list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Snakes on a Plane 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/Snakes_on_a_Plane/251665/default.aspx Title: Snakes on a Plane
Year: 2006
Director: David R. Ellis
Plot: Forget terrorists or hijackers -- there's a handful of deadly assassins aboard a jet liner and they don't even have arms or legs in this airborne thriller. Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) is an FBI agent handling what seems like a routine assignment -- serving as bodyguard for Sean Jones (Nathan Phillips), a Hawaiian surfer dude who is flying to California to testify in a high-profile criminal trial after witnessing mobster Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson) murdering one of his underlings. However, Flynn's job gets a lot more challenging when he discovers Kim's associates don't want Jones to talk, and have devised a unique way to ensure his silence. A cache of highly dangerous poisonous snakes has been hidden on board the jet, and is released using a timed mechanism once the flight is well underway. The snakes quickly attack several members of the flight crew and are eagerly eying the passengers when Flynn decides its time to get medieval on the reptiles. Also starring Rachel Blanchard, Benjamin McKenzie, and Mark Houghton, Snakes on a Plane was produced under the title of Pacific Air Flight 121, but in several interviews Samuel L. Jackson expressed his enthusiasm for the script's original title, Snakes on a Plane, and the high-concept moniker quickly made the film's title and theme a favorite with bloggers and on Internet fan sites all over the world. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 38
Number of Lists: 39
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 5
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Mon, 11 May 2009 19:56:16 GMTSnakes on a Plane2006David R. EllisForget terrorists or hijackers -- there's a handful of deadly assassins aboard a jet liner and they don't even have arms or legs in this airborne thriller. Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) is an FBI agent handling what seems like a routine assignment -- serving as bodyguard for Sean Jones (<a href="/players/P___303712/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Nathan Phillips</a>), a Hawaiian surfer dude who is flying to California to testify in a high-profile criminal trial after witnessing mobster Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson) murdering one of his underlings. However, Flynn's job gets a lot more challenging when he discovers Kim's associates don't want Jones to talk, and have devised a unique way to ensure his silence. A cache of highly dangerous poisonous snakes has been hidden on board the jet, and is released using a timed mechanism once the flight is well underway. The snakes quickly attack several members of the flight crew and are eagerly eying the passengers when Flynn decides its time to get medieval on the reptiles. Also starring <a href="/players/P___199757/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Rachel Blanchard</a>, <a href="/players/P___373223/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Benjamin McKenzie</a>, and Mark Houghton, Snakes on a Plane was produced under the title of Pacific Air Flight 121, but in several interviews Samuel L. Jackson expressed his enthusiasm for the script's original title, Snakes on a Plane, and the high-concept moniker quickly made the film's title and theme a favorite with bloggers and on Internet fan sites all over the world. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide38Tag Target (>10)391252http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u49133d8nqb.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Snakes_on_a_Plane/251665/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_Recast_ENCINO_MAN_1992/563/39846/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 1/23/2009 4:41:31 PM
Body: Where angels fear to tread, Mercurial rushes in. And God bless him, this is a great recast. Merc, you should put this recast on a resume and send it to National Lampoon's. [quote user="mercurial"] Encino Man: College Rocks Sequel to the original - now at college where an evil anthropology professor wants to do mean experiments on Link but he just wants to party and do cave drawings on some nubile coed flesh! Dave Morgan - Michael Angarano (dorky leading man material) Link - Taylor Kitsch (long hair, muscles, probably grunts too) Stoney - James Franco (because he'll be typecast as a stoner forever now) Robyn - Mila Kunis (can be the cute, yet wild, girl next door) Ella - Kelli Garner (plays the bitchy snob like nobody else) Matt - Chris Pratt (he just looks like an ______) Mr. Brush - Stephen Colbert (cause they need to sell tickets somehow!) [/quote] So would Stephen Colbert play the villain? I especially love your picks for the three main men. Franco's excellence goes without saying, you're right about Angarano playing a likable dork (Sky High), and isn't Taylor Kitsch that pothead who died while trying to join the Mile High Club in Snakes on a Plane? Nice touch dude.
]]>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:41:31 GMTSkyPilotFilmgaming1/23/2009 4:41:31 PMWhere angels fear to tread, Mercurial rushes in. And God bless him, this is a great recast. Merc, you should put this recast on a resume and send it to National Lampoon's. [quote user="mercurial"] Encino Man: College Rocks Sequel to the original - now at college where an evil anthropology professor wants to do mean experiments on Link but he just wants to party and do cave drawings on some nubile coed flesh! Dave Morgan - Michael Angarano (dorky leading man material) Link - Taylor Kitsch (long hair, muscles, probably grunts too) Stoney - James Franco (because he'll be typecast as a stoner forever now) Robyn - Mila Kunis (can be the cute, yet wild, girl next door) Ella - Kelli Garner (plays the bitchy snob like nobody else) Matt - Chris Pratt (he just looks like an ______) Mr. Brush - Stephen Colbert (cause they need to sell tickets somehow!) [/quote] So would Stephen Colbert play the villain? I especially love your picks for the three main men. Franco's excellence goes without saying, you're right about Angarano playing a likable dork (Sky High), and isn't Taylor Kitsch that pothead who died while trying to join the Mile High Club in Snakes on a Plane? Nice touch dude. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/19/35323.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/19/2008 5:01:43 PM
Body: Sometimes I really wish David Bordwell’s blog permitted comments. Mostly it’s better that it doesn’t, but the man’s last post has made me want to discuss the art of movie titles for a whole week now. And it didn’t help that coinciding in time with Bordwell’s post was another one of those sidebars in Entertainment Weekly pointing out some new movies with misleading titles. Yes, Lakeview Terrace does sound like a period romance, as do many other badly titled films (Elizabethtown and Wicker Park come to mind). This weekend also sees two new movies employing the method of borrowing song titles, which are typically not appropriate (Ghost Town seems more like a horror western hybrid, while My Best Friend’s Girl actually fits its plot). Well, fortunately for me (and hopefully you), I can bring the discussion over to SpoutBlog, though not quite as in depth as Bordwell. I’ll be more than happy to have a conversation in the comments section regarding the more general topic of movie titling, but for now I’ll kick things off with a list of what I find to be the most interesting movie titles of the past decade. It’s been a time when studios and filmmakers have been very loose with ill-fitting and overlong titles, as well as some that are too plainly literal (Snakes on a Plane), but the following selections have the benefit of featuring clever, well-chosen and more meaningful monikers. All About My Mother (Todo sobre mi madre) (1999) This Pedro Almodóvar film has a very telling title, one that goes along with Bordwell’s acknowledgment of titles that speak for the character. Yet the character spoken for here is Esteban, the kid who dies in the beginning. Or does he? The title actually refers to a story Esteban has written for school and is inspired by the film All About Eve, which he has just watched. Esteban doesn’t so much die in the film as he does in his own story, which is depicted within the film. Also, the word “Mother” in the title doesn’t so much refer to his actual mother, Manuela, as it does his (made-up) transvestite “father”, Lola, who we learn all about. Amores Perros (2000) Although improperly translated as “Love’s a Bitch,” that phrase does at least apply on some level to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film. As does the more acceptable translation of “Love is Dogs,” which references the film’s canine companions, each of which parallels its owner. But there is also another translation that’s more like “Goodness Wretchedness,” referring to a phrase on the film’s website that basically translates as “If your story turned out well, put it down to ‘amores.’ If bad, put it to ‘perros.’” The fact that you can interpret the meaning of the title multiple ways, and therefore you can interpret its meaning to the film multiple ways, is the reason that it was so important to release the film in the U.S. with its original Mexican title. The Perfect Storm (2000) Although the title comes from Sebastian Junger’s book, the name took on a whole new meaning for the film, which is, in my opinion, completely about the attempt to perfectly create a storm on a computer. Sure, there’s a plot within the film, too, but nothing more attended to than the perfectly rendered storm. In fact, the film’s storm may have been too perfect-looking, as the film lost the Visual Effects Oscar to Gladiator. While the title was clearly not intended for such purpose, and I had planned to ignore titles that inadvertently become more ironically meaningful upon release (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; Disaster Movie), I think the filmmakers at least meant to produce a spectacular storm more than a good story, so I believe it more qualifiable for the list at hand. Shanghai Noon (2000) This title doesn’t necessarily add anything to the meaning of the film nor does it really have multiple layers of meaning by itself. But it features the most cleverly punned title of the last ten years, in my opinion. The sequel’s title, Shanghai Knights, isn’t too bad, either. But just as the movie isn’t nearly as good as the original, neither is the title. Adaptation (2002) This title may actually be my favorite of all time due to its consisting of only a single word, which can be lent to the film in a multitude of ways. The title refers to the adaptation of a book to a film, the adaptation of a plant to its environment, the adaptation of a screenwriter character to his assignment, the adaptation of the same character to the events of his environment and, finally, the adaptation of the film itself to fit the mold of a certain kind of film that fares well in the present environment of the movie biz (ironically it’s this adaptation in the end from a smart film to a silly action movie that fails in execution, even though the joke more fittingly works perfectly on paper). Bad Company (2002) Even awful movies can have titles with multiple meanings, and this lame Joel Schumacher effort is a good example of such. Because “Company” means the CIA in addition to companionship, the title may refer to any of the following: an incapable member of the CIA (Chris Rock’s character); an incapable CIA in general (this was a time when the organization was called into question); a defective spy or untrustworthy spy; or simply the bad buddy team-up of Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock (diegetically and extradiegetically). The same title had been used previously for a bad 1995 movie dealing with the CIA, so its multilayered usage here was not that inspired, but it is nevertheless a good title, in my opinion, and perhaps it will one day be put to better use. National Treasure (2004) The same goes for this movie, which should have and could have been a lot better. The title, which is a well-played mix of figurative and literal meaning and seems more thoughtful than most blockbuster Hollywood titles, would have you believe there was once some smarter writing to be found within the film itself. Shaun of the Dead (2004) For a short while, I thought the title of this comedy didn’t really appropriately fit the film’s story. Shaun isn’t of the dead, I reasoned, because he never “dies.” I accepted the title, though, because it was a nice play on the title Dawn of the Dead. Eventually I decided that it does indeed fit, because the general theme of the movie is that Shaun has been living his life as if he were a zombie. Before the real zombies show up, the “dead” of the title refers to all the people living in this spiritless way, Shaun included. Yet while the rest of these “dead” become undead creatures, Shaun proves that he is capable of living more fully and is able to survive the (allegorical) outbreak. 2046 (2004) Wong Kar-Wai loves to play with the idea of Hong Kong’s transition from British territory to Chinese (which occurred in 1997), and the title partly refers to the final year in which Hong Kong is allowed self-regulation before becoming fully integrated into mainland China in 2047. In the film, the numerical title literally references both a hotel room and the future year, which is employed in a science fiction story being written by the main character. Some people also like to interpret the title as reading “two-oh-four-six” meaning “to owe for sex.” Though there are prostitute characters in the film, this meaning is less likely the intention of Wong. But the additional interpretation makes for a richer title anyway. There Will Be Blood (2007) Why not retain the title of Upton Sinclair’s source novel, “Oil!”? Well, besides all the changes made to the story, it could be because Paul Thomas Anderson’s new title has more possible meanings. The word “Blood” in the title may refer to the actual oil, or the blood shed for the oil (as in drilling accidents then and wars now), or family, especially actual blood relatives (of which there aren’t actually many in the film). Mostly, though, the title allows for and acknowledges a connection between the film’s setting and the current events it appears to be commenting on. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:01:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/19/2008 5:01:43 PMSometimes I really wish David Bordwell’s blog permitted comments. Mostly it’s better that it doesn’t, but the man’s last post has made me want to discuss the art of movie titles for a whole week now. And it didn’t help that coinciding in time with Bordwell’s post was another one of those sidebars in Entertainment Weekly pointing out some new movies with misleading titles. Yes, Lakeview Terrace does sound like a period romance, as do many other badly titled films (Elizabethtown and Wicker Park come to mind). This weekend also sees two new movies employing the method of borrowing song titles, which are typically not appropriate (Ghost Town seems more like a horror western hybrid, while My Best Friend’s Girl actually fits its plot). Well, fortunately for me (and hopefully you), I can bring the discussion over to SpoutBlog, though not quite as in depth as Bordwell. I’ll be more than happy to have a conversation in the comments section regarding the more general topic of movie titling, but for now I’ll kick things off with a list of what I find to be the most interesting movie titles of the past decade. It’s been a time when studios and filmmakers have been very loose with ill-fitting and overlong titles, as well as some that are too plainly literal (Snakes on a Plane), but the following selections have the benefit of featuring clever, well-chosen and more meaningful monikers. All About My Mother (Todo sobre mi madre) (1999) This Pedro Almodóvar film has a very telling title, one that goes along with Bordwell’s acknowledgment of titles that speak for the character. Yet the character spoken for here is Esteban, the kid who dies in the beginning. Or does he? The title actually refers to a story Esteban has written for school and is inspired by the film All About Eve, which he has just watched. Esteban doesn’t so much die in the film as he does in his own story, which is depicted within the film. Also, the word “Mother” in the title doesn’t so much refer to his actual mother, Manuela, as it does his (made-up) transvestite “father”, Lola, who we learn all about. Amores Perros (2000) Although improperly translated as “Love’s a Bitch,” that phrase does at least apply on some level to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film. As does the more acceptable translation of “Love is Dogs,” which references the film’s canine companions, each of which parallels its owner. But there is also another translation that’s more like “Goodness Wretchedness,” referring to a phrase on the film’s website that basically translates as “If your story turned out well, put it down to ‘amores.’ If bad, put it to ‘perros.’” The fact that you can interpret the meaning of the title multiple ways, and therefore you can interpret its meaning to the film multiple ways, is the reason that it was so important to release the film in the U.S. with its original Mexican title. The Perfect Storm (2000) Although the title comes from Sebastian Junger’s book, the name took on a whole new meaning for the film, which is, in my opinion, completely about the attempt to perfectly create a storm on a computer. Sure, there’s a plot within the film, too, but nothing more attended to than the perfectly rendered storm. In fact, the film’s storm may have been too perfect-looking, as the film lost the Visual Effects Oscar to Gladiator. While the title was clearly not intended for such purpose, and I had planned to ignore titles that inadvertently become more ironically meaningful upon release (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; Disaster Movie), I think the filmmakers at least meant to produce a spectacular storm more than a good story, so I believe it more qualifiable for the list at hand. Shanghai Noon (2000) This title doesn’t necessarily add anything to the meaning of the film nor does it really have multiple layers of meaning by itself. But it features the most cleverly punned title of the last ten years, in my opinion. The sequel’s title, Shanghai Knights, isn’t too bad, either. But just as the movie isn’t nearly as good as the original, neither is the title. Adaptation (2002) This title may actually be my favorite of all time due to its consisting of only a single word, which can be lent to the film in a multitude of ways. The title refers to the adaptation of a book to a film, the adaptation of a plant to its environment, the adaptation of a screenwriter character to his assignment, the adaptation of the same character to the events of his environment and, finally, the adaptation of the film itself to fit the mold of a certain kind of film that fares well in the present environment of the movie biz (ironically it’s this adaptation in the end from a smart film to a silly action movie that fails in execution, even though the joke more fittingly works perfectly on paper). Bad Company (2002) Even awful movies can have titles with multiple meanings, and this lame Joel Schumacher effort is a good example of such. Because “Company” means the CIA in addition to companionship, the title may refer to any of the following: an incapable member of the CIA (Chris Rock’s character); an incapable CIA in general (this was a time when the organization was called into question); a defective spy or untrustworthy spy; or simply the bad buddy team-up of Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock (diegetically and extradiegetically). The same title had been used previously for a bad 1995 movie dealing with the CIA, so its multilayered usage here was not that inspired, but it is nevertheless a good title, in my opinion, and perhaps it will one day be put to better use. National Treasure (2004) The same goes for this movie, which should have and could have been a lot better. The title, which is a well-played mix of figurative and literal meaning and seems more thoughtful than most blockbuster Hollywood titles, would have you believe there was once some smarter writing to be found within the film itself. Shaun of the Dead (2004) For a short while, I thought the title of this comedy didn’t really appropriately fit the film’s story. Shaun isn’t of the dead, I reasoned, because he never “dies.” I accepted the title, though, because it was a nice play on the title Dawn of the Dead. Eventually I decided that it does indeed fit, because the general theme of the movie is that Shaun has been living his life as if he were a zombie. Before the real zombies show up, the “dead” of the title refers to all the people living in this spiritless way, Shaun included. Yet while the rest of these “dead” become undead creatures, Shaun proves that he is capable of living more fully and is able to survive the (allegorical) outbreak. 2046 (2004) Wong Kar-Wai loves to play with the idea of Hong Kong’s transition from British territory to Chinese (which occurred in 1997), and the title partly refers to the final year in which Hong Kong is allowed self-regulation before becoming fully integrated into mainland China in 2047. In the film, the numerical title literally references both a hotel room and the future year, which is employed in a science fiction story being written by the main character. Some people also like to interpret the title as reading “two-oh-four-six” meaning “to owe for sex.” Though there are prostitute characters in the film, this meaning is less likely the intention of Wong. But the additional interpretation makes for a richer title anyway. There Will Be Blood (2007) Why not retain the title of Upton Sinclair’s source novel, “Oil!”? Well, besides all the changes made to the story, it could be because Paul Thomas Anderson’s new title has more possible meanings. The word “Blood” in the title may refer to the actual oil, or the blood shed for the oil (as in drilling accidents then and wars now), or family, especially actual blood relatives (of which there aren’t actually many in the film). Mostly, though, the title allows for and acknowledges a connection between the film’s setting and the current events it appears to be commenting on. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/24/33020.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/24/2008 11:01:19 AM
Body: Earlier this year, I thought that it was way too late for a Sex and the City movie. But then it made a ton of cash, so I guess I was wrong. Still, I’m going to continue similarly thinking it’s too late for another X-Files movie. And even if I’m proven wrong and the masses get out to theaters this weekend in search of the truth, I’ll keep on believing that X-Files: I Want to Believe is way past its time. To celebrate Mulder and Scully’s tardiness, here are 10 other movies that came out too late: The Godfather Part III (Released in: 1990; Should have been released in: 1976) - Never mind the fact that had this third installment been made years earlier, Sofia Coppola wouldn’t have been cast and therefore wouldn’t have given her terribly infamous performance. The more important matter is that sequels arriving more than a decade after the previous installment are almost always doomed. The longer the wait, the higher the expectations, and the greater the disappointment. Of course, not everyone agrees that it was also too late for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, etc. Snakes on a Plane (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - By the time it finally hit theaters, there was already a major backlash to the hype behind SoaP, and that backlash was apparently well-deserved when audiences saw just how lame the movie ended up being. It was an early indicator that a lot of internet buzz and popular viral marketing does not necessarily equal a lot of money at the box office. More than a year later, though, fears of another SoaP-like disappointment came with the hype behind Cloverfield, yet the monster movie fared much better. Of course, no movie seemed to be more ridiculous a web sensation than The Dark Knight, the record-breaking success of which could still prompt more SoaP-type disasters in the future. Home on the Range (Released in: 2004; Should have been released in: 1994) - When you Google the words “ill-timed” “release” and “film”, this is the first thing that comes up, probably because it’s legendary for marking the (temporary) end of 2-D Disney animation. It actually came out almost a decade after the first Pixar feature signaled the doomed future of these kinds of films, and a number of 2-D animations were actually quite successful in that ten years. But Home on the Range is notable for both having begun preproduction before the release of the first Toy Story and for having been announced as the last traditionally animated Disney feature. Now, of course, the studio has changed its mind, so we’ll just have to see if Home on the Range was indeed too late or simply too bad. Infamous (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - One of many unfortunate movies to come out on the heels of another film dealing with the same subject. Similarly late, similarly redundant efforts include Deep Impact, Mars Attacks!, Volcano, The Forbidden Dance, Red Planet, Wyatt Earp and Valmont. But Infamous seemed more the loser of its race because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar win for Capote. The Simpsons Movie (Released in: 2007; Should have been released in: 1997) - It may be funny enough, but this movie still suffered a bit from being past the TV series’ prime. A lot more people would have been a lot more excited about the spin-off if it had come out ten years earlier. The Onion Movie (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 2003) - Should this not be included because it actually never came out in theaters in the U.S.? Whatever. I’m still accepting it as one of the worst examples of shelving a film for way too long. From the unbearable bits I attempted to watch, the jokes were quite dated, though I have to admit they might not have been all that funny when (mostly) filmed five years ago. As an alternate, in case you don’t accept this title: The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which was also shelved for a few years, but which was probably made too late anyway. Get Smart (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 1978) - When it opened earlier this summer, I wrote a list about how this movie was obsolete before it was even made. Check out those 10 reasons here. Eyes Wide Shut (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1998) - It may still have been received as poorly, but if this film had been able to be finished and to come out before Stanley Kubrick’s death, it might have at least been a stronger work. Angela’s Ashes (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1995) - How long is too late for a film adaptation of a best-selling book? Considering there are still successful movies based on works such as “The Iliad” and “Beowulf”, there’s apparently no limit. But for some reason this cinematic version of Frank McCourt’s wildly popular memoir bombed at the box office. I guess compared to those early works, “Angela’s Ashes” had been read by everyone in America by the time the movie arrived, and few of its fans needed to go through the depressing events a second time. Glitter (Released in: 2001; Should have been released in: 1991) - Maybe if it had opened before 9/11, as it was supposed to, instead of directly following the tragedy. Or, better yet, maybe if it had opened in the mid ’90s before people stopped giving a damn about Mariah, it wouldn’t have bombed so horribly. Actually, because Mariah eventually became popular again, and thanks to VH1, so did the 1980s, Glitter may also be considered a movie that was too early. Perhaps one day it can find success as a Broadway show, a la Xanadu. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/24/2008 11:01:19 AM Earlier this year, I thought that it was way too late for a Sex and the City movie. But then it made a ton of cash, so I guess I was wrong. Still, I’m going to continue similarly thinking it’s too late for another X-Files movie. And even if I’m proven wrong and the masses get out to theaters this weekend in search of the truth, I’ll keep on believing that X-Files: I Want to Believe is way past its time. To celebrate Mulder and Scully’s tardiness, here are 10 other movies that came out too late: The Godfather Part III (Released in: 1990; Should have been released in: 1976) - Never mind the fact that had this third installment been made years earlier, Sofia Coppola wouldn’t have been cast and therefore wouldn’t have given her terribly infamous performance. The more important matter is that sequels arriving more than a decade after the previous installment are almost always doomed. The longer the wait, the higher the expectations, and the greater the disappointment. Of course, not everyone agrees that it was also too late for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, etc. Snakes on a Plane (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - By the time it finally hit theaters, there was already a major backlash to the hype behind SoaP, and that backlash was apparently well-deserved when audiences saw just how lame the movie ended up being. It was an early indicator that a lot of internet buzz and popular viral marketing does not necessarily equal a lot of money at the box office. More than a year later, though, fears of another SoaP-like disappointment came with the hype behind Cloverfield, yet the monster movie fared much better. Of course, no movie seemed to be more ridiculous a web sensation than The Dark Knight, the record-breaking success of which could still prompt more SoaP-type disasters in the future. Home on the Range (Released in: 2004; Should have been released in: 1994) - When you Google the words “ill-timed” “release” and “film”, this is the first thing that comes up, probably because it’s legendary for marking the (temporary) end of 2-D Disney animation. It actually came out almost a decade after the first Pixar feature signaled the doomed future of these kinds of films, and a number of 2-D animations were actually quite successful in that ten years. But Home on the Range is notable for both having begun preproduction before the release of the first Toy Story and for having been announced as the last traditionally animated Disney feature. Now, of course, the studio has changed its mind, so we’ll just have to see if Home on the Range was indeed too late or simply too bad. Infamous (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - One of many unfortunate movies to come out on the heels of another film dealing with the same subject. Similarly late, similarly redundant efforts include Deep Impact, Mars Attacks!, Volcano, The Forbidden Dance, Red Planet, Wyatt Earp and Valmont. But Infamous seemed more the loser of its race because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar win for Capote. The Simpsons Movie (Released in: 2007; Should have been released in: 1997) - It may be funny enough, but this movie still suffered a bit from being past the TV series’ prime. A lot more people would have been a lot more excited about the spin-off if it had come out ten years earlier. The Onion Movie (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 2003) - Should this not be included because it actually never came out in theaters in the U.S.? Whatever. I’m still accepting it as one of the worst examples of shelving a film for way too long. From the unbearable bits I attempted to watch, the jokes were quite dated, though I have to admit they might not have been all that funny when (mostly) filmed five years ago. As an alternate, in case you don’t accept this title: The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which was also shelved for a few years, but which was probably made too late anyway. Get Smart (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 1978) - When it opened earlier this summer, I wrote a list about how this movie was obsolete before it was even made. Check out those 10 reasons here. Eyes Wide Shut (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1998) - It may still have been received as poorly, but if this film had been able to be finished and to come out before Stanley Kubrick’s death, it might have at least been a stronger work. Angela’s Ashes (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1995) - How long is too late for a film adaptation of a best-selling book? Considering there are still successful movies based on works such as “The Iliad” and “Beowulf”, there’s apparently no limit. But for some reason this cinematic version of Frank McCourt’s wildly popular memoir bombed at the box office. I guess compared to those early works, “Angela’s Ashes” had been read by everyone in America by the time the movie arrived, and few of its fans needed to go through the depressing events a second time. Glitter (Released in: 2001; Should have been released in: 1991) - Maybe if it had opened before 9/11, as it was supposed to, instead of directly following the tragedy. Or, better yet, maybe if it had opened in the mid ’90s before people stopped giving a damn about Mariah, it wouldn’t have bombed so horribly. Actually, because Mariah eventually became popular again, and thanks to VH1, so did the 1980s, Glitter may also be considered a movie that was too early. Perhaps one day it can find success as a Broadway show, a la Xanadu. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/9/30970.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/9/2008 1:19:26 PM
Body: I was certain that at least once during the B-movie titled, straight to late night cable "Snakes on a Plane" that I would spend at half the movie with my fingers over my eyes. Consider me shocked when that feat only happened once…at the end of the movie as the credits were rolling. I´m rather impressed with myself. Anyway, "Snakes on a Plane" is about, well, snakes on a plane. The plot is a touch more sophisticated than that simple title would have us believe. See, there´s this really bad mobster guy in Hawaii who had killed-in a rather gruesome scene-a district attorney on vacation there. One little problem: surf boy Sean Jones witnessed this murder. Now, because Mr. Mobster is such a big bad (and wanted) boy, Sean is being flown to LA in order to testify. To ensure the testimony never happens, many hundreds of snakes are covertly put aboard the plane. Now, Sean, Agent Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) and the merry band of clashing personalities on the plane have to survive long enough to get to California…without being killed by the…snakes on the plane. Alright, I´m going to say this now so I don´t have to say it later: this is "Snakes on a Plane". It´s not "The Godfather". It´s not "Lord of the Rings". Hell, it´s not even "Alien vs. Predator". This is "Snakes on a Plane". It takes itself just seriously enough to create dramatic tension but not too seriously as to destroy the fun nature of the film. And make no mistake, this is a fun film. A fun film in that squirmy, uneasy way that only snakes can elicit. No one tried to reinvent the wheel here, nor did anybody intend "Snakes" to win any mainstream awards. This was a fun project to work on, especially when your lead (Jackson) signs on knowing only the title. So what is so fun about it? It´s fun in the same way that 2005´s Jodie Foster airplane thriller "Flightplan" ended up being fun. Here are a group of people literally trapped in a 200 foot tin can (as the co-pilot puts it) faced with an impossible scenario: halfway between Honolulu and Los Angeles, they are attacked by creatures that can slither and crawl on the floors, in the toilets, in the overhead compartments, in the controls, in the engines…basically, anywhere big enough for a snake to get into is fair game. That in itself is a scary, "Alien"-esque premise. But whereas that pillar of science fiction-horror focused on only one deadly creature to overcome, this movie gives us hundreds and hundreds of these things. There is no escape because no matter where you turn, they are there. The thing is, the first twenty minutes of so of the film have nothing at all to do with the snakes. It´s all about the set-up, the exposition that will get us to the main course, the stuff the audience paid to see. What propels "Snakes on a Plane" above its humble B-movie inspiration is that the audience is given the time to somewhat know the people involved before the action begins. Had this been a Sci Fi Channel Original Movie, I have no doubt that most of the exposition would have been jettisoned. But its not and, in order to justify spending millions of dollars on this project, somebody at New Line wanted a story. So we have it. Honestly, I wouldn´t be surprised if the film lost viewers in those first twenty minutes. But once the snakes start coming out of the circuitry, "Snakes on a Plane" hits overdrive and, with one or two expections, doesn´t let up until the end. To my great astonishment, the people on the plane, more or less, act like real people with real brains in their heads. The gray matter is even used, to boot. I think it´s a compliment to the screenplay that the characters were the focus of the story early in order to make them a bit more than the standard bait. When the snakes first attack, they move to the forward compartment, blocking off the back using whatever they can find. When that proves to be a flawed plan, thanks to the plane going into a nosedive, they find themselves on the upper deck in first class. And when the snakes start to encroach there, they find an inspired-if not completely foolproof-ways to secure themselves. The first thing I wrote in my notes for this movie-before the film even started-was "what do you expect from a movie with this name?". And that sentiment is quite correct. This has the buzz, the groundswell, the name and concept of a schlocky movie of the week. Based on that, my expectations were low. Add to that the fact theater management warned me this movie was bad when I was getting my ticket. I´m never had that happen before. "Snakes on a Plane" won´t hold up to any noticeable scrutiny. For instance, in the beginning of the film, why does it take the bad guys such a short amount of time to find Sean in his apartment? How did the snakes from all around the world make it to Honolulu with no problems whatsoever? Why couldn´t the snakes work their way through the plane´s interior and eventually to first class? After all, they were found in the cockpit which was at the front of first class. There are various subplots strewn around just to flesh out the characters. An unneeded but standard subplot has an agent in LA gathering information and anti-venom for when the plane lands. Yes, it´s necessary. Yes, it makes logical and rational sense. But, damn, if it doesn´t destroy the pacing of the events on the plane. That is where the action is. And in order to create a constricted and claustrophobic feel, once the plane is in the air, that´s all the audience should experience. There are some noticeably gruesome-and laughable-snake bite shots peppered throughout the film. Eyes, genitals, breasts…I´ll leave the others as a surprise. I found myself laughing quite a few times throughout the film, perhaps more to cover up my terror at seeing that many snakes on a multi-plex screen than at anything truly funny. High art? Not even close. Fun film? You bet.
]]>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:19:26 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/9/2008 1:19:26 PMI was certain that at least once during the B-movie titled, straight to late night cable "Snakes on a Plane" that I would spend at half the movie with my fingers over my eyes. Consider me shocked when that feat only happened once&hellip;at the end of the movie as the credits were rolling. I&acute;m rather impressed with myself. Anyway, "Snakes on a Plane" is about, well, snakes on a plane. The plot is a touch more sophisticated than that simple title would have us believe. See, there&acute;s this really bad mobster guy in Hawaii who had killed-in a rather gruesome scene-a district attorney on vacation there. One little problem: surf boy Sean Jones witnessed this murder. Now, because Mr. Mobster is such a big bad (and wanted) boy, Sean is being flown to LA in order to testify. To ensure the testimony never happens, many hundreds of snakes are covertly put aboard the plane. Now, Sean, Agent Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) and the merry band of clashing personalities on the plane have to survive long enough to get to California&hellip;without being killed by the&hellip;snakes on the plane. Alright, I&acute;m going to say this now so I don&acute;t have to say it later: this is "Snakes on a Plane". It&acute;s not "The Godfather". It&acute;s not "Lord of the Rings". Hell, it&acute;s not even "Alien vs. Predator". This is "Snakes on a Plane". It takes itself just seriously enough to create dramatic tension but not too seriously as to destroy the fun nature of the film. And make no mistake, this is a fun film. A fun film in that squirmy, uneasy way that only snakes can elicit. No one tried to reinvent the wheel here, nor did anybody intend "Snakes" to win any mainstream awards. This was a fun project to work on, especially when your lead (Jackson) signs on knowing only the title. So what is so fun about it? It&acute;s fun in the same way that 2005&acute;s Jodie Foster airplane thriller "Flightplan" ended up being fun. Here are a group of people literally trapped in a 200 foot tin can (as the co-pilot puts it) faced with an impossible scenario: halfway between Honolulu and Los Angeles, they are attacked by creatures that can slither and crawl on the floors, in the toilets, in the overhead compartments, in the controls, in the engines&hellip;basically, anywhere big enough for a snake to get into is fair game. That in itself is a scary, "Alien"-esque premise. But whereas that pillar of science fiction-horror focused on only one deadly creature to overcome, this movie gives us hundreds and hundreds of these things. There is no escape because no matter where you turn, they are there. The thing is, the first twenty minutes of so of the film have nothing at all to do with the snakes. It&acute;s all about the set-up, the exposition that will get us to the main course, the stuff the audience paid to see. What propels "Snakes on a Plane" above its humble B-movie inspiration is that the audience is given the time to somewhat know the people involved before the action begins. Had this been a Sci Fi Channel Original Movie, I have no doubt that most of the exposition would have been jettisoned. But its not and, in order to justify spending millions of dollars on this project, somebody at New Line wanted a story. So we have it. Honestly, I wouldn&acute;t be surprised if the film lost viewers in those first twenty minutes. But once the snakes start coming out of the circuitry, "Snakes on a Plane" hits overdrive and, with one or two expections, doesn&acute;t let up until the end. To my great astonishment, the people on the plane, more or less, act like real people with real brains in their heads. The gray matter is even used, to boot. I think it&acute;s a compliment to the screenplay that the characters were the focus of the story early in order to make them a bit more than the standard bait. When the snakes first attack, they move to the forward compartment, blocking off the back using whatever they can find. When that proves to be a flawed plan, thanks to the plane going into a nosedive, they find themselves on the upper deck in first class. And when the snakes start to encroach there, they find an inspired-if not completely foolproof-ways to secure themselves. The first thing I wrote in my notes for this movie-before the film even started-was "what do you expect from a movie with this name?". And that sentiment is quite correct. This has the buzz, the groundswell, the name and concept of a schlocky movie of the week. Based on that, my expectations were low. Add to that the fact theater management warned me this movie was bad when I was getting my ticket. I&acute;m never had that happen before. "Snakes on a Plane" won&acute;t hold up to any noticeable scrutiny. For instance, in the beginning of the film, why does it take the bad guys such a short amount of time to find Sean in his apartment? How did the snakes from all around the world make it to Honolulu with no problems whatsoever? Why couldn&acute;t the snakes work their way through the plane&acute;s interior and eventually to first class? After all, they were found in the cockpit which was at the front of first class. There are various subplots strewn around just to flesh out the characters. An unneeded but standard subplot has an agent in LA gathering information and anti-venom for when the plane lands. Yes, it&acute;s necessary. Yes, it makes logical and rational sense. But, damn, if it doesn&acute;t destroy the pacing of the events on the plane. That is where the action is. And in order to create a constricted and claustrophobic feel, once the plane is in the air, that&acute;s all the audience should experience. There are some noticeably gruesome-and laughable-snake bite shots peppered throughout the film. Eyes, genitals, breasts&hellip;I&acute;ll leave the others as a surprise. I found myself laughing quite a few times throughout the film, perhaps more to cover up my terror at seeing that many snakes on a multi-plex screen than at anything truly funny. High art? Not even close. Fun film? You bet. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/5/15/29220.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 5/15/2008 9:01:18 AM
Body: Variety says Steven Spielberg and co. are strenuously aiming to avoid what we’re apparently calling “The Da Vinci Scenario” –– so named because a “jet-lagged, overtired, cynical mob of critics and executives decimated The Da Vinci Code when it debuted [at Cannes] two years ago”––with this weekend’s debut of Indiana Jones vs. King Shia LaBeouf. Some of their defense tactics: journalists will only be allowed to interview the cast and filmmakers before the press screening, and they won’t be invited to the film’s after party. Because limited access *always* ensures positive pres coverage! Daniel Day-Lewis is in talks to replace Javier Bardem in Rob Marshall’s feature adaptation of Nine, a musical sort of based on Fellini’s 8 1/2. Because men who win Oscars for playing mad men are apparently interchangeable when it comes to casting musicals! Joe Dante––who we love––has signed on to direct an indie horror flick called Bat Out of Hell, about “a red-eye flight from L.A. to New York during which hijackers confront the monstrous cargo.” Because the last semi-intentional camp thriller set on an airplane did so well! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Thu, 15 May 2008 13:01:18 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog5/15/2008 9:01:18 AM Variety says Steven Spielberg and co. are strenuously aiming to avoid what we’re apparently calling “The Da Vinci Scenario” –– so named because a “jet-lagged, overtired, cynical mob of critics and executives decimated The Da Vinci Code when it debuted [at Cannes] two years ago”––with this weekend’s debut of Indiana Jones vs. King Shia LaBeouf. Some of their defense tactics: journalists will only be allowed to interview the cast and filmmakers before the press screening, and they won’t be invited to the film’s after party. Because limited access *always* ensures positive pres coverage! Daniel Day-Lewis is in talks to replace Javier Bardem in Rob Marshall’s feature adaptation of Nine, a musical sort of based on Fellini’s 8 1/2. Because men who win Oscars for playing mad men are apparently interchangeable when it comes to casting musicals! Joe Dante––who we love––has signed on to direct an indie horror flick called Bat Out of Hell, about “a red-eye flight from L.A. to New York during which hijackers confront the monstrous cargo.” Because the last semi-intentional camp thriller set on an airplane did so well! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/15/29219.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/15/2008 9:01:05 AM
Body: Variety says Steven Spielberg and co. are strenuously aiming to avoid what we’re apparently calling “The Da Vinci Scenario” –– so named because a “jet-lagged, overtired, cynical mob of critics and executives decimated The Da Vinci Code when it debuted [at Cannes] two years ago”––with this weekend’s debut of Indiana Jones vs. King Shia LaBeouf. Some of their defense tactics: journalists will only be allowed to interview the cast and filmmakers before the press screening, and they won’t be invited to the film’s after party. Because limited access *always* ensures positive pres coverage! Daniel Day-Lewis is in talks to replace Javier Bardem in Rob Marshall’s feature adaptation of Nine, a musical sort of based on Fellini’s 8 1/2. Because men who win Oscars for playing mad men are apparently interchangeable when it comes to casting musicals! Joe Dante––who we love––has signed on to direct an indie horror flick called Bat Out of Hell, about “a red-eye flight from L.A. to New York during which hijackers confront the monstrous cargo.” Because the last semi-intentional camp thriller set on an airplane did so well! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 15 May 2008 13:01:05 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/15/2008 9:01:05 AM Variety says Steven Spielberg and co. are strenuously aiming to avoid what we’re apparently calling “The Da Vinci Scenario” –– so named because a “jet-lagged, overtired, cynical mob of critics and executives decimated The Da Vinci Code when it debuted [at Cannes] two years ago”––with this weekend’s debut of Indiana Jones vs. King Shia LaBeouf. Some of their defense tactics: journalists will only be allowed to interview the cast and filmmakers before the press screening, and they won’t be invited to the film’s after party. Because limited access *always* ensures positive pres coverage! Daniel Day-Lewis is in talks to replace Javier Bardem in Rob Marshall’s feature adaptation of Nine, a musical sort of based on Fellini’s 8 1/2. Because men who win Oscars for playing mad men are apparently interchangeable when it comes to casting musicals! Joe Dante––who we love––has signed on to direct an indie horror flick called Bat Out of Hell, about “a red-eye flight from L.A. to New York during which hijackers confront the monstrous cargo.” Because the last semi-intentional camp thriller set on an airplane did so well! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/laststarfighter/archive/2008/2/19/25313.aspx Post By: laststarfighter
Post To: laststarfighter Blog
Post Date: 2/19/2008 8:50:35 AM
Body: I read part of the book once back in middle school and became rather bored. I figured the movie would be just the same but in a group of friends 2 out of 3 majority ruled for the film. So I went to please them. Although I consider myself a rather large Star Wars Fanatic, I never cared for Hayden Christensen and his acting career (especially in Star Wars Episode 3: revenge of the sith. But that's another story for a later time). Overall I was not surprised at how my final reaction was to the movie. It sucked. Hands-down. The only parts I really did enjoy was the idea of Jumping (hey, admit it'd be kind of cool to have the power) and well I guess the locations (But those weren't even half as interesting as I would of hoped). I mean seriously, there could of been way better shots and more locations. What bothers me also was WHY WAS ROME the number one choice and not PARIS. I think france would of been a better choice for -- ooh. DO NOT READ AFTER THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS. France would of been a better choice to of taken his stupid little girlfriend, considering it seemed to connect more to the tour de efiel snow globe he gave her. But whatever, the whole romance in the film could of been excluded entirely. I hated his "girl friend" whatever the hell her name was. The way she responded when he first came back to town, "Oh long time no see." PSHT. If I we're here I would of been all over him even if I knew he was already alive. The way she acts when he confesses his power...I mean seriously, even though most people wouldn't react well to that kind of ability I think she would (of all people) would of understood just a little better. What a twat. And As for Twats, Samuel L. Jackson's Role in the movie was, utter crap. It seeemed like another SNAKES ON A PLANE perfomance. "Just doing it for the little amount I can get from this...and the fact that more people will see it because I'm in it. I disproved of his character and believe he could of been scripted better. His orginazation could of been better explained. The connection his mother had with the company could of been more included AND HER FINAL REACTION IN THE END WAS UTTER CRAP. "I love you, but I'm probably going to kill you anyway because you're some sort of an abomination. Here's a head start, now get out of my house." Pft. The film would of been better with better scripting, better locations and JAMIE BELL as the lead. I believe he would of played the role better than Christensen. Overall 2 out of 5 stars.
]]>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:50:35 GMTlaststarfighterlaststarfighter Blog2/19/2008 8:50:35 AMI read part of the book once back in middle school and became rather bored. I figured the movie would be just the same but in a group of friends 2 out of 3 majority ruled for the film. So I went to please them. Although I consider myself a rather large Star Wars Fanatic, I never cared for Hayden Christensen and his acting career (especially in Star Wars Episode 3: revenge of the sith. But that&#39;s another story for a later time). Overall I was not surprised at how my final reaction was to the movie. It sucked. Hands-down. The only parts I really did enjoy was the idea of Jumping (hey, admit it&#39;d be kind of cool to have the power) and well I guess the locations (But those weren&#39;t even half as interesting as I would of hoped). I mean seriously, there could of been way better shots and more locations. What bothers me also was WHY WAS ROME the number one choice and not PARIS. I think france would of been a better choice for -- ooh. DO NOT READ AFTER THIS IF YOU DON&#39;T WANT SPOILERS. France would of been a better choice to of taken his stupid little girlfriend, considering it seemed to connect more to the tour de efiel snow globe he gave her. But whatever, the whole romance in the film could of been excluded entirely. I hated his &quot;girl friend&quot; whatever the hell her name was. The way she responded when he first came back to town, &quot;Oh long time no see.&quot; PSHT. If I we&#39;re here I would of been all over him even if I knew he was already alive. The way she acts when he confesses his power...I mean seriously, even though most people wouldn&#39;t react well to that kind of ability I think she would (of all people) would of understood just a little better. What a twat. And As for Twats, Samuel L. Jackson&#39;s Role in the movie was, utter crap. It seeemed like another SNAKES ON A PLANE perfomance. &quot;Just doing it for the little amount I can get from this...and the fact that more people will see it because I&#39;m in it. I disproved of his character and believe he could of been scripted better. His orginazation could of been better explained. The connection his mother had with the company could of been more included AND HER FINAL REACTION IN THE END WAS UTTER CRAP. &quot;I love you, but I&#39;m probably going to kill you anyway because you&#39;re some sort of an abomination. Here&#39;s a head start, now get out of my house.&quot; Pft. The film would of been better with better scripting, better locations and JAMIE BELL as the lead. I believe he would of played the role better than Christensen. Overall 2 out of 5 stars. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/15/23922.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/15/2008 4:01:00 PM
Body: Forget about betting on the NFL playoffs. Forget about betting on the Oscar nominations. In fact, forget about betting on whether the Oscars will even happen. The only thing you gamblers should be betting on right now is whether Cloverfield is going to be a box office hit or a box office bomb. Because right now, it’s any body’s game. If the monster movie ends up being the former, it will most likely only be only a modest hit. But if it’s the latter, it will be legendary. Actually, some people think the movie is going to be this year’s Snakes on a Plane. I have a feeling it has more appeal on its own than did Snakes, mainly because people are curious about the monster. There was nothing in the marketing of Snakes on a Plane that made us wonder, nothing that wet our appetites for surprises. Now, if we had already seen a visual of Cloverfield’s monster it would be a different story. And after the opening weekend, after somebody posts a photo of the monster on the web (instead of simply a rendering), moviegoers may no longer be as interested in going to see it. So, the real bet is that Cloverfield will make a decent amount of money in its opening, but like most Hollywood product will suffer a huge drop in ticket sales afterward. I think that a lot of people are really hoping for Cloverfield to crash and burn, though. On Sunday, the New York Post featured an article detailing why Cloverfield will bomb. Of course, the Post is owned by the same people who want you to believe Cloverfield exploits 9/11. The article was also written before the first press screening, which is apparently tonight (I won’t be there, unfortunately). So far, though, some people have managed to see the movie, including Harry Knowles, that other hilariously nutty AICN dude, Jeffrey Wells and E!, and everyone seems to love it. So, I’m putting all in for Cloverfield to win at the box office this weekend. We’ll see on Sunday if I’ve gone for broke or won the pot. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:01:00 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/15/2008 4:01:00 PMForget about betting on the NFL playoffs. Forget about betting on the Oscar nominations. In fact, forget about betting on whether the Oscars will even happen. The only thing you gamblers should be betting on right now is whether Cloverfield is going to be a box office hit or a box office bomb. Because right now, it’s any body’s game. If the monster movie ends up being the former, it will most likely only be only a modest hit. But if it’s the latter, it will be legendary. Actually, some people think the movie is going to be this year’s Snakes on a Plane. I have a feeling it has more appeal on its own than did Snakes, mainly because people are curious about the monster. There was nothing in the marketing of Snakes on a Plane that made us wonder, nothing that wet our appetites for surprises. Now, if we had already seen a visual of Cloverfield’s monster it would be a different story. And after the opening weekend, after somebody posts a photo of the monster on the web (instead of simply a rendering), moviegoers may no longer be as interested in going to see it. So, the real bet is that Cloverfield will make a decent amount of money in its opening, but like most Hollywood product will suffer a huge drop in ticket sales afterward. I think that a lot of people are really hoping for Cloverfield to crash and burn, though. On Sunday, the New York Post featured an article detailing why Cloverfield will bomb. Of course, the Post is owned by the same people who want you to believe Cloverfield exploits 9/11. The article was also written before the first press screening, which is apparently tonight (I won’t be there, unfortunately). So far, though, some people have managed to see the movie, including Harry Knowles, that other hilariously nutty AICN dude, Jeffrey Wells and E!, and everyone seems to love it. So, I’m putting all in for Cloverfield to win at the box office this weekend. We’ll see on Sunday if I’ve gone for broke or won the pot. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/moviebabe/archive/2007/7/19/15351.aspx Post By: MovieBabe
Post To: MovieBabe Blog
Post Date: 7/19/2007 9:42:00 PM
Body: By Tricia Olszewski With no press screenings yet a year’s worth of hype, the Movie With the Name threatened to be a throwaway Boat to Heaven—which is what star Samuel L. Jackson said the producers might as well call the film if they changed its title to the snooze-worthy Pacific Air Flight 121 as intended. So the brilliantly stupid Snakes on a Plane nom de crap stayed put, and surprisingly, it’s a thriller so entertaining that it makes recent disaster flicks such as Poseidon look like the real trash. Similar in concept to Scream, SoaP consciously mocks the we’re-all-going-to-die formula of its genre while painting the numbers too cleverly to be exiled to so-bad-it’s-good territory. The setup, if anyone cares, involves Sean (Nathan Phillips), a murder witness whom a sorta-scary Agent Flynn (Jackson) persuades to testify. Flynn escorts Sean out of Hawaii and into protective custody on a flying machine that the creative killer, despite extensive security precautions, has rigged with crates of serpents and leis sprayed with snake-agitating pheromones. Directed by Final Destination 2’s David R. Ellis and written by John Heffernan and Sebastian Gutierrez, with (widely reported) input from Web-boarding boosters and a (not so widely reported) resemblance to a 1998 Saturday Night Live skit, SoaP succeeds because its hamming is selective. The stereotypes, such as a flight attendant on her last day (Julianna Margulies), a princess carrying a Chihuahua (Rachel Blanchard), and a better-than-thou prick who huffs about everything (Gerard Plunkett), are unabashed, and the snake-o-vision, sort of like looking through unfocused night-vision goggles, is cheesy. But the acting is fine (Jackson hasn’t been as pitch-perfect tempestuous since Pulp Fiction) and the humor plentiful (watching a snake get peed on is unexpectedly hilarious). Best, the filmmakers kept in mind that SoaP, title be damned, is meant to tense you up like a hug from a boa constrictor; considering the action starts early, its stress level remains impressively consistent until the end. Drop the Plan 9 predictions and enjoy every motherfuckin’ minute of Snakes on a Plane.
]]>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:42:00 GMTMovieBabeMovieBabe Blog7/19/2007 9:42:00 PM By Tricia Olszewski With no press screenings yet a year&rsquo;s worth of hype, the Movie With the Name threatened to be a throwaway Boat to Heaven&mdash;which is what star Samuel L. Jackson said the producers might as well call the film if they changed its title to the snooze-worthy Pacific Air Flight 121 as intended. So the brilliantly stupid Snakes on a Plane nom de crap stayed put, and surprisingly, it&rsquo;s a thriller so entertaining that it makes recent disaster flicks such as Poseidon look like the real trash. Similar in concept to Scream, SoaP consciously mocks the we&rsquo;re-all-going-to-die formula of its genre while painting the numbers too cleverly to be exiled to so-bad-it&rsquo;s-good territory. The setup, if anyone cares, involves Sean (Nathan Phillips), a murder witness whom a sorta-scary Agent Flynn (Jackson) persuades to testify. Flynn escorts Sean out of Hawaii and into protective custody on a flying machine that the creative killer, despite extensive security precautions, has rigged with crates of serpents and leis sprayed with snake-agitating pheromones. Directed by Final Destination 2&rsquo;s David R. Ellis and written by John Heffernan and Sebastian Gutierrez, with (widely reported) input from Web-boarding boosters and a (not so widely reported) resemblance to a 1998 Saturday Night Live skit, SoaP succeeds because its hamming is selective. The stereotypes, such as a flight attendant on her last day (Julianna Margulies), a princess carrying a Chihuahua (Rachel Blanchard), and a better-than-thou prick who huffs about everything (Gerard Plunkett), are unabashed, and the snake-o-vision, sort of like looking through unfocused night-vision goggles, is cheesy. But the acting is fine (Jackson hasn&rsquo;t been as pitch-perfect tempestuous since Pulp Fiction) and the humor plentiful (watching a snake get peed on is unexpectedly hilarious). Best, the filmmakers kept in mind that SoaP, title be damned, is meant to tense you up like a hug from a boa constrictor; considering the action starts early, its stress level remains impressively consistent until the end. Drop the Plan 9 predictions and enjoy every motherfuckin&rsquo; minute of Snakes on a Plane. http://www.spout.com/blogs/dj4our/archive/2007/7/2/12815.aspx Post By: dj4our
Post To: dj4our Blog
Post Date: 7/2/2007 8:45:22 AM
Body: SNAKES ON A PLANE (2006)**R for language, a scene of sexuality and drug use, and intense sequences of terror and violence.1 hr. 45 min.written by: Dave Delassandro & John Hefferman & Sebastion Gutierrez produced by: Craig Berenson, Dave Granger, & Gary Levinsohndirected by: David Ellis"Snakes....why did it have to be snakes?" - Indiana JonesThe virtual match that struck up the heat on this movie happened about this time last year, methinks. It may have started with the curiousity that surrounded the film's title which I'm sure must have started as a movie execs joke or fatigued brainstorm. How many times do you see a movie summed up in it's title....I mean, there's "Scary Movie" but that's an obvious parody. But, here's a movie with all intentions and purposes intact. I mean the story and characters are playing this serious but the director is laughing along with you. So is Samuel L. Jackson who the producers can thank for ever getting this movie to the big screen. He supported this movie even when there were thoughts about changing the title. I figured a stupid action/suspense/horror film with a dumb title starring Jackson has gotta be worth a look see. I knew its hype was overblown last August still I knew I'd see it on DVD at some point....The movie starts with surfer named Sean Jones (Nathan Phillips) driving around Hawaii on his dirt bike and sucking back some Red Bull when he comes across a gangster named Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson) in the midst of killing someone who got just a little too close for comfort. Kim sees him and sends his cronies after him – they can't leave any witnesses alive, of course. Sean heads back to his apartment (which is stocked with more Red Bull) and just as he hears someone breaking in through the front door he heads out back and meets Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson), an F.B.I. agent who has somehow managed to find out what's happening and arrive just in time to save him from certain death. Yeah, if they plane had as many plotholes as the story the movie would end real quick.Flynn and his partner convince Sean to testify against Kim and decide to fly him back to LA where the trial is goin' down. They commandeer the second level-first class section of a big ol' jetliner and, with the rest of the supporting cast tucked firmly away in coach and a witty pilot named Rick Archibald (the great David Koechner) in the cockpit, they leave Hawaii for the lengthy trip over the Pacific Ocean. Where there's nothing but, yes, water....and you know snakes are gonna be on this plane and there's nowhere to go! Kim has somehow managed to get a gigantic box of poisonous snakes on the plane and has had all of the lei's that the passengers were given by the airline doused in a pheromone that is known to make snakes unusually aggressive. Once they're up in the air, the snakes are unleashed and Agent Flynn has to take charge of the situation to make sure that he gets Sean safely to L.A. while trying to save as many innocent civilians as possible. Thankfully, he's not completely alone – there are four members of the flight crew: Grace (Lin Shaye), Claire (Julianna Margulies), Tiffany (Sunny Mabrey) and Ken (Bruce James), a rapper named Three G's (Flex Alexander – a great name for an action figure!) and his two body guards Troy (Kenan Thompson) and Big Leroy (Keith Dallas), a ditzy Paris Hilton (Rachal Blanchard) type chick with her annoying tiny dog (you know that dog's fate), a snooty English dude (Gerard Plunkett) who doesn't like Americans or the ditzy chick's dog, and a young foreign lady (Elsa Pataky) and her newborn baby. Oh, and there's a competitive kickboxer (Terry Chen) on the plane too, but he doesn't really do much. If this cast of characters seems over the top or crazy just remember those Airport disaster movies from the '70's and all the various victims they had on those planes. That's pretty much the same deal here. Jackson's screen presence and penchant for chewing through even the thickest of scenery are reason enough to give this a look, the best part of the movie is the creativity and complete stupidity of the snakes themselves. Wanna see a couple who smoke a doobie and try to join the mile high club get attacked by snakes? You got it. Wanna see a guy take a leak and have his ding-a-ling get attacked by a snake that jumps out of the toilet? You got it...they thought of that too! Snakes are all over this plane, biting women in the eyes and fat dudes on their heiny with reckless abandon. You've got big snakes, small snakes, in-between snakes - snakes of many colors, shapes and size are all here, and they're all biting people like crazy. There's even a burmese python that somehow got in the lights and crashes down to squeeze to death the snotty English dude. After a while you're cheering for them reptiles....way to go snakes! Let's be real....if you're the type of viewer who wants realism in their cinema, this one ain't for you. Even if you're able to suspend your disbelief easily enough, it's hard not to scratch your head wondering why certain characters do what they do or even how exactly the snakes got on the plane undetected in the first place. There are so many flubs in the film that it's hard to keep track of them all, and nothing really happens for any logical reason either. The characters are all stereotypes of some sort (with Jackson even playing the stereotype of himself) and the dialogue and actions of these stereotypes play exactly as you would expect them to. That being said, the movie is a lot of fun! Its' big, dumb, and it knows it. It works in elements from disaster movies, horror movies, and action movies with plenty of darkly comic touches. The end result is a sort of tasty can of cheap genre stew. Not something you'd order at a fancy restaurant, but a tasty meal of a movie that warms your belly and which satisfies your hunger....for venom in the sky! High art it's not, but it's a great beer and pizza movie.
]]>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:45:22 GMTdj4ourdj4our Blog7/2/2007 8:45:22 AMSNAKES ON A PLANE (2006)**R for language, a scene of sexuality and drug use, and intense sequences of terror and violence.1 hr. 45 min.written by: Dave Delassandro &amp; John Hefferman &amp; Sebastion Gutierrez produced by: Craig Berenson, Dave Granger, &amp; Gary Levinsohndirected by: David Ellis&quot;Snakes....why did it have to be snakes?&quot; - Indiana JonesThe virtual match that struck up the heat on this movie happened about this time last year, methinks. It may have started with the curiousity that surrounded the film's title which I'm sure must have started as a movie execs joke or fatigued brainstorm. How many times do you see a movie summed up in it's title....I mean, there's &quot;Scary Movie&quot; but that's an obvious parody. But, here's a movie with all intentions and purposes intact. I mean the story and characters are playing this serious but the director is laughing along with you. So is Samuel L. Jackson who the producers can thank for ever getting this movie to the big screen. He supported this movie even when there were thoughts about changing the title. I figured a stupid action/suspense/horror film with a dumb title starring Jackson has gotta be worth a look see. I knew its hype was overblown last August still I knew I'd see it on DVD at some point....The movie starts with surfer named Sean Jones (Nathan Phillips) driving around Hawaii on his dirt bike and sucking back some Red Bull when he comes across a gangster named Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson) in the midst of killing someone who got just a little too close for comfort. Kim sees him and sends his cronies after him &ndash; they can't leave any witnesses alive, of course. Sean heads back to his apartment (which is stocked with more Red Bull) and just as he hears someone breaking in through the front door he heads out back and meets Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson), an F.B.I. agent who has somehow managed to find out what's happening and arrive just in time to save him from certain death. Yeah, if they plane had as many plotholes as the story the movie would end real quick.Flynn and his partner convince Sean to testify against Kim and decide to fly him back to LA where the trial is goin' down. They commandeer the second level-first class section of a big ol' jetliner and, with the rest of the supporting cast tucked firmly away in coach and a witty pilot named Rick Archibald (the great David Koechner) in the cockpit, they leave Hawaii for the lengthy trip over the Pacific Ocean. Where there's nothing but, yes, water....and you know snakes are gonna be on this plane and there's nowhere to go! Kim has somehow managed to get a gigantic box of poisonous snakes on the plane and has had all of the lei's that the passengers were given by the airline doused in a pheromone that is known to make snakes unusually aggressive. Once they're up in the air, the snakes are unleashed and Agent Flynn has to take charge of the situation to make sure that he gets Sean safely to L.A. while trying to save as many innocent civilians as possible. Thankfully, he's not completely alone &ndash; there are four members of the flight crew: Grace (Lin Shaye), Claire (Julianna Margulies), Tiffany (Sunny Mabrey) and Ken (Bruce James), a rapper named Three G's (Flex Alexander &ndash; a great name for an action figure!) and his two body guards Troy (Kenan Thompson) and Big Leroy (Keith Dallas), a ditzy Paris Hilton (Rachal Blanchard) type chick with her annoying tiny dog (you know that dog's fate), a snooty English dude (Gerard Plunkett) who doesn't like Americans or the ditzy chick's dog, and a young foreign lady (Elsa Pataky) and her newborn baby. Oh, and there's a competitive kickboxer (Terry Chen) on the plane too, but he doesn't really do much. If this cast of characters seems over the top or crazy just remember those Airport disaster movies from the '70's and all the various victims they had on those planes. That's pretty much the same deal here. Jackson's screen presence and penchant for chewing through even the thickest of scenery are reason enough to give this a look, the best part of the movie is the creativity and complete stupidity of the snakes themselves. Wanna see a couple who smoke a doobie and try to join the mile high club get attacked by snakes? You got it. Wanna see a guy take a leak and have his ding-a-ling get attacked by a snake that jumps out of the toilet? You got it...they thought of that too! Snakes are all over this plane, biting women in the eyes and fat dudes on their heiny with reckless abandon. You've got big snakes, small snakes, in-between snakes - snakes of many colors, shapes and size are all here, and they're all biting people like crazy. There's even a burmese python that somehow got in the lights and crashes down to squeeze to death the snotty English dude. After a while you're cheering for them reptiles....way to go snakes! Let's be real....if you're the type of viewer who wants realism in their cinema, this one ain't for you. Even if you're able to suspend your disbelief easily enough, it's hard not to scratch your head wondering why certain characters do what they do or even how exactly the snakes got on the plane undetected in the first place. There are so many flubs in the film that it's hard to keep track of them all, and nothing really happens for any logical reason either. The characters are all stereotypes of some sort (with Jackson even playing the stereotype of himself) and the dialogue and actions of these stereotypes play exactly as you would expect them to. That being said, the movie is a lot of fun! Its' big, dumb, and it knows it. It works in elements from disaster movies, horror movies, and action movies with plenty of darkly comic touches. The end result is a sort of tasty can of cheap genre stew. Not something you'd order at a fancy restaurant, but a tasty meal of a movie that warms your belly and which satisfies your hunger....for venom in the sky! High art it's not, but it's a great beer and pizza movie. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 315

Number of times used: 939

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:40:23 GMT606315939Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hilarious/MemberTagFilms.aspxhilarious
Number of films tagged: 222

Number of people who tagged: 165

Number of times used: 331

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:04 GMT222165331Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fun/MemberTagFilms.aspxfun
Number of films tagged: 459

Number of people who tagged: 142

Number of times used: 296

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:09 GMT459142296Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drugs/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrugs
Number of films tagged: 1642

Number of people who tagged: 130

Number of times used: 487

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:12:04 GMT1642130487Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2413

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 547

]]>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:19:12 GMT2413126547Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Stupid/MemberTagFilms.aspxStupid
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 99

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:12:14 GMT837099Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awful/MemberTagFilms.aspxawful
Number of films tagged: 81

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 88

]]>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:48:37 GMT814188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criminal/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriminal
Number of films tagged: 3388

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 56

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT33882756Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ridiculous/MemberTagFilms.aspxridiculous
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 29

]]>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:30:57 GMT272229Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/airplane/MemberTagFilms.aspxairplane
Number of films tagged: 429

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 41

]]>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:43:45 GMT4291941Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/snakes/MemberTagFilms.aspxsnakes
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 25

]]>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:23:23 GMT131925Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pilot/MemberTagFilms.aspxpilot
Number of films tagged: 410

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 30

]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:02:27 GMT4101530Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/plane/MemberTagFilms.aspxplane
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 17

]]>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:57:23 GMT161417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/snake/MemberTagFilms.aspxsnake
Number of films tagged: 134

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 22

]]>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:56:14 GMT1341422Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/witness/MemberTagFilms.aspxwitness
Number of films tagged: 771

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 24

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:58:40 GMT7711424Tag