list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Superman Returns 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/Superman_Returns/254359/default.aspx Title: Superman Returns
Year: 2006
Director: Bryan Singer
Plot: The Man of Steel returns to the big screen with this continuation of the icon's film legacy that picks up after the events of the first two Christopher Reeve films. Some time has passed since the events of Superman II and the world has gotten used to life without Superman (Brandon Routh) ever since his puzzling disappearance years earlier. Upon his return, he finds a Metropolis that doesn't need him anymore, while Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has moved on with another young suitor Richard White (James Marsden) in the meantime. As the hero begins to tackle the fact that life on Earth has continued without him, he is forced to face his old arch-nemesis Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) and restore the life that was once his. Directed by Bryan Singer from a script by the writing team of X-Men 2, Superman Returns marks a return to the screen for the man in tights, whose production history has seen many failed attempts including a famous near-miss from Tim Burton and Kevin Smith with Nicolas Cage in the lead role, along with another from director McG and writer J.J. Abrams (Lost). Singer eventually won the prestigious gig when he pitched the idea to not tackle the origin story again, but continue with director Richard Donner's original vision. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 147
Number of Lists: 71
Number of blog posts: 23
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sun, 10 May 2009 21:51:28 GMTSuperman Returns2006Bryan SingerThe Man of Steel returns to the big screen with this continuation of the icon's film legacy that picks up after the events of the first two <a href="/players/P____59343/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christopher Reeve</a> films. Some time has passed since the events of <a href=/films/33644/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Superman II</a> and the world has gotten used to life without Superman (<a href="/players/P___415504/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brandon Routh</a>) ever since his puzzling disappearance years earlier. Upon his return, he finds a Metropolis that doesn't need him anymore, while Lois Lane (<a href="/players/P___322134/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kate Bosworth</a>) has moved on with another young suitor Richard White (<a href="/players/P___232716/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James Marsden</a>) in the meantime. As the hero begins to tackle the fact that life on Earth has continued without him, he is forced to face his old arch-nemesis Lex Luthor (<a href="/players/P____67045/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kevin Spacey</a>) and restore the life that was once his. Directed by <a href="/players/P___193696/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bryan Singer</a> from a script by the writing team of X-Men 2, Superman Returns marks a return to the screen for the man in tights, whose production history has seen many failed attempts including a famous near-miss from <a href="/players/P____83666/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tim Burton</a> and <a href="/players/P___111916/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kevin Smith</a> with <a href="/players/P____10155/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Nicolas Cage</a> in the lead role, along with another from director <a href="/players/P___279112/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>McG</a> and writer J.J. Abrams (<a href=/films/254663/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Lost</a>). Singer eventually won the prestigious gig when he pitched the idea to not tackle the origin story again, but continue with director <a href="/players/P____88048/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Donner</a>'s original vision. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide147Tag Target (>10)712343http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s254359.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Superman_Returns/254359/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/7/42180.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2009 11:17:38 PM
Body: Five years ago, "Superman" (Brandon Routh) left Earth to find the remains of his home planet, "Krypton". He returns to his adopted home, which has changed. The first change is that his archenemy, the evil genius "Lex Luthor" (Kevin Spacey). The other, which has truely affected "The Man of Steel", is that the love of his life, "Lois Lane" (Kate Bosworth) is now a mother, and about to marry her boyfriend, "Richard" (James Marshden), the handsome nephew of "Daily Planet" Editor-in-Chief "Perry White" (Frank Langella). However, one thing hasn't changed. "Luthor" is up to his old tricks, as he has a plan that will use "Kryptonian" technology which will kill billions of people. And to make things worse, he may have a way to destroy "Superman" once and for all. The first thing you can't help but notice is the amazing special effects. The CGI is real good, and really enhances the action in the scenes. However, the animation itself is not perfect, as it is pretty easy to tell when computer animation is being used. When it comes to the performances, the main cast is real good. The supporting cast on the other hand is not that good, only because they aren't given much to do. The chemistry between the entire cast is also pretty good, however the weakest, in my opinion is between Routh and Spacey, who have little screen time together. One thing I really enjoyed were the numerous references to the various previous versions of "Superman" through the entire film. You get everything from references to scenes or line from the movies starring the late Christopher Reeve to a photograph which recreates the cover of the first "Action Comics," which the "Superman" character debuted in. Even the popular classic television series, "The Adventures of Superman" gets a very special nod with two of the main cast of the show appear in the movie. And one of them gets to interact with the actor playing the character he did on the classic series. The biggest reference to the Christopher Reeve movies has to be the music by composer John Williams. His musical score from the Reeve series has become so iconic, that you can not think of "Superman" without thinking of the theme Williams composed. Directors, if you want your movie to have a memorable score, sign Williams is your man! One major problem is the script. The story is real good, but the script itself has its ups and downs. A lot of scenes are either slow or they just drag. There is some suspense, but not suspenseful enough in my opinion. The story is also quite predictable. You just know who is going to win at the end, but getting to the end is half the fun of the movie. Another small problem is continuity with the Reeve films. The movie is set after the Reeve series, since they are referenced in dialogue, but the cast is obviously younger than the Reeve cast. By this time, "Superman" should be starting to turn gray like the "Earth-2 Superman" comic book character has, who is older than the "Superman" on "Earth-1". Despite the flaws, this is a pretty enjoyable movie. I would say it could be a good, but weak, first choice the next time you go to your local rental place.
]]>Fri, 08 May 2009 03:17:38 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/7/2009 11:17:38 PMFive years ago, "Superman" (Brandon Routh) left Earth to find the remains of his home planet, "Krypton". He returns to his adopted home, which has changed. The first change is that his archenemy, the evil genius "Lex Luthor" (Kevin Spacey). The other, which has truely affected "The Man of Steel", is that the love of his life, "Lois Lane" (Kate Bosworth) is now a mother, and about to marry her boyfriend, "Richard" (James Marshden), the handsome nephew of "Daily Planet" Editor-in-Chief "Perry White" (Frank Langella). However, one thing hasn't changed. "Luthor" is up to his old tricks, as he has a plan that will use "Kryptonian" technology which will kill billions of people. And to make things worse, he may have a way to destroy "Superman" once and for all. The first thing you can't help but notice is the amazing special effects. The CGI is real good, and really enhances the action in the scenes. However, the animation itself is not perfect, as it is pretty easy to tell when computer animation is being used. When it comes to the performances, the main cast is real good. The supporting cast on the other hand is not that good, only because they aren't given much to do. The chemistry between the entire cast is also pretty good, however the weakest, in my opinion is between Routh and Spacey, who have little screen time together. One thing I really enjoyed were the numerous references to the various previous versions of "Superman" through the entire film. You get everything from references to scenes or line from the movies starring the late Christopher Reeve to a photograph which recreates the cover of the first "Action Comics," which the "Superman" character debuted in. Even the popular classic television series, "The Adventures of Superman" gets a very special nod with two of the main cast of the show appear in the movie. And one of them gets to interact with the actor playing the character he did on the classic series. The biggest reference to the Christopher Reeve movies has to be the music by composer John Williams. His musical score from the Reeve series has become so iconic, that you can not think of "Superman" without thinking of the theme Williams composed. Directors, if you want your movie to have a memorable score, sign Williams is your man! One major problem is the script. The story is real good, but the script itself has its ups and downs. A lot of scenes are either slow or they just drag. There is some suspense, but not suspenseful enough in my opinion. The story is also quite predictable. You just know who is going to win at the end, but getting to the end is half the fun of the movie. Another small problem is continuity with the Reeve films. The movie is set after the Reeve series, since they are referenced in dialogue, but the cast is obviously younger than the Reeve cast. By this time, "Superman" should be starting to turn gray like the "Earth-2 Superman" comic book character has, who is older than the "Superman" on "Earth-1". Despite the flaws, this is a pretty enjoyable movie. I would say it could be a good, but weak, first choice the next time you go to your local rental place. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/27/41289.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2009 9:00:44 AM
Body: Though the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/27/2009 9:00:44 AMThough the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/11/40976.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/11/2009 6:01:18 PM
Body: We at SpoutBlog love Jon Hamm tremendously, but we don’t get to write about him much because we’re primarily a film blog and don’t feature much discussion of either Mad Men or 30 Rock (we’ve slipped praise into posts here and there, of course). Fortunately for us, Hamm has made a new video for FunnyorDie.com, in which he references movies. Specifically, he portrays Lex Luthor and alludes to plot points from Superman: The Movie, Superman Returns and even Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. And as if this video (watch it after the jump) weren’t funny enough, we can now hopefully look forward to Hamm appearing in more Judd Apatow-related comedies — at least if the guys at Vulture have any influence. Or, maybe Hamm could actually be cast in a future Superman movie (was this video a response to requests for Warner Bros. to make him the new Man of Steel?), as either hero or villain — or both!?!? Again, check out the clip and what other bloggers (some TV bloggers, but whatever) are saying about it after the jump: Cinematical’s Erik Davis finds the clip “cute” and “funny” but chooses to focus his “Watch This” post on a car commercial starring Andy Richter. Okay, it might be funnier, but it has nothing to do with movies. Oh, and it doesn’t have Jon Hamm in it. To quote Tina at FishbowlLA, “Swoon. Bald even.” David Hauslaib at Jossip goes a step further: “Even with that stupid bald cap on, I’d still hit that so hard we’d reverse the earth and get rid of the national debt. Boom!” “Jon Hamm with no hair is still better than 99% of America with hair,” argues Joe Bua at IAmATVJunkie.com. Michelle Collins at Best Week Ever has apparently given us a place to leave all kinds of those “Jon Hamm would still be hot if…” comments. “As if my love of the man wasn’t already raging out of control,” confesses TV Critic Alan Sepinwall on What’s Alan Watching? Gonzalo Cordova at Comedy Central Insider insults movie and comic geeks with more Hamm praise: Before all the comic nerds get mad at me for saying Jon Hamm is a better Lex Luthor than Gene Hackman, I just wanna say, “Whoah, nerds. Take a deep breath from your inhaler and CALM THE FUCK DOWN!” Gene HACKman wasn’t a good actor in any movie ever, okay? (Alright, now I’m just saying things I don’t believe in order to get the film geeks mad at me too. Geeks getting mad is really funny!) Now, less gushing and more commenting about the actual video: commenter “ManchuCandidate” at io9 writes, “At this point, Lex is really less of a villain than any from a major bank these days. Lex’s only trying to kill one guy, an illegal alien no less, while the banks fucked all of us.” More defense for Luthor at Topless Robot: “Sure, Superman’s trying to protect the world, but does he ever think about all those Lexcorp employees he’s putting out of work? Jackass.” The video left most of our fellow film bloggers more or less speechless (or wordless), but here’s some of the link love for those who showed appreciation for Hamm as Luthor: Jeff Wells; Scott Mendlson; IESB.net. “Lex Luthor Bailout” with Jon Hamm - watch more funny videos Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:01:18 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/11/2009 6:01:18 PMWe at SpoutBlog love Jon Hamm tremendously, but we don’t get to write about him much because we’re primarily a film blog and don’t feature much discussion of either Mad Men or 30 Rock (we’ve slipped praise into posts here and there, of course). Fortunately for us, Hamm has made a new video for FunnyorDie.com, in which he references movies. Specifically, he portrays Lex Luthor and alludes to plot points from Superman: The Movie, Superman Returns and even Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. And as if this video (watch it after the jump) weren’t funny enough, we can now hopefully look forward to Hamm appearing in more Judd Apatow-related comedies — at least if the guys at Vulture have any influence. Or, maybe Hamm could actually be cast in a future Superman movie (was this video a response to requests for Warner Bros. to make him the new Man of Steel?), as either hero or villain — or both!?!? Again, check out the clip and what other bloggers (some TV bloggers, but whatever) are saying about it after the jump: Cinematical’s Erik Davis finds the clip “cute” and “funny” but chooses to focus his “Watch This” post on a car commercial starring Andy Richter. Okay, it might be funnier, but it has nothing to do with movies. Oh, and it doesn’t have Jon Hamm in it. To quote Tina at FishbowlLA, “Swoon. Bald even.” David Hauslaib at Jossip goes a step further: “Even with that stupid bald cap on, I’d still hit that so hard we’d reverse the earth and get rid of the national debt. Boom!” “Jon Hamm with no hair is still better than 99% of America with hair,” argues Joe Bua at IAmATVJunkie.com. Michelle Collins at Best Week Ever has apparently given us a place to leave all kinds of those “Jon Hamm would still be hot if…” comments. “As if my love of the man wasn’t already raging out of control,” confesses TV Critic Alan Sepinwall on What’s Alan Watching? Gonzalo Cordova at Comedy Central Insider insults movie and comic geeks with more Hamm praise: Before all the comic nerds get mad at me for saying Jon Hamm is a better Lex Luthor than Gene Hackman, I just wanna say, “Whoah, nerds. Take a deep breath from your inhaler and CALM THE FUCK DOWN!” Gene HACKman wasn’t a good actor in any movie ever, okay? (Alright, now I’m just saying things I don’t believe in order to get the film geeks mad at me too. Geeks getting mad is really funny!) Now, less gushing and more commenting about the actual video: commenter “ManchuCandidate” at io9 writes, “At this point, Lex is really less of a villain than any from a major bank these days. Lex’s only trying to kill one guy, an illegal alien no less, while the banks fucked all of us.” More defense for Luthor at Topless Robot: “Sure, Superman’s trying to protect the world, but does he ever think about all those Lexcorp employees he’s putting out of work? Jackass.” The video left most of our fellow film bloggers more or less speechless (or wordless), but here’s some of the link love for those who showed appreciation for Hamm as Luthor: Jeff Wells; Scott Mendlson; IESB.net. “Lex Luthor Bailout” with Jon Hamm - watch more funny videos Originally posted on:SpoutBlog 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/gambrel83/archive/2008/7/29/33239.aspx Post By: gambrel83
Post To: gambrel83 Blog
Post Date: 7/29/2008 2:52:59 PM
Body: Director: Bryan Singer Writer(s): Michael Dougherty & Dan Harris Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, & Kevin Spacey Synopsis: After being absent from Earth for many years to learn more about his origins, Superman arrives to Metropolis, intent to return to his job at the Daily Planet and a normal life. Upon realizing the world still needs him, he suits up and saves the world from Lex Luthor’s latest scheme. Review: I have to admit that I haven’t seen any of the previous superman films, but I can say that I was moderately impressed with this one. The story was typical superhero stuff, and all of superman’s powers were on display and more or less showcased well. Special effects weren’t overdone in my opinion. The action sequences were executed well and added to the story, but what downgraded the film for me was some of the performances. Brandon Routh was a little boyish and nerdy to be the ideal Superman and just didn’t convince me. I think they were more concerned with casting the all-american pretty boy than a man’s man, but that’s open for interpretation. I like Kevin Spacey, but I felt he didn’t live up to his potential as Lex Luthor. Aside from that, albeit a tad longer than was perhaps necessary, Superman Returns is well worth a viewing. 7/10
]]>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:52:59 GMTgambrel83gambrel83 Blog7/29/2008 2:52:59 PMDirector: Bryan Singer Writer(s): Michael Dougherty &amp; Dan Harris Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, &amp; Kevin Spacey Synopsis: After being absent from Earth for many years to learn more about his origins, Superman arrives to Metropolis, intent to return to his job at the Daily Planet and a normal life. Upon realizing the world still needs him, he suits up and saves the world from Lex Luthor&rsquo;s latest scheme. Review: I have to admit that I haven&rsquo;t seen any of the previous superman films, but I can say that I was moderately impressed with this one. The story was typical superhero stuff, and all of superman&rsquo;s powers were on display and more or less showcased well. Special effects weren&rsquo;t overdone in my opinion. The action sequences were executed well and added to the story, but what downgraded the film for me was some of the performances. Brandon Routh was a little boyish and nerdy to be the ideal Superman and just didn&rsquo;t convince me. I think they were more concerned with casting the all-american pretty boy than a man&rsquo;s man, but that&rsquo;s open for interpretation. I like Kevin Spacey, but I felt he didn&rsquo;t live up to his potential as Lex Luthor. Aside from that, albeit a tad longer than was perhaps necessary, Superman Returns is well worth a viewing. 7/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/bigjefflebowski/archive/2008/7/18/32734.aspx Post By: BigJeffLebowski
Post To: BigJeffLebowski Blog
Post Date: 7/18/2008 2:44:08 PM
Body: The Dark Knight, the most anticipated picture of the year for myself and innumerable others, has finally arrived following a trail of hype that would crush almost any film. But miraculously, just as Moses wielded his stone tablets, Christopher Nolan has handed us a true gift from the cinematic gods. His second Batman is so visceral, so propulsive, so maddeningly perfect in its execution that it should come with a warning; you do not simply watch The Dark Knight, you surrender your pulse to Christopher Nolan. And even if an intended triptych has been tragically cut short (as Mel Brooks might contend those aforementioned commandments were) what remains is wholly qualified to stand on its own not as a great Batman film, not as a great superhero film, and not as a great action film, but as one of the most distiguished pieces of filmmaking of its generation. This decade, more so than any other, has seen comic-to-film adaptations mature from vacuous thrills to serious art. Sam Raimi gave them their candy colored coming-of-age angst with his Spider-Man series; Jon Favreau gave them their sociopolitical meta-narrative with his first Iron Man; and Bryan Singer has alternately given them their conflicts of appearance/intention and assimilation/assertion (X-men, X2) and their visual and tonal poetry (Superman Returns). But by taking one of the most psychologically rich and practically feasible comic book heroes and stripping him of all remaining contrivance and camp, Nolan has arguably bested them all by instilling his Gotham -- and its inhabitants -- with a gritty realism that absolutely demands as much emotional and technical veracity as an escapist action-adventure will allow. Perhaps Nolan's greatest asset as a filmmaker is his unwavering dedication to making his characters' actions and emotions utterly believable within the constricts of his chosen narrative. One needn't look any farther than Nolan's breakthrough sophomore film, Memento, to see that what sets him apart from almost every other filmmaker working today is his complete command of both the internal and external machinations of his characters. Rarely, if ever, do you see a writer-director working in Nolan's genres with such an assured and astute grasp on human emotion and interaction. His application of binary opposition in both plot and theme is unmatched in today's cinema. There is a constant tug of war in Nolan's films, a philosophical debate between chance and fate, between reason and impulse, between light and dark, etc. Any screenwriter can set up archetypes and let them stand in contrast to one another, but the beauty of a Nolan script is that the true conflict lies inside the characters. Nolan understands that the line between friends and enemies is moveable, based more on circumstance than on the people themselves. And what people they are. Christian Bale's Batman has become beautifully economic in both word and action. Gary Oldman's Lieutenant Gordon is an even stronger edifice of morality and decency. Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes is a noteworthy trade-up from the first film, with composure, confidence, and sexuality in equal measure. Michael Caine's Alfred is humane, silently compassionate, and so much more than the stuffy butler to which he is all too often reduced. But Heath Ledger's Joker. I'm really not sure what I can add to the innumerable accolades already heaped upon this utterly unnerving, raw, feral, fearless, unshakeable performance. Nothing is done out of vanity, nothing for cheap thrills. True, I feel the talk of Oscar gold is both premature and hyperbolic, but I would be surprised to not see Ledger on the list of nominees. The Dark Knight is that rare genre film that changes the vocabulary of its genre -- no small feat given the leaps and bounds comic book films have already taken over the past few years. That The Godfather, Heat, A Clockwork Orange, and Unforgiven have all been cited as influences on the film is no surprise; what all of these exceptional pictures share in common with one another is an intellectual maturity that nonetheless refuses to compromise entertainment for intelligence. Whether or not the few muffled criticisms that the film is too long, too packed with characters and information, too frenetic, or too climactic are valid is up to the viewer to decide on an individual basis. While I will agree that the film is denser and more earnest than its peers, I refuse to accept that this is to its detriment. Nolan has taken a lofty gamble, and we have all walked away from the table with more chips than we can carry.
]]>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:44:08 GMTBigJeffLebowskiBigJeffLebowski Blog7/18/2008 2:44:08 PMThe Dark Knight, the most anticipated picture of the year for myself and innumerable others, has finally arrived following a trail of hype that would crush almost any film. But miraculously, just as Moses wielded his stone tablets, Christopher Nolan has handed us a true gift from the cinematic gods. His second Batman is so visceral, so propulsive, so maddeningly perfect in its execution that it should come with a warning; you do not simply watch The Dark Knight, you surrender your pulse to Christopher Nolan. And even if an intended triptych has been tragically cut short (as Mel Brooks might contend those aforementioned commandments were) what remains is wholly qualified to stand on its own not as a great Batman film, not as a great superhero film, and not as a great action film, but as one of the most distiguished pieces of filmmaking of its generation. This decade, more so than any other, has seen comic-to-film adaptations mature from vacuous thrills to serious art. Sam Raimi gave them their candy colored coming-of-age angst with his Spider-Man series; Jon Favreau gave them their sociopolitical meta-narrative with his first Iron Man; and Bryan Singer has alternately given them their conflicts of appearance/intention and assimilation/assertion (X-men, X2) and their visual and tonal poetry (Superman Returns). But by taking one of the most psychologically rich and practically feasible comic book heroes and stripping him of all remaining contrivance and camp, Nolan has arguably bested them all by instilling his Gotham -- and its inhabitants -- with a gritty realism that absolutely demands as much emotional and technical veracity as an escapist action-adventure will allow. Perhaps Nolan's greatest asset as a filmmaker is his unwavering dedication to making his characters' actions and emotions utterly believable within the constricts of his chosen narrative. One needn't look any farther than Nolan's breakthrough sophomore film, Memento, to see that what sets him apart from almost every other filmmaker working today is his complete command of both the internal and external machinations of his characters. Rarely, if ever, do you see a writer-director working in Nolan's genres with such an assured and astute grasp on human emotion and interaction. His application of binary opposition in both plot and theme is unmatched in today's cinema. There is a constant tug of war in Nolan's films, a philosophical debate between chance and fate, between reason and impulse, between light and dark, etc. Any screenwriter can set up archetypes and let them stand in contrast to one another, but the beauty of a Nolan script is that the true conflict lies inside the characters. Nolan understands that the line between friends and enemies is moveable, based more on circumstance than on the people themselves. And what people they are. Christian Bale's Batman has become beautifully economic in both word and action. Gary Oldman's Lieutenant Gordon is an even stronger edifice of morality and decency. Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes is a noteworthy trade-up from the first film, with composure, confidence, and sexuality in equal measure. Michael Caine's Alfred is humane, silently compassionate, and so much more than the stuffy butler to which he is all too often reduced. But Heath Ledger's Joker. I'm really not sure what I can add to the innumerable accolades already heaped upon this utterly unnerving, raw, feral, fearless, unshakeable performance. Nothing is done out of vanity, nothing for cheap thrills. True, I feel the talk of Oscar gold is both premature and hyperbolic, but I would be surprised to not see Ledger on the list of nominees. The Dark Knight is that rare genre film that changes the vocabulary of its genre -- no small feat given the leaps and bounds comic book films have already taken over the past few years. That The Godfather, Heat, A Clockwork Orange, and Unforgiven have all been cited as influences on the film is no surprise; what all of these exceptional pictures share in common with one another is an intellectual maturity that nonetheless refuses to compromise entertainment for intelligence. Whether or not the few muffled criticisms that the film is too long, too packed with characters and information, too frenetic, or too climactic are valid is up to the viewer to decide on an individual basis. While I will agree that the film is denser and more earnest than its peers, I refuse to accept that this is to its detriment. Nolan has taken a lofty gamble, and we have all walked away from the table with more chips than we can carry. http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_Take_the_red_pill_Recast_THE_MATRIX_1999/563/32262/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: unclefestering
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 7/7/2008 11:43:33 PM
Body: I went with people who I think could carry the roles well and have played lots of varied characters so that their performance would be different from the Matrix we know. Neo -- Orlando Bloom * His acting range is just as limited as Keanu Reeves, well he might be slightly stiffer. Morpheus -- Gabriel Byrne Nobody can project rightous anger and and a sense of forboding menace like Byrne. Trinity -- Franka Potente She does rugged and yet feminine. she can handle both the emotional needs and would be believable in the action sequences. Agent Smith -- Denzel Washington King Kong ain't got nuthin' on him. Oracle -- Eva Marie Saint Is there anybody else who can handle and deliver bad news like she can? Cypher -- Maggie Gyllenhaal Smart and sexy, Maggie can play seductive and greedy like few can. Tank - Tadanobu Asano He was great in the Zatoichi and can be tough when the situation calls for it. Apoc -- Jena Malone Let's give this role some depth. Jena can add that something special with just a look. Mouse -- Kal Penn Can anybody do a smary digital pimp like this guy? Switch -- Lisa Bonet Yes, she can act (at least enough for this role). Dozer -- Beat Takeshi This guy could take on any machine that could attack the ship single handedly. Agent Brown -- Loren Dean Agent Jones -- Jonathan Rhys Meyers Both these guys can be menacing, just standing still *Originally I posted this with Christian Bale, but then I thought that he has too much talent when compared to Reeves. Hope it OK that I changed it.
]]>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:43:33 GMTunclefesteringFilmgaming7/7/2008 11:43:33 PMI went with people who I think could carry the roles well and have played lots of varied characters so that their performance would be different from the Matrix we know. Neo -- Orlando Bloom * His acting range is just as limited as Keanu Reeves, well he might be slightly stiffer. Morpheus -- Gabriel Byrne Nobody can project rightous anger and and a sense of forboding menace like Byrne. Trinity -- Franka Potente She does rugged and yet feminine. she can handle both the emotional needs and would be believable in the action sequences. Agent Smith -- Denzel Washington King Kong ain't got nuthin' on him. Oracle -- Eva Marie Saint Is there anybody else who can handle and deliver bad news like she can? Cypher -- Maggie Gyllenhaal Smart and sexy, Maggie can play seductive and greedy like few can. Tank - Tadanobu Asano He was great in the Zatoichi and can be tough when the situation calls for it. Apoc -- Jena Malone Let's give this role some depth. Jena can add that something special with just a look. Mouse -- Kal Penn Can anybody do a smary digital pimp like this guy? Switch -- Lisa Bonet Yes, she can act (at least enough for this role). Dozer -- Beat Takeshi This guy could take on any machine that could attack the ship single handedly. Agent Brown -- Loren Dean Agent Jones -- Jonathan Rhys Meyers Both these guys can be menacing, just standing still *Originally I posted this with Christian Bale, but then I thought that he has too much talent when compared to Reeves. Hope it OK that I changed it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/9/30974.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/9/2008 1:22:45 PM
Body: "Superman Returns" has the unenviable tasks of beginning the franchise anew while adhering to most of the continuity from "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II" and forming a worthwhile story and movie for itself. In all those respects, Bryan Singer´s vision of the Man of Steel is a rousing success. The story, pared down to its basic elements, revolves around Superman returning to Earth after a five-year absence. Following, more or less, the events of the second Christopher Reeve film, he took off for what astronomers thought could be a remnant of Krypton. His former flame, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has given birth to a young son and is engaged. Coupled with that heartbreak, his arch enemy Lex Luthor (a magnificent Kevin Spacey) has stolen crystals from the Fortress of Solitude in an attempt to flood the world. Singer and his co-writers ("X2:X-Men United" scribes Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris) decided to craft a sequel of sorts to "Superman II," the infamous film half directed by Richard Donner and half directed by Richard Lester. In that film, a wide range of important events take place in the "Superman" universe: Lex and Lois are both brought to the Fortress of Solitude; and Superman and Lois have sex following the superhero giving up his powers. Most of these pivotal events are referenced in this new movie. It´s not like the script doesn´t include enough nods to the films that came before. The main credits sequence is a direct homage to the first movie. The only thing that is noticeably different is some effects work showing the worlds on an interstellar trip. Everything else, from the way each credit is outlined in blue and jumps into the screen to the use of John Williams´ legendary "Superman" theme, is exactly the same. The theme shows up in other places during the film, notably as short cues in a score otherwise put together by Singer regular John Ottman. The main crux of the story, once the formalities are out of the way, rests with Luthor stealing crystals from the fortress and using them to create "crystal islands". The ultimate plan is that as this island grows, it will displace the Earth´s oceans, causing them to flood all the continents. Luthor postulates that world leaders will beg him for land, which is now at a premium. In order to ensure that Superman can´t just dive into the ocean and retrieve the island making crystal, he encases it in kryptonite. Even though the evil plot sounds like something out of the comic book, the fact that Luthor thought ahead instead of being the usual two-bit villain speaks volumes about the time and energy put into the script. Whereas previously, the movie Luthor was more of a comic villain than truly evil, Kevin Spacey´s turn as the bald one can be described in one word: maniacal. We´re all familiar with the scene in which he screams at Lois Lane and her son Jason from the trailers. But what the ads don´t show is Lex sticking a long, jagged piece of kryptonite into Superman, twisting it in his side and breaking it off. It´s a characterization of Luthor that didn´t come close to the screen with any of the previous versions. The closest, I suppose, Luthor has come to being completely evil is in the "Justice League" television series, although the amount of violence and gore had to be necessarily toned down for the child audience. Needless to say, the effects are heads above anything we´ve seen before on the screen…even better than this summer´s other previously released SFX movie, "X-Men: The Last Stand". There are a number of absolutely gorgeous shots of the Man of Steel watching over the Earth from the sky and outer space (some of which were seen in the trailers). I doubt they´ll translate to the TV screen as well as they do on the big screen-they hardly ever do-but it´s all still a spectacle to behold. From the very first trailers and pictures, the casting in Superman has been a topic on everyone´s minds. I admit that I was very skeptical of Brandon Routh taking over for Christopher Reeve, a man most people associate as being Superman. He simply didn´t look right in the promotional material leading up to the film. However, within the first five minutes of Clark being on screen, I forgot all my misgivings about the casting. Routh acts, walks and speaks nearly identically to Christopher Reeve. Aside from a little too much makeup in certain close-ups, there shouldn´t be any qualms about the man playing Superman. On the other fronts, the only actor who seemed out of sorts was Sam Huntington playing Jimmy Olsen. I understand the photographer is supposed to young and naïve, in awe of Superman and Clark Kent. But the way the character is written makes Olsen out to be little more than a schoolgirl crushing on the hero. He´s entirely too plucky and happy go lucky in a comic book type of way for a movie that strives to not be labeled a comic book movie. Other than this miscasting/writing error, the rest of the cast ranges from solid to outstanding. I´ve already mentioned the outstanding Kevin Spacey as Luthor. Kate Bosworth is no Margot Kidder and, frankly, that´s alright. She brings a different sensibility to Superman´s former flame. Instead of spewing the barbs she lobbed at Clark in the first two films, she is more subdued this time around and, while upset Superman has left her and the world, knows how to get her point across without seeming selfish. James Marsden, quickly becoming another Singer staple (he played Cyclops in all three "X-Men" films), is Lois´ fiancée. He brings earnestness and a romantic foil to Superman. And then there´s Frank Langella as Perry White, Daily Planet editor. Again, he brings a different dynamic to the character when compared to Jackie Cooper from the previous flicks. All that being said, "Superman Returns" is not the straight-up comic book movie that Donner and Lester put together. There is noticeably less humor, more anger, more violence and a tremendous sense of loss near the end. This darkness can even be seen in Superman´s costume. Gone is the flamboyant red and blue suit of yesteryear. In its place is a subdued costume of the same colors. One of the greatest creative decisions behind the film was to imagine the world of Metropolis exists in our reality. There are no outlandishly colored costumes or sets, no over the top acting or sheer stupidity. However, that doesn´t mean the movie is without faults. For one, the iconic image of Clark Kent running down an alley and ripping open his shirt to reveal the Superman "S" doesn´t pack nearly the punch it should. That is the moment fanboys (and fangirl), not to mention the general audience, have been wanting for years. Instead of being the bombastic, motivating moment this should be, it turns into just another scene. I´ve already said the characters stay away from stupid actions. They all do, except for Lois. In an inane move, she trespasses aboard Luthor´s boat with her son. Now, I understand Lois being an intrepid reporter and doing anything for the story. But with her son in tow? I didn´t buy that for a minute. She´s smarter than that. The end result of years of development, untold millions of production dollars and a marketing campaign designed to increase awareness of the film? A great, bordering on excellent, experience that passes entirely too quickly. The return of an icon and the beginning of another franchise we can all safely and confidently look forward to for years to come.
]]>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:22:45 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/9/2008 1:22:45 PM"Superman Returns" has the unenviable tasks of beginning the franchise anew while adhering to most of the continuity from "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II" and forming a worthwhile story and movie for itself. In all those respects, Bryan Singer&acute;s vision of the Man of Steel is a rousing success. The story, pared down to its basic elements, revolves around Superman returning to Earth after a five-year absence. Following, more or less, the events of the second Christopher Reeve film, he took off for what astronomers thought could be a remnant of Krypton. His former flame, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has given birth to a young son and is engaged. Coupled with that heartbreak, his arch enemy Lex Luthor (a magnificent Kevin Spacey) has stolen crystals from the Fortress of Solitude in an attempt to flood the world. Singer and his co-writers ("X2:X-Men United" scribes Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris) decided to craft a sequel of sorts to "Superman II," the infamous film half directed by Richard Donner and half directed by Richard Lester. In that film, a wide range of important events take place in the "Superman" universe: Lex and Lois are both brought to the Fortress of Solitude; and Superman and Lois have sex following the superhero giving up his powers. Most of these pivotal events are referenced in this new movie. It&acute;s not like the script doesn&acute;t include enough nods to the films that came before. The main credits sequence is a direct homage to the first movie. The only thing that is noticeably different is some effects work showing the worlds on an interstellar trip. Everything else, from the way each credit is outlined in blue and jumps into the screen to the use of John Williams&acute; legendary "Superman" theme, is exactly the same. The theme shows up in other places during the film, notably as short cues in a score otherwise put together by Singer regular John Ottman. The main crux of the story, once the formalities are out of the way, rests with Luthor stealing crystals from the fortress and using them to create "crystal islands". The ultimate plan is that as this island grows, it will displace the Earth&acute;s oceans, causing them to flood all the continents. Luthor postulates that world leaders will beg him for land, which is now at a premium. In order to ensure that Superman can&acute;t just dive into the ocean and retrieve the island making crystal, he encases it in kryptonite. Even though the evil plot sounds like something out of the comic book, the fact that Luthor thought ahead instead of being the usual two-bit villain speaks volumes about the time and energy put into the script. Whereas previously, the movie Luthor was more of a comic villain than truly evil, Kevin Spacey&acute;s turn as the bald one can be described in one word: maniacal. We&acute;re all familiar with the scene in which he screams at Lois Lane and her son Jason from the trailers. But what the ads don&acute;t show is Lex sticking a long, jagged piece of kryptonite into Superman, twisting it in his side and breaking it off. It&acute;s a characterization of Luthor that didn&acute;t come close to the screen with any of the previous versions. The closest, I suppose, Luthor has come to being completely evil is in the "Justice League" television series, although the amount of violence and gore had to be necessarily toned down for the child audience. Needless to say, the effects are heads above anything we&acute;ve seen before on the screen&hellip;even better than this summer&acute;s other previously released SFX movie, "X-Men: The Last Stand". There are a number of absolutely gorgeous shots of the Man of Steel watching over the Earth from the sky and outer space (some of which were seen in the trailers). I doubt they&acute;ll translate to the TV screen as well as they do on the big screen-they hardly ever do-but it&acute;s all still a spectacle to behold. From the very first trailers and pictures, the casting in Superman has been a topic on everyone&acute;s minds. I admit that I was very skeptical of Brandon Routh taking over for Christopher Reeve, a man most people associate as being Superman. He simply didn&acute;t look right in the promotional material leading up to the film. However, within the first five minutes of Clark being on screen, I forgot all my misgivings about the casting. Routh acts, walks and speaks nearly identically to Christopher Reeve. Aside from a little too much makeup in certain close-ups, there shouldn&acute;t be any qualms about the man playing Superman. On the other fronts, the only actor who seemed out of sorts was Sam Huntington playing Jimmy Olsen. I understand the photographer is supposed to young and na&iuml;ve, in awe of Superman and Clark Kent. But the way the character is written makes Olsen out to be little more than a schoolgirl crushing on the hero. He&acute;s entirely too plucky and happy go lucky in a comic book type of way for a movie that strives to not be labeled a comic book movie. Other than this miscasting/writing error, the rest of the cast ranges from solid to outstanding. I&acute;ve already mentioned the outstanding Kevin Spacey as Luthor. Kate Bosworth is no Margot Kidder and, frankly, that&acute;s alright. She brings a different sensibility to Superman&acute;s former flame. Instead of spewing the barbs she lobbed at Clark in the first two films, she is more subdued this time around and, while upset Superman has left her and the world, knows how to get her point across without seeming selfish. James Marsden, quickly becoming another Singer staple (he played Cyclops in all three "X-Men" films), is Lois&acute; fianc&eacute;e. He brings earnestness and a romantic foil to Superman. And then there&acute;s Frank Langella as Perry White, Daily Planet editor. Again, he brings a different dynamic to the character when compared to Jackie Cooper from the previous flicks. All that being said, "Superman Returns" is not the straight-up comic book movie that Donner and Lester put together. There is noticeably less humor, more anger, more violence and a tremendous sense of loss near the end. This darkness can even be seen in Superman&acute;s costume. Gone is the flamboyant red and blue suit of yesteryear. In its place is a subdued costume of the same colors. One of the greatest creative decisions behind the film was to imagine the world of Metropolis exists in our reality. There are no outlandishly colored costumes or sets, no over the top acting or sheer stupidity. However, that doesn&acute;t mean the movie is without faults. For one, the iconic image of Clark Kent running down an alley and ripping open his shirt to reveal the Superman "S" doesn&acute;t pack nearly the punch it should. That is the moment fanboys (and fangirl), not to mention the general audience, have been wanting for years. Instead of being the bombastic, motivating moment this should be, it turns into just another scene. I&acute;ve already said the characters stay away from stupid actions. They all do, except for Lois. In an inane move, she trespasses aboard Luthor&acute;s boat with her son. Now, I understand Lois being an intrepid reporter and doing anything for the story. But with her son in tow? I didn&acute;t buy that for a minute. She&acute;s smarter than that. The end result of years of development, untold millions of production dollars and a marketing campaign designed to increase awareness of the film? A great, bordering on excellent, experience that passes entirely too quickly. The return of an icon and the beginning of another franchise we can all safely and confidently look forward to for years to come. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/13/28821.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 4:04:26 AM
Body: Is this a sequel or a remake? Bryan Singer has said the film is intended to a sequel to the Richard Lester version of Superman II. So why does he spend the entire movie rehashing material from the previous films? And why is the movie so ugly? I love the original Superman. Richard Donner brillantly recast the Superman ledgend (he's my favorite superhero) as modern myth. I also thought that Christopher Reeve was absoltley perfect in his part and could hold his own a big name cast that included Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman and Terrence Stamp. Although I didn't like Lester's interpretation of the Superman mythos, I at least gave him credit for having some kind of original idea. It seems that Singer has tried to recapture the magic of the first film by slavishly immating it. He plays the notes, but not the music. Singer even tells his actors to base their characters on the actors from the original. But Bryan Singer is no Richard Donner, Kevin Spacey is no Gene Hackman and Brandon Routh sure as heck is no Christopher Reeve. I will concede, however, that Kate Bosworth is a better Lois Lane than Margot Kidder, perhaps because she comes up with an original charactaztion. Although I am not a fan of Spacey, he might have been a good Lex Luthor, but no one can play Gene Hackman as Luthor better than Gene Hackman. The same might be said of newcomer Routh, who could be a good actor but here mostly just does a bad impersonation of Reeve. The James Bond series lasted as long as it did because Roger Moore did his own version of Bond instead of just immitating Sean Connery, Routh will have to take the same approach and give his Superman a new spin or this series is going to get really old really fast. And what is the deal with the whole romance between Superman and Lois Lane? Didn't we see this whole thing played out in Superman II, in a better, smarter and more interesting way? And then we come to the visuals. The whole movie has this drab, browinish/yellow Heaven's Gate tinge. Yes, I am exagerating a little, but when Superman's cape looks brown, there's a problem. There's also problem with the CGI-it looks fake. The original films had acual photographed background that gave a sense of movement, matte lines and all. Superman Returns looks like a cartoon, an early shot of a ship at sea looked so fake it could be a graphic for a Discovery Channel documentary, and a late shot of an obvious CGI Superman is laughable if it wasn't so soulless it's kind of sad. So in the end we have a really boring and disapointing movie whose final insult is that it's unforgivabley long. Whoever looked at this cliched and thin story and thought it needed to go on for two and half hours actully needed to find a better script, and while there at it, a director who can make movies with actual heart. I have now seen four films by Bryan Singer, and I have zero desire to see another one. Superman Returns (2006)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 08:04:26 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/13/2008 4:04:26 AMIs this a sequel or a remake? Bryan Singer has said the film is intended to a sequel to the Richard Lester version of Superman II. So why does he spend the entire movie rehashing material from the previous films? And why is the movie so ugly? I love the original Superman. Richard Donner brillantly recast the Superman ledgend (he's my favorite superhero) as modern myth. I also thought that Christopher Reeve was absoltley perfect in his part and could hold his own a big name cast that included Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman and Terrence Stamp. Although I didn't like Lester's interpretation of the Superman mythos, I at least gave him credit for having some kind of original idea. It seems that Singer has tried to recapture the magic of the first film by slavishly immating it. He plays the notes, but not the music. Singer even tells his actors to base their characters on the actors from the original. But Bryan Singer is no Richard Donner, Kevin Spacey is no Gene Hackman and Brandon Routh sure as heck is no Christopher Reeve. I will concede, however, that Kate Bosworth is a better Lois Lane than Margot Kidder, perhaps because she comes up with an original charactaztion. Although I am not a fan of Spacey, he might have been a good Lex Luthor, but no one can play Gene Hackman as Luthor better than Gene Hackman. The same might be said of newcomer Routh, who could be a good actor but here mostly just does a bad impersonation of Reeve. The James Bond series lasted as long as it did because Roger Moore did his own version of Bond instead of just immitating Sean Connery, Routh will have to take the same approach and give his Superman a new spin or this series is going to get really old really fast. And what is the deal with the whole romance between Superman and Lois Lane? Didn't we see this whole thing played out in Superman II, in a better, smarter and more interesting way? And then we come to the visuals. The whole movie has this drab, browinish/yellow Heaven's Gate tinge. Yes, I am exagerating a little, but when Superman's cape looks brown, there's a problem. There's also problem with the CGI-it looks fake. The original films had acual photographed background that gave a sense of movement, matte lines and all. Superman Returns looks like a cartoon, an early shot of a ship at sea looked so fake it could be a graphic for a Discovery Channel documentary, and a late shot of an obvious CGI Superman is laughable if it wasn't so soulless it's kind of sad. So in the end we have a really boring and disapointing movie whose final insult is that it's unforgivabley long. Whoever looked at this cliched and thin story and thought it needed to go on for two and half hours actully needed to find a better script, and while there at it, a director who can make movies with actual heart. I have now seen four films by Bryan Singer, and I have zero desire to see another one. Superman Returns (2006) http://www.spout.com/blogs/lopezdash/archive/2008/3/28/26713.aspx Post By: lopezdash
Post To: The Movie Blog
Post Date: 3/28/2008 1:42:49 PM
Body: What's the easiest way to lose your inhibitions when filming a sex scene that millions of people will see? Copious amounts of booze, of course! That's the route Kate Bosworth and Jim Sturgess went while filming their steamy tryst in the Las Vegas drama '21.' In fact, the two got so thirsty, Bosworth says she blacked out and can't even remember filming the fling, PEOPLE reports ."We were both so drunk," the 25-year-old 'Superman Returns ' starlet said, saying she and Sturgess decided "to have a couple of drinks, loosen up and go for it."Sturgess has similar alcohol amnesia."It was brilliant for about half an hour. As we continued to drink ... it just became sloppy and messy. I couldn't stand up at one point," he said.Source: People.com
]]>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:42:49 GMTlopezdashThe Movie Blog3/28/2008 1:42:49 PMWhat&#39;s the easiest way to lose your inhibitions when filming a sex scene that millions of people will see? Copious amounts of booze, of course! That&#39;s the route Kate Bosworth and Jim Sturgess went while filming their steamy tryst in the Las Vegas drama &#39;21.&#39; In fact, the two got so thirsty, Bosworth says she blacked out and can&#39;t even remember filming the fling, PEOPLE reports .&quot;We were both so drunk,&quot; the 25-year-old &#39;Superman Returns &#39; starlet said, saying she and Sturgess decided &quot;to have a couple of drinks, loosen up and go for it.&quot;Sturgess has similar alcohol amnesia.&quot;It was brilliant for about half an hour. As we continued to drink ... it just became sloppy and messy. I couldn&#39;t stand up at one point,&quot; he said.Source: People.com http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12479

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1481

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT124793381481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7163

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1005

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT71631691005Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 150

Number of times used: 417

]]>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:43:48 GMT260150417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

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

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 460

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:02 GMT319111460Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 627

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT527102627Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Good/MemberTagFilms.aspxGood
Number of films tagged: 97

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 113

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:00:47 GMT9771113Tag 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/space/MemberTagFilms.aspxspace
Number of films tagged: 495

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 140

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:33 GMT49554140Tag 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/father/MemberTagFilms.aspxfather
Number of films tagged: 3580

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 213

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT358051213Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/relationship/MemberTagFilms.aspxrelationship
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 189

]]>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:18:01 GMT109050189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag