list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around On the Waterfront 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/On_the_Waterfront/25419/default.aspx Title: On the Waterfront
Year: 1954
Director: Elia Kazan
Plot: This classic story of Mob informers was based on a number of true stories and filmed on location in and around the docks of New York and New Jersey. Mob-connected union boss Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb) rules the waterfront with an iron fist. The police know that he's been responsible for a number of murders, but witnesses play deaf and dumb ("plead D & D"). Washed-up boxer Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) has had an errand-boy job because of the influence of his brother Charley, a crooked union lawyer (Rod Steiger). Witnessing one of Friendly's rub-outs, Terry is willing to keep his mouth shut until he meets the dead dockworker's sister, Edie (Eva Marie Saint). "Waterfront priest" Father Barry (Karl Malden) tells Terry that Edie's brother was killed because he was going to testify against boss Friendly before the crime commission. Because he could have intervened, but didn't, Terry feels somewhat responsible for the death. When Father Barry receives a beating from Friendly's goons, Terry is persuaded to cooperate with the commission. Featuring Brando's famous "I coulda been a contendah" speech, On the Waterfront has often been seen as an allegory of "naming names" against suspected Communists during the anti-Communist investigations of the 1950s. Director Elia Kazan famously informed on suspected Communists before a government committee -- unlike many of his colleagues, some of whom went to prison for refusing to "name names" and many more of whom were blacklisted from working in the film industry for many years to come -- and Budd Schulberg's screenplay has often been read as an elaborate defense of the informer's position. On the Waterfront won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor for Brando, and Best Supporting Actress for Saint. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 21
Number of Lists: 45
Number of blog posts: 4
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:22:29 GMTOn the Waterfront1954Elia KazanThis classic story of Mob informers was based on a number of true stories and filmed on location in and around the docks of New York and New Jersey. Mob-connected union boss Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb) rules the waterfront with an iron fist. The police know that he's been responsible for a number of murders, but witnesses play deaf and dumb ("plead D & D"). Washed-up boxer Terry Malloy (<a href="/players/P_____8070/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Marlon Brando</a>) has had an errand-boy job because of the influence of his brother Charley, a crooked union lawyer (<a href="/players/P____67882/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Rod Steiger</a>). Witnessing one of Friendly's rub-outs, Terry is willing to keep his mouth shut until he meets the dead dockworker's sister, Edie (<a href="/players/P____62641/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eva Marie Saint</a>). "Waterfront priest" Father Barry (<a href="/players/P____44670/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Karl Malden</a>) tells Terry that Edie's brother was killed because he was going to testify against boss Friendly before the crime commission. Because he could have intervened, but didn't, Terry feels somewhat responsible for the death. When Father Barry receives a beating from Friendly's goons, Terry is persuaded to cooperate with the commission. Featuring Brando's famous "I coulda been a contendah" speech, On the Waterfront has often been seen as an allegory of "naming names" against suspected Communists during the anti-Communist investigations of the 1950s. Director <a href="/players/P____96965/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Elia Kazan</a> famously informed on suspected Communists before a government committee -- unlike many of his colleagues, some of whom went to prison for refusing to "name names" and many more of whom were blacklisted from working in the film industry for many years to come -- and <a href="/players/P___164679/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Budd Schulberg</a>'s screenplay has often been read as an elaborate defense of the informer's position. On the Waterfront won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor for Brando, and Best Supporting Actress for Saint. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide21Tag Target (>10)45414http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t139722vrv2.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/On_the_Waterfront/25419/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/15/38418.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/15/2008 6:00:57 PM
Body: When the Golden Globe nominations were announced last week, there was one glaring omission from the Best Supporting Actor category: a nod for Milk. Actually, there were four glaring omissions, because Milk still does not have a definite forerunner among its quartet of campaigned-for supporting actors, which includes Josh Brolin, James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Diego Luna. Did the Hollywood Foreign Press Association truly snub the film, as has been suggested, or could the organization simply not decide which actor to nominate? Perhaps the two favorites, Brolin and Franco, cancelled each other out. If so, the Academy needs to ensure that such a thing doesn’t happen with its Oscar nominations. And the best way to do this is to get behind Diego Luna for Best Supporting Actor. This will no doubt seem like a ridiculous suggestion this late in the game, particularly to the critics who fail to appreciate Luna’s performance. His character, Jack Lira, has been labeled underwritten and unnecessary –– neither of which is true –– and “annoying,” which is precisely how the real Lira was thought of anyway. Kirk Honeycutt at The Hollywood Reporter called Luna’s performance “looped,” Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe joked that the actor “appears to have wandered over from some drunken college production of Pedro Almodovar’s Bad Education,” and A.O. Scott at The New York Times wrote that Lira is played “with an operatic verve that stops just short of camp,” which is a little more polite than the multiple reviews that actually straight-up call it camp. Then, there’s Slant critic Ed Gonzalez, who does the most damage, claiming the performance is “embarrassing, miscalculated.” The easiest way to lash back at these criticisms is to accuse most reviewers as being biased against flamboyancy. Sure, Luna’s portrayal of Lira can be viewed as over the top, but that’s not the fault of the actor. And to otherwise negatively respond to the character as “camp” is to display an issue with such insecure personalities as Lira, who projects a boisterous over-identification with the flamboyancy of homosexuality as a sort of masochistic masquerade. The character of Lira is not so much underwritten as unknown and unwelcome, which was basically the reality of his context within Harvey Milk’s campaign. But then to consider the accuracy of Lira’s character and of Luna’s portrayal is to wrongly think that Milk is concrete in capturing the true story. Rather, Milk is more the familiar tale of any martyr who sacrifices his own happiness for the happiness of the masses, who damages his own relationships in order to make possible others’ relationships. For this, Lira is a necessary narrative device, both in terms of contrasting with Franco’s more reserved love-interest character and in terms of contrasting, as the single-save, with the larger civil rights goal at hand. In this role, Luna certainly goes above and beyond the call for serviceability in his portrait of jealous desperation and the politically dismissed individual. Highlighting the critics’ praises for Luna would unfortunately amount to quoting mostly also-ran notices in which he’s included, by name or not, within celebrations of the whole supporting ensemble (including the one supporting actress contender, Alison Pill). Indeed, it is this recognition of the film’s ensemble that has probably allowed for so much of a split among the film’s kudos, and yet it’s one of Milk’s greater assets that there is such equality and consistency with regards to the characters and the acting. Sean Penn may be the obvious lead, and his performance may be spotlighted above the others as a result, but in group scenes Gus Van Sant places the titular character in a fairly even playing field with the rest, enough that Focus Features may just as well have included Joseph Cross, Victor Garber and other unrecognized cast members on its For Your Consideration posters for Milk. In a perfect world they all could be nominated, and honored, as they will be when the film most assuredly wins the Outstanding Performance by a Cast award at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. But the closest thing for the Academy to do in this fashion would be to name all four campaigned-for supporting actors from Milk. Considering a lack of sure things in the category other than Heath Ledger, who is certain to win the award posthumously, there would be little harm in having the other slots filled by Brolin, Franco, Hirsch and Luna. Plus, it would make Oscar history, as it would be the first time the Academy nominated four actors in this category (three films have had three actors nominated: On the Waterfront; The Godfather and The Godfather Part II). Another idea is to simply shrug away the three most celebrated contenders (Brolin, Franco and Hirsch, respectively #2, #6 and #10 on The Envelope’s Supporting Actor Buzzmeter) and pull out the underdog, the non-registering yet still deserving Luna. The other alternative is to continue the divide, which will lead to a category as follows: Ledger (The Dark Knight); Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road); Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt); Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder); Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire). With no love for either Franco, who has been chosen by the Independent Spirit Awards and the Golden Satellite Awards, or Brolin, who has been picked by the National Board of Review and the New York Film Critics. Both actors were actually jointly selected as nominees for the Broadcast Film Critics Association’s awards, but it’s difficult to imagine this compromise happening with the Academy’s voters, who may have a one-or-the-other attitude when considering whose year, Brolin’s or Franco’s, it really was. Both actors equally deserve the recognition for their collective 2008 performances, though that shouldn’t necessarily count towards a nomination for a single role, and both are sure to be cast in more Oscar-worthy parts in the future. Hirsch, likewise, is due for the honor after being ignored last year and will similarly continue to acquire juicy roles in the future. Luna, on the other hand, is less likely to get the kinds of roles that attract Oscar recognition, especially if his negative reviews from Milk follow him in his career. So, in a way, he’s the more deserving supporting actor in the bunch.  Not only did he give as remarkable a performance as his fellow cast members, but also he’s probably the one who’ll most benefit from the honor. And the Oscars needn’t be so much a competition and marking of who is best; it ought to be a general celebration of great talent and also a push for further excellence from such talent. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:00:57 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/15/2008 6:00:57 PMWhen the Golden Globe nominations were announced last week, there was one glaring omission from the Best Supporting Actor category: a nod for Milk. Actually, there were four glaring omissions, because Milk still does not have a definite forerunner among its quartet of campaigned-for supporting actors, which includes Josh Brolin, James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Diego Luna. Did the Hollywood Foreign Press Association truly snub the film, as has been suggested, or could the organization simply not decide which actor to nominate? Perhaps the two favorites, Brolin and Franco, cancelled each other out. If so, the Academy needs to ensure that such a thing doesn’t happen with its Oscar nominations. And the best way to do this is to get behind Diego Luna for Best Supporting Actor. This will no doubt seem like a ridiculous suggestion this late in the game, particularly to the critics who fail to appreciate Luna’s performance. His character, Jack Lira, has been labeled underwritten and unnecessary –– neither of which is true –– and “annoying,” which is precisely how the real Lira was thought of anyway. Kirk Honeycutt at The Hollywood Reporter called Luna’s performance “looped,” Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe joked that the actor “appears to have wandered over from some drunken college production of Pedro Almodovar’s Bad Education,” and A.O. Scott at The New York Times wrote that Lira is played “with an operatic verve that stops just short of camp,” which is a little more polite than the multiple reviews that actually straight-up call it camp. Then, there’s Slant critic Ed Gonzalez, who does the most damage, claiming the performance is “embarrassing, miscalculated.” The easiest way to lash back at these criticisms is to accuse most reviewers as being biased against flamboyancy. Sure, Luna’s portrayal of Lira can be viewed as over the top, but that’s not the fault of the actor. And to otherwise negatively respond to the character as “camp” is to display an issue with such insecure personalities as Lira, who projects a boisterous over-identification with the flamboyancy of homosexuality as a sort of masochistic masquerade. The character of Lira is not so much underwritten as unknown and unwelcome, which was basically the reality of his context within Harvey Milk’s campaign. But then to consider the accuracy of Lira’s character and of Luna’s portrayal is to wrongly think that Milk is concrete in capturing the true story. Rather, Milk is more the familiar tale of any martyr who sacrifices his own happiness for the happiness of the masses, who damages his own relationships in order to make possible others’ relationships. For this, Lira is a necessary narrative device, both in terms of contrasting with Franco’s more reserved love-interest character and in terms of contrasting, as the single-save, with the larger civil rights goal at hand. In this role, Luna certainly goes above and beyond the call for serviceability in his portrait of jealous desperation and the politically dismissed individual. Highlighting the critics’ praises for Luna would unfortunately amount to quoting mostly also-ran notices in which he’s included, by name or not, within celebrations of the whole supporting ensemble (including the one supporting actress contender, Alison Pill). Indeed, it is this recognition of the film’s ensemble that has probably allowed for so much of a split among the film’s kudos, and yet it’s one of Milk’s greater assets that there is such equality and consistency with regards to the characters and the acting. Sean Penn may be the obvious lead, and his performance may be spotlighted above the others as a result, but in group scenes Gus Van Sant places the titular character in a fairly even playing field with the rest, enough that Focus Features may just as well have included Joseph Cross, Victor Garber and other unrecognized cast members on its For Your Consideration posters for Milk. In a perfect world they all could be nominated, and honored, as they will be when the film most assuredly wins the Outstanding Performance by a Cast award at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. But the closest thing for the Academy to do in this fashion would be to name all four campaigned-for supporting actors from Milk. Considering a lack of sure things in the category other than Heath Ledger, who is certain to win the award posthumously, there would be little harm in having the other slots filled by Brolin, Franco, Hirsch and Luna. Plus, it would make Oscar history, as it would be the first time the Academy nominated four actors in this category (three films have had three actors nominated: On the Waterfront; The Godfather and The Godfather Part II). Another idea is to simply shrug away the three most celebrated contenders (Brolin, Franco and Hirsch, respectively #2, #6 and #10 on The Envelope’s Supporting Actor Buzzmeter) and pull out the underdog, the non-registering yet still deserving Luna. The other alternative is to continue the divide, which will lead to a category as follows: Ledger (The Dark Knight); Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road); Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt); Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder); Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire). With no love for either Franco, who has been chosen by the Independent Spirit Awards and the Golden Satellite Awards, or Brolin, who has been picked by the National Board of Review and the New York Film Critics. Both actors were actually jointly selected as nominees for the Broadcast Film Critics Association’s awards, but it’s difficult to imagine this compromise happening with the Academy’s voters, who may have a one-or-the-other attitude when considering whose year, Brolin’s or Franco’s, it really was. Both actors equally deserve the recognition for their collective 2008 performances, though that shouldn’t necessarily count towards a nomination for a single role, and both are sure to be cast in more Oscar-worthy parts in the future. Hirsch, likewise, is due for the honor after being ignored last year and will similarly continue to acquire juicy roles in the future. Luna, on the other hand, is less likely to get the kinds of roles that attract Oscar recognition, especially if his negative reviews from Milk follow him in his career. So, in a way, he’s the more deserving supporting actor in the bunch.  Not only did he give as remarkable a performance as his fellow cast members, but also he’s probably the one who’ll most benefit from the honor. And the Oscars needn’t be so much a competition and marking of who is best; it ought to be a general celebration of great talent and also a push for further excellence from such talent. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_Recasting_THE_BIG_LEBOWSKI_1998/563/34850/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: dreamtupelo
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/6/2008 6:52:35 PM
Body: From 1949 through 1957, Elia Kazan seemed unstoppable. Not only did he direct one film per year, but those nine films were nominated for a total of 41 oscars, winning 15, including best director for On The Waterfront. Then there would be a two year gap before his next film. Most people believed the two years were consumed by his return to Broadway, most notably for producing/directing William Inge's The Dark At The Top Of The Stairs. But digging through media archives for a recent episode of Inside the Actor's Studio, Lames Lipton discovered a rough cut believed to be lost forever. After an unprecedented run of dramatic films and stage productions, Kazan, wanting to try his hand at comedy, bought an unproduced script written by I.A.L. Diamond, which Billy Wilder had passed on in favor of Some Like It Hot. Legend has it that Wilder was kept in the dark until shooting had wrapped. Apparently Lillian Hellman, still furious with Kazan for naming names during the McCarthy hearings, informed Wilder, who then convinced Gloria Swanson (who was apparently always up for an adventure) to break into the studio and destroy the negatives before they could be printed. Kazan didn't have the heart to start from scratch, and so returned to his Broadway roots. Over thirty years later, Joel and Ethan Coen came across the Diamond script at an old memorabilia shop on Hollywood Boulevard, and the rest is history.Apparently Walter Mathau had lobbied for the role of The Dude, but Kazan had his heart set on Dean Martin. Unfortunately Martin was already committed to filming Rio Bravo, so Kazan turned to his 1957 Face In The Crowd star Andy Griffith instead (he tried to appease Mathau by casting him as The Stranger). Studio heads were dubious about Griffith (they wanted a more proven comedic actor like Jack Lemmon or Dean Martin), but were somewhat appeased by Anthony Quinn and Montgomery Clift playing his bowling buddies.Kazan fleshed out the rest of the cast with familiar veterans of his stage and film productions. The exception was his choice for the pivotal Jesus Quintana. Kazan had an open call and had all but given up when an athletic looking young actor sauntered onto the soundstage. From Ricardo Montalban's first line, Kazan knew he had found his Jesus.One of the few surviving annecdotes about the set was of a drunken brawl between Rod Steiger and Jack Palance, which might have got out of hand had Anthony Quinn not knocked their heads together. Director: Elia Kazan (the actor's studio version)Andy Griffith ... The DudeAnthony Quinn ... Walter SobchakMontgomery Clift ... DonnyGeraldine Page ... Maude LebowskiBurl Ives ... Jeffrey Lebowski - The Big LebowskiPaul Newman ... BrandtNatalie Wood ... Bunny LebowskiMartin Landau ... Knox Harrington (the weirdo in Maude's loft)Henry Silva ... Woo, Treehorn ThugDennis Hopper ... Blond Treehorn ThugEli Wallach ... Nihilist #1, Uli Kunkel / 'Karl Hungus' Dean Stockwell ... Nihilist #2, Kieffer ("It's not fair!")Richard Davalos ... Nihilist #3, Franz ("I break you!")Carl Malden ... Marty, the Dude's landlordWalter Mathau ... The StrangerRod Steiger ... Jackie TreehornJack Palance ... Malibu Police ChiefSal Mineo ... Little Larry Sellers Ricardo Montalban ... Jesus QuintanaSongs in the Dude's dream sequences:"All I Have To Do Is Dream" by the Everly Brothers"Who's Sorry Now" by Connie Francis (compliments of Derek in Charlottesville, VA)
]]>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:52:35 GMTdreamtupeloFilmgaming9/6/2008 6:52:35 PMFrom 1949 through 1957, Elia Kazan seemed unstoppable. Not only did he direct one film per year, but those nine films were nominated for a total of 41 oscars, winning 15, including best director for On The Waterfront. Then there would be a two year gap before his next film. Most people believed the two years were consumed by his return to Broadway, most notably for producing/directing William Inge's The Dark At The Top Of The Stairs. But digging through media archives for a recent episode of Inside the Actor's Studio, Lames Lipton discovered a rough cut believed to be lost forever. After an unprecedented run of dramatic films and stage productions, Kazan, wanting to try his hand at comedy, bought an unproduced script written by I.A.L. Diamond, which Billy Wilder had passed on in favor of Some Like It Hot. Legend has it that Wilder was kept in the dark until shooting had wrapped. Apparently Lillian Hellman, still furious with Kazan for naming names during the McCarthy hearings, informed Wilder, who then convinced Gloria Swanson (who was apparently always up for an adventure) to break into the studio and destroy the negatives before they could be printed. Kazan didn't have the heart to start from scratch, and so returned to his Broadway roots. Over thirty years later, Joel and Ethan Coen came across the Diamond script at an old memorabilia shop on Hollywood Boulevard, and the rest is history.Apparently Walter Mathau had lobbied for the role of The Dude, but Kazan had his heart set on Dean Martin. Unfortunately Martin was already committed to filming Rio Bravo, so Kazan turned to his 1957 Face In The Crowd star Andy Griffith instead (he tried to appease Mathau by casting him as The Stranger). Studio heads were dubious about Griffith (they wanted a more proven comedic actor like Jack Lemmon or Dean Martin), but were somewhat appeased by Anthony Quinn and Montgomery Clift playing his bowling buddies.Kazan fleshed out the rest of the cast with familiar veterans of his stage and film productions. The exception was his choice for the pivotal Jesus Quintana. Kazan had an open call and had all but given up when an athletic looking young actor sauntered onto the soundstage. From Ricardo Montalban's first line, Kazan knew he had found his Jesus.One of the few surviving annecdotes about the set was of a drunken brawl between Rod Steiger and Jack Palance, which might have got out of hand had Anthony Quinn not knocked their heads together. Director: Elia Kazan (the actor's studio version)Andy Griffith ... The DudeAnthony Quinn ... Walter SobchakMontgomery Clift ... DonnyGeraldine Page ... Maude LebowskiBurl Ives ... Jeffrey Lebowski - The Big LebowskiPaul Newman ... BrandtNatalie Wood ... Bunny LebowskiMartin Landau ... Knox Harrington (the weirdo in Maude's loft)Henry Silva ... Woo, Treehorn ThugDennis Hopper ... Blond Treehorn ThugEli Wallach ... Nihilist #1, Uli Kunkel / 'Karl Hungus' Dean Stockwell ... Nihilist #2, Kieffer ("It's not fair!")Richard Davalos ... Nihilist #3, Franz ("I break you!")Carl Malden ... Marty, the Dude's landlordWalter Mathau ... The StrangerRod Steiger ... Jackie TreehornJack Palance ... Malibu Police ChiefSal Mineo ... Little Larry Sellers Ricardo Montalban ... Jesus QuintanaSongs in the Dude's dream sequences:"All I Have To Do Is Dream" by the Everly Brothers"Who's Sorry Now" by Connie Francis (compliments of Derek in Charlottesville, VA) http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/7/33699.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/7/2008 2:00:31 PM
Body: We’re less than a week away from the release of Tropic Thunder, and as the reviews and puff pieces make their way onto the web, there’s one thing clearly uniting the media’s coverage: talk of Tom Cruise’s appearance in a small role as a Hollywood studio boss. Everyone seems to agree that he steals the show and that his performance — or the joke surrounding it — is one of the comedy’s major highlights, if not the actual best part. Of course, we can expect a good cameo from Cruise every now and then. He showed up for a bit part in Young Guns and played himself as playing “Austin Powers” in Austin Powers in Goldmember. But from what it sounds like, his role in Tropic Thunder is featured for longer than might qualify as a cameo. Some are regardless referring to the performance as an “extended cameo”, and in theory it certainly fits in with the huge crop of so-called “ironic cameos” that have become popular in movies and TV in the last ten years. Still, despite my not having yet seen the movie, I’m thinking that Tom Cruise’s involvement in Tropic Thunder is more like the following list, which consists of merely small roles filled by big stars. You might consider some of them to be technically cameos, especially the ones that aren’t integral to the plot and/or call attention to themselves. But with each of the roles I’ve included, I consider them to be either the best part of their respective movies or at least a major highlight, which is how Cruise’s appearance is being touted. Anyway, forgive me for trying to come up with something different than simply a best cameo list, even if the focus here seems less than clear. 10. Marlon Brando as “Jor-El” in Superman - He was probably paid too much for the part, especially if all the trivia surrounding his involvement (reading his lines off baby Superman’s diaper; desiring that only his voice be used; demanding to be paid double if any footage was to be used in the sequel) is true, but it’s pretty cool having Brando appear at the beginning of what I still consider to be the best superhero comic book adaptation of all time (sorry Dark Knight fans). He’s not the best thing about the movie, but he’s an immediate highlight. As for his payment (reportedly $3.7 million), Warner Bros. has leveled out his worth a little by featuring him in the Donner cut of Superman II and in Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns — a movie that also creatively employs Brando’s On the Waterfront costar Eva Marie Saint appropriately as Superman’s adopted mother. 9. Drew Barrymore as “Casey Becker” in Scream - Having your biggest star killed in the opening scene is kinda like having your best action sequence at the head of the movie (a la Bad Boys II), but fortunately the rest of the first Scream is pretty good, and Barrymore’s (don’t call it a cameo) part doesn’t overshadow the movie too much. In a way, since this wasn’t a sequel yet the movie was a bit of a parody of all slasher movies, the familiarity of Becker’s face could be taken to be akin to how, often, horror sequels begin by killing off the heroine of the previous installment in the first few minutes. 8. Arnold Schwarzenegger as “Prince Hapi” in Around the World in 80 Days - There isn’t much to enjoy about Frank Coraci’s 2004 version of the Jules Verne tale, especially since there appears to be a lot of missed opportunities in terms of guest appearances (Wikipedia counts 45 “cameos” in the 1956 version; I count maybe 10 that could be considered “cameos” in the newer movie). Therefore, Schwarzenegger’s hilarious appearance as a lecherous Turkish prince — one of his last roles filmed before becoming Governor of California — is one of the few highlights, if not the sole highlight (personally, I enjoy Jackie Chan in anything, and I liked more of this movie than most people did). The role is especially funny and creepy if you’ve ever seen that old footage of Schwarzenegger being sleazy at Carnival in Rio. 7. Orson Welles as “Unicron” in Transformers: The Movie - Welles’ voice had been overpowering in films before — he had a good side career going throughout his life as a narrator — but considering this was ridiculously his final performance and considering he easily overshadowed his fellow celebrity voice lenders (including otherwise commanding vocal talents Leonard Nimoy, Robert Stack and Casey Kasem), his part completely dominates the movie, both diegetically and extradiegetically. 6. Bruce Willis as “Harry Rydell” in Fast Food Nation - Far and away the only good part of Richard Linklater’s botched attempt to dramatize Eric Schlosser’s non-fiction classic (I consider the book a kind of bible since it inspired me to give up fast food and subsequently lose 60lbs., so it pains me even more to think about Schlosser being a co-writer and producer of the movie), and not just because of his oft-quoted line about how we all have to eat a little shit from time to time. His whole characterization of the cynical meat supplier is brilliant, enough that he unfortunately makes the rest of the movie play even less interesting that it already is. 5. Charlie Sheen as “Charlie” in Being John Malkovich - I wanted to stay away from roles in which actors play themselves, mainly because that’s a big percentage of the ironic cameo stuff that’s so overused these days. However, Sheen’s part here is a little more than a mere cameo. And it’s kind of an ironic parody of the ironic cameo, even as it predates a lot of these cameos in Entourage and Extras and the like (by crediting the role as “Charlie” rather than “as himself”, it’s also a precursor to the more exaggerated than exaggerated “Neil Patrick Harris” character of the Harold and Kumar films). Perhaps intended to redirect the audience’s perspective on John Malkovich’s titular character, which is up until Sheen’s entrance possibly accepted as an authentic self-portrayal, the overstatement of the role raises the already ingeniously funny film up another notch to put it at the level of best comedies ever made. 4. Matt Damon as “Donny” in Eurotrip - I’ve actually never seen Eurotrip, but I hear there’s no reason to watch it other than to see Damon’s bit role as the singer of a pop punk band (the otherwise real Lustra). And I’ve seen that on YouTube, so I’m good. Even more than Cruise and some of the others, Damon seems to love doing guest stints in movies and on TV (he’s also given us the only reasons to ever watch Jimmy Kimmel). Some of his other small roles and cameos can be found in Youth Without Youth, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Finding Forrester, Jersey Girl and The Majestic (the last in voice only). 3. Sean Connery as “King Richard” in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves - After making us suffer through Kevin Costner’s terrible performance in the lead role, the producers of this disappointing version of the classic legend actually rub it in how bad their casting choice was by sneaking Connery in at the last minute. Of course, despite the way his appearance increases our dissatisfaction with the rest of the movie, he’s still the highlight. Especially since he’s immediately followed by that awful Bryan Adams song playing over the credits. 2. Alec Baldwin as “Blake” in Glengarry Glen Ross - Sure, the rest of the film is really good, mostly because of the stellar cast filling out the rest of the ensemble, but the first thing you remember about this David Mamet adaptation is Baldwin’s monologue. It’s good enough that I almost also included on this list the Blake-inspired character from Boiler Room as played by Ben Affleck. But it’s also too good to actually accept Affleck’s ripoff as being in the same league. 1. Gene Hackman as “Blindman” in Young Frankenstein - I’m in the minority as far as my appreciation of Mel Brooks’ parody of James Whale’s Frankenstein films. I think it’s really funny, but I don’t think it’s one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen. Yet the few minutes that Hackman is on screen always leave me in tears, enough that I wholeheartedly accept the movie’s status as one of the greatest comedies ever made. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:00:31 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/7/2008 2:00:31 PMWe’re less than a week away from the release of Tropic Thunder, and as the reviews and puff pieces make their way onto the web, there’s one thing clearly uniting the media’s coverage: talk of Tom Cruise’s appearance in a small role as a Hollywood studio boss. Everyone seems to agree that he steals the show and that his performance — or the joke surrounding it — is one of the comedy’s major highlights, if not the actual best part. Of course, we can expect a good cameo from Cruise every now and then. He showed up for a bit part in Young Guns and played himself as playing “Austin Powers” in Austin Powers in Goldmember. But from what it sounds like, his role in Tropic Thunder is featured for longer than might qualify as a cameo. Some are regardless referring to the performance as an “extended cameo”, and in theory it certainly fits in with the huge crop of so-called “ironic cameos” that have become popular in movies and TV in the last ten years. Still, despite my not having yet seen the movie, I’m thinking that Tom Cruise’s involvement in Tropic Thunder is more like the following list, which consists of merely small roles filled by big stars. You might consider some of them to be technically cameos, especially the ones that aren’t integral to the plot and/or call attention to themselves. But with each of the roles I’ve included, I consider them to be either the best part of their respective movies or at least a major highlight, which is how Cruise’s appearance is being touted. Anyway, forgive me for trying to come up with something different than simply a best cameo list, even if the focus here seems less than clear. 10. Marlon Brando as “Jor-El” in Superman - He was probably paid too much for the part, especially if all the trivia surrounding his involvement (reading his lines off baby Superman’s diaper; desiring that only his voice be used; demanding to be paid double if any footage was to be used in the sequel) is true, but it’s pretty cool having Brando appear at the beginning of what I still consider to be the best superhero comic book adaptation of all time (sorry Dark Knight fans). He’s not the best thing about the movie, but he’s an immediate highlight. As for his payment (reportedly $3.7 million), Warner Bros. has leveled out his worth a little by featuring him in the Donner cut of Superman II and in Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns — a movie that also creatively employs Brando’s On the Waterfront costar Eva Marie Saint appropriately as Superman’s adopted mother. 9. Drew Barrymore as “Casey Becker” in Scream - Having your biggest star killed in the opening scene is kinda like having your best action sequence at the head of the movie (a la Bad Boys II), but fortunately the rest of the first Scream is pretty good, and Barrymore’s (don’t call it a cameo) part doesn’t overshadow the movie too much. In a way, since this wasn’t a sequel yet the movie was a bit of a parody of all slasher movies, the familiarity of Becker’s face could be taken to be akin to how, often, horror sequels begin by killing off the heroine of the previous installment in the first few minutes. 8. Arnold Schwarzenegger as “Prince Hapi” in Around the World in 80 Days - There isn’t much to enjoy about Frank Coraci’s 2004 version of the Jules Verne tale, especially since there appears to be a lot of missed opportunities in terms of guest appearances (Wikipedia counts 45 “cameos” in the 1956 version; I count maybe 10 that could be considered “cameos” in the newer movie). Therefore, Schwarzenegger’s hilarious appearance as a lecherous Turkish prince — one of his last roles filmed before becoming Governor of California — is one of the few highlights, if not the sole highlight (personally, I enjoy Jackie Chan in anything, and I liked more of this movie than most people did). The role is especially funny and creepy if you’ve ever seen that old footage of Schwarzenegger being sleazy at Carnival in Rio. 7. Orson Welles as “Unicron” in Transformers: The Movie - Welles’ voice had been overpowering in films before — he had a good side career going throughout his life as a narrator — but considering this was ridiculously his final performance and considering he easily overshadowed his fellow celebrity voice lenders (including otherwise commanding vocal talents Leonard Nimoy, Robert Stack and Casey Kasem), his part completely dominates the movie, both diegetically and extradiegetically. 6. Bruce Willis as “Harry Rydell” in Fast Food Nation - Far and away the only good part of Richard Linklater’s botched attempt to dramatize Eric Schlosser’s non-fiction classic (I consider the book a kind of bible since it inspired me to give up fast food and subsequently lose 60lbs., so it pains me even more to think about Schlosser being a co-writer and producer of the movie), and not just because of his oft-quoted line about how we all have to eat a little shit from time to time. His whole characterization of the cynical meat supplier is brilliant, enough that he unfortunately makes the rest of the movie play even less interesting that it already is. 5. Charlie Sheen as “Charlie” in Being John Malkovich - I wanted to stay away from roles in which actors play themselves, mainly because that’s a big percentage of the ironic cameo stuff that’s so overused these days. However, Sheen’s part here is a little more than a mere cameo. And it’s kind of an ironic parody of the ironic cameo, even as it predates a lot of these cameos in Entourage and Extras and the like (by crediting the role as “Charlie” rather than “as himself”, it’s also a precursor to the more exaggerated than exaggerated “Neil Patrick Harris” character of the Harold and Kumar films). Perhaps intended to redirect the audience’s perspective on John Malkovich’s titular character, which is up until Sheen’s entrance possibly accepted as an authentic self-portrayal, the overstatement of the role raises the already ingeniously funny film up another notch to put it at the level of best comedies ever made. 4. Matt Damon as “Donny” in Eurotrip - I’ve actually never seen Eurotrip, but I hear there’s no reason to watch it other than to see Damon’s bit role as the singer of a pop punk band (the otherwise real Lustra). And I’ve seen that on YouTube, so I’m good. Even more than Cruise and some of the others, Damon seems to love doing guest stints in movies and on TV (he’s also given us the only reasons to ever watch Jimmy Kimmel). Some of his other small roles and cameos can be found in Youth Without Youth, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Finding Forrester, Jersey Girl and The Majestic (the last in voice only). 3. Sean Connery as “King Richard” in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves - After making us suffer through Kevin Costner’s terrible performance in the lead role, the producers of this disappointing version of the classic legend actually rub it in how bad their casting choice was by sneaking Connery in at the last minute. Of course, despite the way his appearance increases our dissatisfaction with the rest of the movie, he’s still the highlight. Especially since he’s immediately followed by that awful Bryan Adams song playing over the credits. 2. Alec Baldwin as “Blake” in Glengarry Glen Ross - Sure, the rest of the film is really good, mostly because of the stellar cast filling out the rest of the ensemble, but the first thing you remember about this David Mamet adaptation is Baldwin’s monologue. It’s good enough that I almost also included on this list the Blake-inspired character from Boiler Room as played by Ben Affleck. But it’s also too good to actually accept Affleck’s ripoff as being in the same league. 1. Gene Hackman as “Blindman” in Young Frankenstein - I’m in the minority as far as my appreciation of Mel Brooks’ parody of James Whale’s Frankenstein films. I think it’s really funny, but I don’t think it’s one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen. Yet the few minutes that Hackman is on screen always leave me in tears, enough that I wholeheartedly accept the movie’s status as one of the greatest comedies ever made. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/6/21/31501.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 6/21/2008 12:49:08 PM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx On the Waterfront is on the following AFI lists:The Original Top 100 (#8)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Terry Malloy is the #23 hero)100 Movie Quotes (#3 - Terry Malloy: "You don't understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I could've been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am.")25 Film Scores (#22)100 Most Inspiring Movies (#36)The Revised Top 100 (#19)I was able to borrow On the Waterfront. I watched it a few days ago and have spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about how I feel about this film. Many people seem to love it. I really kind of don't love it. I really really like it, but I don't love it. I love parts. What I do love about this movie, what I feel is the heart of the movie and what makes it so likable, is Marlon Brando and his performance. Either he is perfectly cast or simply the real-life embodiment of Terry Malloy, the main character. His performance engages the viewer so wholeheartedly, it is difficult not to be moved by the picture. I love certain scenes and shots. I love the simplicity of the art direction. But: this is the second time I've tried to watch this movie, and I've fallen asleep both times.Keep in mind that I like dramas, even when they are slow-moving. I don't know why this film has given me the dozes more than once. Fortunately, this time, I was able to rewind the film and catch up later, but I still watched it in two parts, and I wonder about that. Terry Malloy is a washed up ex-prizefighter who is now in the employ of Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb), a union boss who rules the waterfront with an iron fist. He's being investigated by various law enforcement officials because they know he's been involved in several eep-quiet murders, but witnesses on the waterfront play "D & D" (deaf and dumb). Terry unwittingly sets up Joey Doyle for a plummet from a rooftop while running an errand for Johnny Friendly, and seeing this initiates a crisis of conscience and even of faith for Terry, particularly when Father Barry (Karl Malden) informs him that Joey was killed to protect Johnny's interests. What makes it especially difficult for him is that Joey's sister Edie (Eva Marie Saint) is determined to find Joey's killer, or, at least, witnesses to support that he was killed by Johnny Friendly, but Terry finds himself falling for Edie and vice versa. When Father Barry and another worker are beaten for speaking out, Terry feels compelled to tell the truth, not only to Edie but to the cops, putting himself in hot water in the process, and making him very unpopular not only with Johnny Friendly, but with his brother Charley (Rod Steiger) and with the other guys just trying to make a living.If I get sleepy watching this film, I think it's about the way the character development unfolds; the viewer isn't told everything up front. The viewer follows Terry's crisis of conscience, and that's how we learn about him and, to some extent, the others affecting him, and it happens over the course of the whole film. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but I didn't really feel engaged to the movie until he started courting Edie and until the famous "contender" speech. Terry is who and what makes you care. You are rooting for him because he's making all the tough decisions, even at the expense of losing his brother Charley, who is painted as self-serving and without faith in his "bum" of a younger brother. The acting in this film is what gives it its credibility, I think. Marlon Brando's performance is really quite perfect and believable. Like I said, at no time did I fail to believe he was Terry. The scene from whence the #3 AFI quote comes is so moving; you feel like it's coming close to melodrama, but it never gets there because Brando's performance is so earnest and honest and delicately restrained. And Rod Steiger's Charley quietly sits there, listening but for a few unsatisfactory excuses,,his expression mixed with frustration, humility, and pity. It radiates real emotion and is played for its truth: the what might have been factor and the sense that someone Terry has looked up to failed to back him up when he needed it most. That's also where On the Waterfront succeeds; it contains some universalisms that transcend the mere story it tells. There will always be corruption at the expense of the rank and file; struggles for self; questions in the infallibility of family or friends that you felt should have looked out for you (because they are only human too); raw emotion and passion; and crises of conscience and faith. The story contains all of these layers, even though it seems to simply be about a man standing up for himself, even when doing so could get him killed. A few other scattered thoughts I have had: I wonder why this movie didn't make AFI's Love Story list. I feel like the budding, though reluctant, relationship between Terry and Edie is much more passionate and stirring than, say, the dysfunctional joining together of Benjamin and Elaine in the Graduate. The scene in which Terry declares his love for Edie, albeit mixed with underlying rage on Terry's part and confused disappointment on Edie's, pulled at my heartstrings so much. Yet, it's nowhere on that Passions list. Maybe it was nominated, but it didn't make it, and that's a travesty. So, the love story isn't the main thrust of the film; it's still a gripping and realistic one complete with passion and heart flutters. I like how this film used on-location settings in New York and New Jersey to paint the picture of the gritty, unyielding life working on the docks. The film won many Oscars, including for Art Direction, though the most impressive aspect of the art direction was simply choosing these locations and retaining their flavor. It gives the film a timeless realism that most films do not have. Still, I don't love this movie as much as I feel like maybe I should. It just doesn't hold my interest except in a few choice scenes: the contender scene, the scenes during which Terry courts Edie, and the scenes in the church when Father Barry attempts to convince the workers to stand up for themselves. I'm sure from a filmmaking perspective, it's considered a masterpiece. The masterpiece for me here is purely and simply Marlon Brando and his performance. He deserved that Oscar in so many ways, and for me, he's the reason to watch this film. So: I give this film a 9 for perfectly entertaining, but only in the sense that Brando is perfectly entertaining, even if the film itself has successfully lulled me to sleep twice. I don't know why that is, and I don't think it's a flaw of the movie (there are no pacing problems, really). It just is what it is. As for the test, because of the aforementioned tendency, I don't think I'm going to buy it. On the Waterfront is a classic, but it's just not one I find myself drawn to as much as others.
]]>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:49:08 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts6/21/2008 12:49:08 PMWhat's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx On the Waterfront is on the following AFI lists:The Original Top 100 (#8)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Terry Malloy is the #23 hero)100 Movie Quotes (#3 - Terry Malloy: "You don't understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I could've been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am.")25 Film Scores (#22)100 Most Inspiring Movies (#36)The Revised Top 100 (#19)I was able to borrow On the Waterfront. I watched it a few days ago and have spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about how I feel about this film. Many people seem to love it. I really kind of don't love it. I really really like it, but I don't love it. I love parts. What I do love about this movie, what I feel is the heart of the movie and what makes it so likable, is Marlon Brando and his performance. Either he is perfectly cast or simply the real-life embodiment of Terry Malloy, the main character. His performance engages the viewer so wholeheartedly, it is difficult not to be moved by the picture. I love certain scenes and shots. I love the simplicity of the art direction. But: this is the second time I've tried to watch this movie, and I've fallen asleep both times.Keep in mind that I like dramas, even when they are slow-moving. I don't know why this film has given me the dozes more than once. Fortunately, this time, I was able to rewind the film and catch up later, but I still watched it in two parts, and I wonder about that. Terry Malloy is a washed up ex-prizefighter who is now in the employ of Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb), a union boss who rules the waterfront with an iron fist. He's being investigated by various law enforcement officials because they know he's been involved in several eep-quiet murders, but witnesses on the waterfront play "D &amp; D" (deaf and dumb). Terry unwittingly sets up Joey Doyle for a plummet from a rooftop while running an errand for Johnny Friendly, and seeing this initiates a crisis of conscience and even of faith for Terry, particularly when Father Barry (Karl Malden) informs him that Joey was killed to protect Johnny's interests. What makes it especially difficult for him is that Joey's sister Edie (Eva Marie Saint) is determined to find Joey's killer, or, at least, witnesses to support that he was killed by Johnny Friendly, but Terry finds himself falling for Edie and vice versa. When Father Barry and another worker are beaten for speaking out, Terry feels compelled to tell the truth, not only to Edie but to the cops, putting himself in hot water in the process, and making him very unpopular not only with Johnny Friendly, but with his brother Charley (Rod Steiger) and with the other guys just trying to make a living.If I get sleepy watching this film, I think it's about the way the character development unfolds; the viewer isn't told everything up front. The viewer follows Terry's crisis of conscience, and that's how we learn about him and, to some extent, the others affecting him, and it happens over the course of the whole film. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but I didn't really feel engaged to the movie until he started courting Edie and until the famous "contender" speech. Terry is who and what makes you care. You are rooting for him because he's making all the tough decisions, even at the expense of losing his brother Charley, who is painted as self-serving and without faith in his "bum" of a younger brother. The acting in this film is what gives it its credibility, I think. Marlon Brando's performance is really quite perfect and believable. Like I said, at no time did I fail to believe he was Terry. The scene from whence the #3 AFI quote comes is so moving; you feel like it's coming close to melodrama, but it never gets there because Brando's performance is so earnest and honest and delicately restrained. And Rod Steiger's Charley quietly sits there, listening but for a few unsatisfactory excuses,,his expression mixed with frustration, humility, and pity. It radiates real emotion and is played for its truth: the what might have been factor and the sense that someone Terry has looked up to failed to back him up when he needed it most. That's also where On the Waterfront succeeds; it contains some universalisms that transcend the mere story it tells. There will always be corruption at the expense of the rank and file; struggles for self; questions in the infallibility of family or friends that you felt should have looked out for you (because they are only human too); raw emotion and passion; and crises of conscience and faith. The story contains all of these layers, even though it seems to simply be about a man standing up for himself, even when doing so could get him killed. A few other scattered thoughts I have had: I wonder why this movie didn't make AFI's Love Story list. I feel like the budding, though reluctant, relationship between Terry and Edie is much more passionate and stirring than, say, the dysfunctional joining together of Benjamin and Elaine in the Graduate. The scene in which Terry declares his love for Edie, albeit mixed with underlying rage on Terry's part and confused disappointment on Edie's, pulled at my heartstrings so much. Yet, it's nowhere on that Passions list. Maybe it was nominated, but it didn't make it, and that's a travesty. So, the love story isn't the main thrust of the film; it's still a gripping and realistic one complete with passion and heart flutters. I like how this film used on-location settings in New York and New Jersey to paint the picture of the gritty, unyielding life working on the docks. The film won many Oscars, including for Art Direction, though the most impressive aspect of the art direction was simply choosing these locations and retaining their flavor. It gives the film a timeless realism that most films do not have. Still, I don't love this movie as much as I feel like maybe I should. It just doesn't hold my interest except in a few choice scenes: the contender scene, the scenes during which Terry courts Edie, and the scenes in the church when Father Barry attempts to convince the workers to stand up for themselves. I'm sure from a filmmaking perspective, it's considered a masterpiece. The masterpiece for me here is purely and simply Marlon Brando and his performance. He deserved that Oscar in so many ways, and for me, he's the reason to watch this film. So: I give this film a 9 for perfectly entertaining, but only in the sense that Brando is perfectly entertaining, even if the film itself has successfully lulled me to sleep twice. I don't know why that is, and I don't think it's a flaw of the movie (there are no pacing problems, really). It just is what it is. As for the test, because of the aforementioned tendency, I don't think I'm going to buy it. On the Waterfront is a classic, but it's just not one I find myself drawn to as much as others. http://www.spout.com/blogs/wraithtdk/archive/2008/3/27/26661.aspx Post By: WraithTDK
Post To: WraithTDK Blog
Post Date: 3/27/2008 4:36:49 PM
Body: A true classic, this one has everything. Great acting, great script, great plot, and one of the few depictions of a Catholic Priest actually ACTS like 80% of the Priests out there, instead of the clichéd, over-used stereotype of the hypocritical , Bible-bashing villain in sheep’s clothing. Five Stars.
]]>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:36:49 GMTWraithTDKWraithTDK Blog3/27/2008 4:36:49 PMA true classic, this one has everything. Great acting, great script, great plot, and one of the few depictions of a Catholic Priest actually ACTS like 80% of the Priests out there, instead of the clich&eacute;d, over-used stereotype of the hypocritical , Bible-bashing villain in sheep&rsquo;s clothing. Five Stars. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1139

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:00:49 GMT62892271139Tag 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/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag 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/gangster/MemberTagFilms.aspxgangster
Number of films tagged: 4065

Number of people who tagged: 60

Number of times used: 145

]]>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:37:08 GMT406560145Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/inspiring/MemberTagFilms.aspxinspiring
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 84

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT555484Tag 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/corruption/MemberTagFilms.aspxcorruption
Number of films tagged: 1236

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 108

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT123647108Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Picture/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Picture
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 118

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:16:34 GMT8326118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/loyalty/MemberTagFilms.aspxloyalty
Number of films tagged: 149

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 30

]]>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:10:04 GMT1491730Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/misfit/MemberTagFilms.aspxmisfit
Number of films tagged: 205

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 14

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:28:46 GMT2051314Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Actor
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:35:20 GMT78987Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Director/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Director
Number of films tagged: 39

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 47

]]>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:53:34 GMT39847Tag