, there were also no Best Original Song nods for High School Musical 3 or even expected nominee Miley Cyrus, who cowrote a song for Bolt with Jeffrey Steele. And speaking of this category, is there any reason that there are only three nominees, none of which are for predicted winner Bruce Springsteen? I almost always have at least one issue with the Best Original Screenplay category, but if Courtney Hunt’s script for Frozen River is one of the best of the year, then Jenny Lumet, Woody Allen and Charlie Kaufman should all just pack up and retire. Wait, nevermind, because it’s snubs like these that have us once again saying that the Oscars are a joke. For the full list of nominees, head to Oscar.com. Or, if you don’t like drop menus, Variety. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/scswngr/archive/2009/1/12/39380.aspx Post By: scswngr
Post To: Film Obsessed
Post Date: 1/12/2009 4:28:19 AM
Body: After watching the Golden Globes tonight I have an eerily similar feeling as I did in early 2006 when I watched Crash gaining undeserved steam as it rocketed toward an eventual Best Picture win at the Academy Awards. This year, I am beginning to resent multiple-Golden Globe winner Slumdog Millionaire in much the same way. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie a lot, I just feel like its getting all the notice because its so different than the normal Hollywood award fare. Slumdog is definitely worthy of a top 10 listing this year, the same as I felt for Crash in 2006, but I truly don't believe it is the best picture of the year. Certain elements of Slumdog definitely deserve recognition, including editing, direction, and score, but I don't think they should be a lock in any of those categories either. I haven't even made my way through half of the nominees for this year's Golden Globes, and I have already seen 3 other great films in the last week alone (Milk, Brideshead Revisited, and The Wrestler), each of which I would rank above Slumdog. I just hope all this momentum doesn't translate into Slumdog winning the Academy Award for Best Picture because of its popularity with all the other voters. But then again, I often think the Academy gets it wrong, with a noted exception for Departed in 2007.
]]>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:28:19 GMTscswngrFilm Obsessed1/12/2009 4:28:19 AMAfter watching the Golden Globes tonight I have an eerily similar feeling as I did in early 2006 when I watched Crash gaining undeserved steam as it rocketed toward an eventual Best Picture win at the Academy Awards. This year, I am beginning to resent multiple-Golden Globe winner Slumdog Millionaire in much the same way. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie a lot, I just feel like its getting all the notice because its so different than the normal Hollywood award fare. Slumdog is definitely worthy of a top 10 listing this year, the same as I felt for Crash in 2006, but I truly don't believe it is the best picture of the year. Certain elements of Slumdog definitely deserve recognition, including editing, direction, and score, but I don't think they should be a lock in any of those categories either. I haven't even made my way through half of the nominees for this year's Golden Globes, and I have already seen 3 other great films in the last week alone (Milk, Brideshead Revisited, and The Wrestler), each of which I would rank above Slumdog. I just hope all this momentum doesn't translate into Slumdog winning the Academy Award for Best Picture because of its popularity with all the other voters. But then again, I often think the Academy gets it wrong, with a noted exception for Departed in 2007. http://www.spout.com/blogs/screwd_skull/archive/2008/12/24/38831.aspx Post By: screwd_skull
Post To: screwd_skull Blog
Post Date: 12/24/2008 6:13:38 PM
Body: I watched this film when it first came out, but this week when I watched for a second time, I was somewhat disappointed because, when I had first watched, I had thought it was a good film. It does deal with the heavy-weight issue of the inherent racism in the U.S.A. however, second time round, I realized it is not just addressing the issue, but it is in itself, a very racist movie. The white characters seem more like caricatures and stereotypes, while the black characters are fated to be thieves, although put in that posiiton due to society's racism, they are stereotypically portrayed as only petty thieves who white people should be afraid of. It is also ironic that these young black men are rather well-educated and able to communicate their views rather succintly, but have no choice in the matter, but be what society tells them to be, instead of using their clear intelligent ability to not conform to the stereotype. It simply disappointed me.
]]>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:13:38 GMTscrewd_skullscrewd_skull Blog12/24/2008 6:13:38 PMI watched this film when it first came out, but this week when I watched for a second time, I was somewhat disappointed because, when I had first watched, I had thought it was a good film. It does deal with the heavy-weight issue of the inherent racism in the U.S.A. however, second time round, I realized it is not just addressing the issue, but it is in itself, a very racist movie. The white characters seem more like caricatures and stereotypes, while the black characters are fated to be thieves, although put in that posiiton due to society's racism, they are stereotypically portrayed as only petty thieves who white people should be afraid of. It is also ironic that these young black men are rather well-educated and able to communicate their views rather succintly, but have no choice in the matter, but be what society tells them to be, instead of using their clear intelligent ability to not conform to the stereotype. It simply disappointed me. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/17/37380.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/17/2008 5:00:58 PM
Body: Oprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:00:58 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/17/2008 5:00:58 PMOprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/35211/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 9/16/2008 3:51:13 PM
Body: [quote user="seely"] [quote user="Risselada"] 2. Crash / Million Dollar Baby - two recent Oscar winners both written by that hack Paul Haggis. These movies are manipulative in the worst way. I call these movies where I can feel the writer's pen on the paper. Every character and development is impletemented to make you feel an exact emotion. I guess that doesn't have to be a bad thing, but when it's such an issue concious movie and you can really SEE what the filmmakers are doing, it really puts me off. Especially when people talk about how important these movies are. [/quote] Really well put... something about both always bothered me and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I thought North Country fell into this category as well, [/quote] Thank you. I just read what I wrote again and was surprised how well I put that as well, since my writing can usually come off as rather incoherent to me when I go back and look it over. But I think I've been passionate long enough in my distaste for those types of manipulative, issue concious movies (with those two being some of the best examples) that I've had to reiterate my reasons why several times. And thank you, I will avoid watching North Country now. :)
]]>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:51:13 GMTRisseladaTop 59/16/2008 3:51:13 PM[quote user="seely"] [quote user="Risselada"] 2. Crash / Million Dollar Baby - two recent Oscar winners both written by that hack Paul Haggis. These movies are manipulative in the worst way. I call these movies where I can feel the writer's pen on the paper. Every character and development is impletemented to make you feel an exact emotion. I guess that doesn't have to be a bad thing, but when it's such an issue concious movie and you can really SEE what the filmmakers are doing, it really puts me off. Especially when people talk about how important these movies are. [/quote] Really well put... something about both always bothered me and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I thought North Country fell into this category as well, [/quote] Thank you. I just read what I wrote again and was surprised how well I put that as well, since my writing can usually come off as rather incoherent to me when I go back and look it over. But I think I've been passionate long enough in my distaste for those types of manipulative, issue concious movies (with those two being some of the best examples) that I've had to reiterate my reasons why several times. And thank you, I will avoid watching North Country now. :) http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/35189/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 9/16/2008 10:54:54 AM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] 2. Crash / Million Dollar Baby - two recent Oscar winners both written by that hack Paul Haggis. These movies are manipulative in the worst way. I call these movies where I can feel the writer's pen on the paper. Every character and development is impletemented to make you feel an exact emotion. I guess that doesn't have to be a bad thing, but when it's such an issue concious movie and you can really SEE what the filmmakers are doing, it really puts me off. Especially when people talk about how important these movies are. [/quote] Really well put... something about both always bothered me and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I thought North Country fell into this category as well, especially when finding out after research how different the actual story was than the film's portrayal. One of the most blatant manipulations in NC was the filmmaker's choice to show the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill case as running concurrent to the events in NC, when in fact they were seperated by a decade or so, as I recall. It was an obvious ploy to manipulate the audience's emotions--in this case, guilt. I feel like the story would have been more powerful to me had it been more accurate, instead of trying so hard to manipulate emotion... once I found out about all the little inconsistencies and minor fabrications, I almost felt used.
]]>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:54:54 GMTseelyTop 59/16/2008 10:54:54 AM[quote user="Risselada"] 2. Crash / Million Dollar Baby - two recent Oscar winners both written by that hack Paul Haggis. These movies are manipulative in the worst way. I call these movies where I can feel the writer's pen on the paper. Every character and development is impletemented to make you feel an exact emotion. I guess that doesn't have to be a bad thing, but when it's such an issue concious movie and you can really SEE what the filmmakers are doing, it really puts me off. Especially when people talk about how important these movies are. [/quote] Really well put... something about both always bothered me and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I thought North Country fell into this category as well, especially when finding out after research how different the actual story was than the film's portrayal. One of the most blatant manipulations in NC was the filmmaker's choice to show the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill case as running concurrent to the events in NC, when in fact they were seperated by a decade or so, as I recall. It was an obvious ploy to manipulate the audience's emotions--in this case, guilt. I feel like the story would have been more powerful to me had it been more accurate, instead of trying so hard to manipulate emotion... once I found out about all the little inconsistencies and minor fabrications, I almost felt used. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Great/MemberTagFilms.aspxGreat
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:11:49 GMT231202371Tag 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/amazing/MemberTagFilms.aspxamazing
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 156

Number of times used: 253

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:49:13 GMT179156253Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226101215Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Crazy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCrazy
Number of films tagged: 133

Number of people who tagged: 98

Number of times used: 180

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:53:36 GMT13398180Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/relationships/MemberTagFilms.aspxrelationships
Number of films tagged: 203

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 249

]]>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:40:59 GMT20374249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/racism/MemberTagFilms.aspxracism
Number of films tagged: 800

Number of people who tagged: 69

Number of times used: 136

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT80069136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/moving/MemberTagFilms.aspxmoving
Number of films tagged: 286

Number of people who tagged: 68

Number of times used: 160

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT28668160Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lame/MemberTagFilms.aspxlame
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 162

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:10:30 GMT14065162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/redemption/MemberTagFilms.aspxredemption
Number of films tagged: 626

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 117

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:18:53 GMT62653117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/life/MemberTagFilms.aspxlife
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 224

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT108252224Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/terrible/MemberTagFilms.aspxterrible
Number of films tagged: 59

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 64

]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:51:39 GMT594764Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/emotional/MemberTagFilms.aspxemotional
Number of films tagged: 66

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 106

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:06 GMT6645106Tag