list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Transformers 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/Transformers/259101/default.aspx Title: Transformers
Year: 2007
Director: Michael Bay
Plot: The interstellar battle between the Autobots and Decepticons rains destruction down on planet Earth as director Michael Bay adapts Hasbro and Takara's popular Transformers franchise into a big-budget, live-action summer tentpole extravaganza in this ambitious sci-fi action feature starring Shia LaBeouf, Tyrese Gibson, Bernie Mac, John Turturro, Jon Voight, and, of course, Optimus Prime and Megatron. Long ago, on the planet of Cybertron, a massive, powerful alien race divided into two factions, the noble Autobots, and the devious Decepticons. They fought for the sole access to a talisman known as the Allspark, a cube with the capacity to grant infinite power, and eventually the Autobots smuggled it off the planet's surface, hiding it in an unknown location on Earth. Now, hundreds of years later, the Deceptacons have come looking for it, and if the Autobots don't find it first, the Earth will be enslaved or destroyed by the evil aliens' use of its massive power. The Autobots don't know where the cube was hidden, but the information may be stored in the most unlikely of sources, as a gangly young Earthling named Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf) who's just picked up his first car, has a strange connection to the Allspark's history, making him the unlikely ally of these enormous creatures, as they fight for humankind's survival and the chance to return home. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 79
Number of Lists: 80
Number of blog posts: 97
Number of discussion threads: 7
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:06:29 GMTTransformers2007Michael BayThe interstellar battle between the Autobots and Decepticons rains destruction down on planet Earth as director <a href="/players/P___203853/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Bay</a> adapts Hasbro and Takara's popular Transformers franchise into a big-budget, live-action summer tentpole extravaganza in this ambitious sci-fi action feature starring <a href="/players/P___350236/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Shia LaBeouf</a>, <a href="/players/P___290116/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tyrese Gibson</a>, <a href="/players/P____44104/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bernie Mac</a>, <a href="/players/P___114771/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Turturro</a>, <a href="/players/P___115561/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jon Voight</a>, and, of course, Optimus Prime and Megatron. Long ago, on the planet of Cybertron, a massive, powerful alien race divided into two factions, the noble Autobots, and the devious Decepticons. They fought for the sole access to a talisman known as the Allspark, a cube with the capacity to grant infinite power, and eventually the Autobots smuggled it off the planet's surface, hiding it in an unknown location on Earth. Now, hundreds of years later, the Deceptacons have come looking for it, and if the Autobots don't find it first, the Earth will be enslaved or destroyed by the evil aliens' use of its massive power. The Autobots don't know where the cube was hidden, but the information may be stored in the most unlikely of sources, as a gangly young Earthling named Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf) who's just picked up his first car, has a strange connection to the Allspark's history, making him the unlikely ally of these enormous creatures, as they fight for humankind's survival and the chance to return home. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide79Tag Target (>10)809773http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s259101.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Transformers/259101/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/9/40917.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/9/2009 6:00:40 PM
Body: One thing you have to love about the fanboys, they’re always a glass-half-full kind of people. Whenever one of their beloved movies gets ripped apart by critics, they point to the box office results with pride. Critics are meaningless, they remind us, because Transformers and the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and the Star Wars prequels made so much money. And now, with their Watchmen having received both mixed reviews and a relatively disappointing opening weekend, they’re still defending its success to the end. Drew McWeeny of HitFix said it best in a Tweet this morning: “Box-office talk is absolute death to me. I just don’t care. It got made. I liked it. I win.” McWeeny may not exactly be the king of the geeks, but he does inadvertently represent them today. Because whether or not Watchmen has technically underperformed (or “failed” in any way) should not be their concern any more than the negative reviews (or our list of reasons claiming the comic adaptation is unnecessary). But if they are going to use the defense that the box office doesn’t matter, they aren’t allowed to celebrate grosses this summer when Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen receives bad reviews yet still has a strong opening. More on the debate on the topic of Watchmen’s success or failure after the jump. Glass Half-Full: Eugene Novikov of Cinematical lays out the good (and the bad, see below): I think comic book geeks and other well-read folks who revere the graphic novel — and rightfully so — forget that Watchmen is not a brand name in the world at large. And it’s 163 minutes long. And it’s rated R (and I’ve heard some anecdotal evidence that some theaters were going out of their way to exclude the underage and unaccompanied). So we’re not exactly talking about Spider-Man 3, here. “It did fare pretty well,” argues Alex Billington of FirstShowing.net, “and has caused quite a bit of commotion.” “A certified success — despite clocking in with lower-than-desired numbers,” claims Casey Seijas at Splash Page. Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere as usual claims no dog in the race, but he does seem more on the optimistic, half-good side: “I really do think $57 million isn’t half bad.” Radar’s headline: “Watchmen Wins Weekend By Landslide. In addition, they point to all the sold out IMAX shows. “For the die hard fans,” writes Rodney at The Movie Blog, “it isn’t about the numbers this movie rings in on the registers, but a momentous moment that the movie is finally released.” Scott Mendelson at The Huffington Post puts the gross into a positive perspective: Watchmen, based on a comic book that only the hardcore had even heard of, had a bigger three-day weekend than Superman Returns. It had a bigger three-day weekend than Batman Begins. Heck, Watchmen has the second biggest DC Comics three-day opening weekend of all time, behind (obviously) The Dark Knight. Mark Graham at Vulture thinks the leaked video of Watchmen’s opening credits sequence could be good for the film’s second weekend: We’re pretty sure that this visually striking sequence is the best marketing tool that’s available to Warner Bros. at this point; if they decided to officially release and heavily promote this video over the course of this week, you can bet that it would pique the interest of droves of non-fanboy types who avoided the film on its opening weekend. Brian Jacks at MTV Movies Blog points out that if the movie doesn’t get a sequel, it’s at least not because of how the movie opened. Gold Derby’s Tom O’Neil spins positively with mention of the tech achievements from the Watchmen crew that could get the film kudos from the Oscars, MTV Movie Awards, People’s Choice Awards, Teen Choice Awards, Saturn Awards and respective guild honors. Glass Half-Empty: Cinematical’s Eugene Novikov with the other side of the coin: Watchmen did take a fairly massive Friday-to-Saturday-to-Sunday tumble, which is admittedly worrisome. And having seen the film I’m pretty confident that word of mouth will not carry it along. Not because it’s bad, necessarily, but because it’s not particularly “crowd-pleasing,” and rather inaccessible to the uninitiated. “The film certainly didn’t ‘bomb’ in the conventional sense, but given the hype, it did fall somewhat short,” writes G4’s Joseph Baxter, who gives his theory for why it underperformed. Vulture’s Lane Brown isn’t sure if it’s a hit or not, but he does wonder, “While Watchmen’s gross is pretty huge considering its bleak worldview, geeky source material, and three-hour running time, if a movie like The Dark Knight can do $160 million in a weekend, then why couldn’t this one have made a little bit more?” John Cairns at Film School Rejects has a perspective to combat Mendelson’s positive spin: “For all the hype and buzz, the opening weekend haul was really no better than what The Incredible Hulk pulled in last year. More negative perspective from Leremy Legel at RopeofSilicon.com: It opened below Twilight and Fantastic Four. No bueno. It’s going to have to scramble to hit $200m domestically and the darker fare doesn’t usually attract international audiences as well. Take Dark Knight for instance. It only made $15m in Japan, where Spider-Man cleared $50m. Steven Zeitchik at Risky Biz Blog weighs in on “the day after”: When is a solid opening still a disappointment? When it comes attached to “Watchmen.” After the legal battles, the fanboy hype and the boxoffice hopes, the pic came in with a $55 million opening — pretty decent for an R-rated March movie … but not that decent when you consider nothing opened against it and it was on 3,600 bloody screens. “It was supposed to be the biggest movie ever,” notes Richard at Gawker. “Surely Watchmen’s lower-than-hoped first dance is a big disappointment for Warner Brothers, which spent a hell of a lot of money and squawking time on the grim, turgid superhero alternate history. Mark at I Watch Stuff addresses the film’s marketing error: The non-stop barrage viral marketing wasn’t enough to push Zack Snyder’s latest past his previous March opener, 300, which had no viral marketing except the promise of some dudes fucking some other dudes up and someone getting foot-pushed into a hole. Now we know what brings in the crowds. David Poland at The Hot Blog speculates on whether or not the film will at least break even for Warner Bros.: “On the low end, the movie will still be looking to be about $20 million in the red in marketing costs, not close to putting money towards the production costs. And on the high end, marketing costs will be covered and about $0 will go towards the cost of production.” “If the thing can’t top next weekend’s ‘Race To Witch Mountain,’” worries Gabe Toro at The Playlist, “WB has a financial sinkhole on their hands and can only hope to score on its ‘Bigger Blue Dick Director’s Cut’.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:00:40 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/9/2009 6:00:40 PMOne thing you have to love about the fanboys, they’re always a glass-half-full kind of people. Whenever one of their beloved movies gets ripped apart by critics, they point to the box office results with pride. Critics are meaningless, they remind us, because Transformers and the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and the Star Wars prequels made so much money. And now, with their Watchmen having received both mixed reviews and a relatively disappointing opening weekend, they’re still defending its success to the end. Drew McWeeny of HitFix said it best in a Tweet this morning: “Box-office talk is absolute death to me. I just don’t care. It got made. I liked it. I win.” McWeeny may not exactly be the king of the geeks, but he does inadvertently represent them today. Because whether or not Watchmen has technically underperformed (or “failed” in any way) should not be their concern any more than the negative reviews (or our list of reasons claiming the comic adaptation is unnecessary). But if they are going to use the defense that the box office doesn’t matter, they aren’t allowed to celebrate grosses this summer when Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen receives bad reviews yet still has a strong opening. More on the debate on the topic of Watchmen’s success or failure after the jump. Glass Half-Full: Eugene Novikov of Cinematical lays out the good (and the bad, see below): I think comic book geeks and other well-read folks who revere the graphic novel — and rightfully so — forget that Watchmen is not a brand name in the world at large. And it’s 163 minutes long. And it’s rated R (and I’ve heard some anecdotal evidence that some theaters were going out of their way to exclude the underage and unaccompanied). So we’re not exactly talking about Spider-Man 3, here. “It did fare pretty well,” argues Alex Billington of FirstShowing.net, “and has caused quite a bit of commotion.” “A certified success — despite clocking in with lower-than-desired numbers,” claims Casey Seijas at Splash Page. Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere as usual claims no dog in the race, but he does seem more on the optimistic, half-good side: “I really do think $57 million isn’t half bad.” Radar’s headline: “Watchmen Wins Weekend By Landslide. In addition, they point to all the sold out IMAX shows. “For the die hard fans,” writes Rodney at The Movie Blog, “it isn’t about the numbers this movie rings in on the registers, but a momentous moment that the movie is finally released.” Scott Mendelson at The Huffington Post puts the gross into a positive perspective: Watchmen, based on a comic book that only the hardcore had even heard of, had a bigger three-day weekend than Superman Returns. It had a bigger three-day weekend than Batman Begins. Heck, Watchmen has the second biggest DC Comics three-day opening weekend of all time, behind (obviously) The Dark Knight. Mark Graham at Vulture thinks the leaked video of Watchmen’s opening credits sequence could be good for the film’s second weekend: We’re pretty sure that this visually striking sequence is the best marketing tool that’s available to Warner Bros. at this point; if they decided to officially release and heavily promote this video over the course of this week, you can bet that it would pique the interest of droves of non-fanboy types who avoided the film on its opening weekend. Brian Jacks at MTV Movies Blog points out that if the movie doesn’t get a sequel, it’s at least not because of how the movie opened. Gold Derby’s Tom O’Neil spins positively with mention of the tech achievements from the Watchmen crew that could get the film kudos from the Oscars, MTV Movie Awards, People’s Choice Awards, Teen Choice Awards, Saturn Awards and respective guild honors. Glass Half-Empty: Cinematical’s Eugene Novikov with the other side of the coin: Watchmen did take a fairly massive Friday-to-Saturday-to-Sunday tumble, which is admittedly worrisome. And having seen the film I’m pretty confident that word of mouth will not carry it along. Not because it’s bad, necessarily, but because it’s not particularly “crowd-pleasing,” and rather inaccessible to the uninitiated. “The film certainly didn’t ‘bomb’ in the conventional sense, but given the hype, it did fall somewhat short,” writes G4’s Joseph Baxter, who gives his theory for why it underperformed. Vulture’s Lane Brown isn’t sure if it’s a hit or not, but he does wonder, “While Watchmen’s gross is pretty huge considering its bleak worldview, geeky source material, and three-hour running time, if a movie like The Dark Knight can do $160 million in a weekend, then why couldn’t this one have made a little bit more?” John Cairns at Film School Rejects has a perspective to combat Mendelson’s positive spin: “For all the hype and buzz, the opening weekend haul was really no better than what The Incredible Hulk pulled in last year. More negative perspective from Leremy Legel at RopeofSilicon.com: It opened below Twilight and Fantastic Four. No bueno. It’s going to have to scramble to hit $200m domestically and the darker fare doesn’t usually attract international audiences as well. Take Dark Knight for instance. It only made $15m in Japan, where Spider-Man cleared $50m. Steven Zeitchik at Risky Biz Blog weighs in on “the day after”: When is a solid opening still a disappointment? When it comes attached to “Watchmen.” After the legal battles, the fanboy hype and the boxoffice hopes, the pic came in with a $55 million opening — pretty decent for an R-rated March movie … but not that decent when you consider nothing opened against it and it was on 3,600 bloody screens. “It was supposed to be the biggest movie ever,” notes Richard at Gawker. “Surely Watchmen’s lower-than-hoped first dance is a big disappointment for Warner Brothers, which spent a hell of a lot of money and squawking time on the grim, turgid superhero alternate history. Mark at I Watch Stuff addresses the film’s marketing error: The non-stop barrage viral marketing wasn’t enough to push Zack Snyder’s latest past his previous March opener, 300, which had no viral marketing except the promise of some dudes fucking some other dudes up and someone getting foot-pushed into a hole. Now we know what brings in the crowds. David Poland at The Hot Blog speculates on whether or not the film will at least break even for Warner Bros.: “On the low end, the movie will still be looking to be about $20 million in the red in marketing costs, not close to putting money towards the production costs. And on the high end, marketing costs will be covered and about $0 will go towards the cost of production.” “If the thing can’t top next weekend’s ‘Race To Witch Mountain,’” worries Gabe Toro at The Playlist, “WB has a financial sinkhole on their hands and can only hope to score on its ‘Bigger Blue Dick Director’s Cut’.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/3/40806.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/3/2009 8:01:06 PM
Body: I have always tried to maintain low expectations for Hollywood product in general. But when it comes to highly anticipated movies, particularly blockbuster sequels to popular sci-fi action franchises, my excitement can get the best of me. Whenever I need to calm down my expectations, though, I simply recall all the disappointments of 1997 (Alien Resurrection, The Lost World, the Star Wars Special Edition), and I can get through the hype pretty safely. Considering I’m one of the few who actually loved both Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and (yes, even) McG’s Charlie’s Angels movies, it’s hard for me to believe that I’m also one of the few who isn’t now expecting Terminator Salvation to be the second coming of Christ The Terminator after watching the new trailer (embedded below). Sure, Christian Bale could very well be a lucky charm to franchise reboots (though does anyone believe this will be even a tenth as good as Batman Begins?) and T4 could easily be better than rival summer blockbuster Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (though “easily” is an understatement, because Transformer 2 will suck just as bad as Transformers 1). But with two and a half months left until the movie opens, it’s just too early for us to be going so ga-ga over one piece of marketing. The only thing left to happen now is a backlash, which I guess I’m sort of starting right now? Here’s a sample of the most extreme gushing to hit the blogosphere since the trailer’s premiere last night: Vulture gets credit for both the Batman Begins and the Transformers comparisons: From the looks of this trailer [McG] seems as if he’s on the cusp of delivering one of the best franchise reboots since Chris Nolan decided to take on Bruce Wayne…guaranteed to make Michael Bay seethe with jealousy: huge robots, even huger explosions, and, gasp, realistic-seeming human emotion! Sean at FilmJunk adds to the better-than-Transformers discussion: “Not only does Terminator Salvation have giant robots, explosions and impressive special effects, but it also has acting talent, an interesting story, and a sense of style.” While I’m sure (and hoping) she’s at least half-joking, Best Week Ever’s Michelle Collins nicknames the director “McGenius” and believes the trailer is great enough to now ensure people will be lining up days in advance. Note to Warner Bros.: you apparently needn’t spend money on further marketing materials. You’re good. Neil Miller at FIlmSchoolRejects is overly dramatic and overly excited: Even Christian Bale, master of all things badass — a man who has saved Gotham City twice from disaster — cannot stop the elimination in McG’s soon to be awesome Terminator Salvation. Am I being dramatic? Yes. Is this movie going to rock you to your core? Absolutely, yes. Alex Billington at FirstShowing.net, on the other hand, still prefers to hate on the director in spite of all his excitement: “Watching this makes me forget that McG is even directing this and makes me believe that we may actually see an awesome Terminator movie. This year’s summer movie season is looking better and better with every new day!” Rob at Topless Robot at least seems to understand the relativity that’s affecting his fanboy salivation: “Am I the only one excirted because my expectations for a McG-directed Terminator were so abyssmally low?” Todd Brown at Twitch nominates the spot as the “Best Trailer of The Year” and claims it’s better than any of the trailers for either of the James Cameron installments: To him, it “comes as near to perfection as I’ve seen in a long, long time.” Meredith Woerner at io9 pumps up the fanboys with screenshots, including some resembling parts of Star Wars and Firefly. Empire (and also Topless Robot) also sees some Battlestar Galactica resemblance. Oh, TMZ, you’re still on the Bale tirade story? Don’t you know today’s a day for positive T4 news? Okay, there is at least one blogger with lower expectations than I have: Rod at ThePlaylist. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:01:06 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/3/2009 8:01:06 PMI have always tried to maintain low expectations for Hollywood product in general. But when it comes to highly anticipated movies, particularly blockbuster sequels to popular sci-fi action franchises, my excitement can get the best of me. Whenever I need to calm down my expectations, though, I simply recall all the disappointments of 1997 (Alien Resurrection, The Lost World, the Star Wars Special Edition), and I can get through the hype pretty safely. Considering I’m one of the few who actually loved both Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and (yes, even) McG’s Charlie’s Angels movies, it’s hard for me to believe that I’m also one of the few who isn’t now expecting Terminator Salvation to be the second coming of Christ The Terminator after watching the new trailer (embedded below). Sure, Christian Bale could very well be a lucky charm to franchise reboots (though does anyone believe this will be even a tenth as good as Batman Begins?) and T4 could easily be better than rival summer blockbuster Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (though “easily” is an understatement, because Transformer 2 will suck just as bad as Transformers 1). But with two and a half months left until the movie opens, it’s just too early for us to be going so ga-ga over one piece of marketing. The only thing left to happen now is a backlash, which I guess I’m sort of starting right now? Here’s a sample of the most extreme gushing to hit the blogosphere since the trailer’s premiere last night: Vulture gets credit for both the Batman Begins and the Transformers comparisons: From the looks of this trailer [McG] seems as if he’s on the cusp of delivering one of the best franchise reboots since Chris Nolan decided to take on Bruce Wayne…guaranteed to make Michael Bay seethe with jealousy: huge robots, even huger explosions, and, gasp, realistic-seeming human emotion! Sean at FilmJunk adds to the better-than-Transformers discussion: “Not only does Terminator Salvation have giant robots, explosions and impressive special effects, but it also has acting talent, an interesting story, and a sense of style.” While I’m sure (and hoping) she’s at least half-joking, Best Week Ever’s Michelle Collins nicknames the director “McGenius” and believes the trailer is great enough to now ensure people will be lining up days in advance. Note to Warner Bros.: you apparently needn’t spend money on further marketing materials. You’re good. Neil Miller at FIlmSchoolRejects is overly dramatic and overly excited: Even Christian Bale, master of all things badass — a man who has saved Gotham City twice from disaster — cannot stop the elimination in McG’s soon to be awesome Terminator Salvation. Am I being dramatic? Yes. Is this movie going to rock you to your core? Absolutely, yes. Alex Billington at FirstShowing.net, on the other hand, still prefers to hate on the director in spite of all his excitement: “Watching this makes me forget that McG is even directing this and makes me believe that we may actually see an awesome Terminator movie. This year’s summer movie season is looking better and better with every new day!” Rob at Topless Robot at least seems to understand the relativity that’s affecting his fanboy salivation: “Am I the only one excirted because my expectations for a McG-directed Terminator were so abyssmally low?” Todd Brown at Twitch nominates the spot as the “Best Trailer of The Year” and claims it’s better than any of the trailers for either of the James Cameron installments: To him, it “comes as near to perfection as I’ve seen in a long, long time.” Meredith Woerner at io9 pumps up the fanboys with screenshots, including some resembling parts of Star Wars and Firefly. Empire (and also Topless Robot) also sees some Battlestar Galactica resemblance. Oh, TMZ, you’re still on the Bale tirade story? Don’t you know today’s a day for positive T4 news? Okay, there is at least one blogger with lower expectations than I have: Rod at ThePlaylist. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/5/40271.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/5/2009 12:01:20 PM
Body: Are you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:01:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/5/2009 12:01:20 PMAre you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/yinali/archive/2009/1/31/40118.aspx Post By: Yinali
Post To: Yinali Blog
Post Date: 1/31/2009 12:51:40 PM
Body: Michael Bay is well known for his movies like: Transformers, The Island, etc. He can't miss making a good movie with great effects and a good storyline. Although, for my taste, I think it missed something in the end. But that's just me.
]]>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:51:40 GMTYinaliYinali Blog1/31/2009 12:51:40 PMMichael Bay is well known for his movies like: Transformers, The Island, etc. He can't miss making a good movie with great effects and a good storyline. Although, for my taste, I think it missed something in the end. But that's just me. http://www.spout.com/groups/Comic_Book_Movies/Re_Transformers/211/37433/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: Comic Book Movies
Post Date: 11/19/2008 10:29:13 AM
Body: What do I think about what? The new Transformers movie? I really enjoyed the new movie. I never watched the original though so I can't say how well it matched up with that. Here's mike_moody's take on the debate.
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:29:13 GMTrjspragueComic Book Movies11/19/2008 10:29:13 AMWhat do I think about what? The new Transformers movie? I really enjoyed the new movie. I never watched the original though so I can't say how well it matched up with that. Here's mike_moody's take on the debate. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/10/21/36541.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 10/21/2008 10:00:56 AM
Body: Universal Studios is building a ride in its theme parks in Singapore and Los Angeles, based on Michael Bay’s Transformers. The attraction is expected to “use 3-D HD footage with special effects, robotics and track to place humans in the middle of a war between the friendly Autobots and evil Decepticons, who can turn into cars, trucks, planes and other vehicles.” Yay, war! Meanwhile, Universal the studio is planning to sell genre division Rogue Pictures to Relativity Media for $150 million. Rogue has been moderately successful producing low-budget hits like The Strangers, to which a sequel is in development; Relativity will get the development slate as well as the library, although Univeral will agree to distribute all Rogue films through 2013. MSNBC Films, the documentary unit announced by NBC/Universal’s news channel in June, has firmed up plans for their first two releases. The festival circuit acquisition Dear Zachary will premiere at Tribeca Cinemas on October 29 before rolling out to at least four markets, and in-house production Witness to Jonestown will premiere on the channel November 9. Being that two NBC employees died covering the events at Jonestown, this may be the closest thing to a personal project that a cable network could make. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:00:56 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog10/21/2008 10:00:56 AM Universal Studios is building a ride in its theme parks in Singapore and Los Angeles, based on Michael Bay’s Transformers. The attraction is expected to “use 3-D HD footage with special effects, robotics and track to place humans in the middle of a war between the friendly Autobots and evil Decepticons, who can turn into cars, trucks, planes and other vehicles.” Yay, war! Meanwhile, Universal the studio is planning to sell genre division Rogue Pictures to Relativity Media for $150 million. Rogue has been moderately successful producing low-budget hits like The Strangers, to which a sequel is in development; Relativity will get the development slate as well as the library, although Univeral will agree to distribute all Rogue films through 2013. MSNBC Films, the documentary unit announced by NBC/Universal’s news channel in June, has firmed up plans for their first two releases. The festival circuit acquisition Dear Zachary will premiere at Tribeca Cinemas on October 29 before rolling out to at least four markets, and in-house production Witness to Jonestown will premiere on the channel November 9. Being that two NBC employees died covering the events at Jonestown, this may be the closest thing to a personal project that a cable network could make. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/21/36540.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/21/2008 10:00:42 AM
Body: Universal Studios is building a ride in its theme parks in Singapore and Los Angeles, based on Michael Bay’s Transformers. The attraction is expected to “use 3-D HD footage with special effects, robotics and track to place humans in the middle of a war between the friendly Autobots and evil Decepticons, who can turn into cars, trucks, planes and other vehicles.” Yay, war! Meanwhile, Universal the studio is planning to sell genre division Rogue Pictures to Relativity Media for $150 million. Rogue has been moderately successful producing low-budget hits like The Strangers, to which a sequel is in development; Relativity will get the development slate as well as the library, although Univeral will agree to distribute all Rogue films through 2013. MSNBC Films, the documentary unit announced by NBC/Universal’s news channel in June, has firmed up plans for their first two releases. The festival circuit acquisition Dear Zachary will premiere at Tribeca Cinemas on October 29 before rolling out to at least four markets, and in-house production Witness to Jonestown will premiere on the channel November 9. Being that two NBC employees died covering the events at Jonestown, this may be the closest thing to a personal project that a cable network could make. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:00:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/21/2008 10:00:42 AM Universal Studios is building a ride in its theme parks in Singapore and Los Angeles, based on Michael Bay’s Transformers. The attraction is expected to “use 3-D HD footage with special effects, robotics and track to place humans in the middle of a war between the friendly Autobots and evil Decepticons, who can turn into cars, trucks, planes and other vehicles.” Yay, war! Meanwhile, Universal the studio is planning to sell genre division Rogue Pictures to Relativity Media for $150 million. Rogue has been moderately successful producing low-budget hits like The Strangers, to which a sequel is in development; Relativity will get the development slate as well as the library, although Univeral will agree to distribute all Rogue films through 2013. MSNBC Films, the documentary unit announced by NBC/Universal’s news channel in June, has firmed up plans for their first two releases. The festival circuit acquisition Dear Zachary will premiere at Tribeca Cinemas on October 29 before rolling out to at least four markets, and in-house production Witness to Jonestown will premiere on the channel November 9. Being that two NBC employees died covering the events at Jonestown, this may be the closest thing to a personal project that a cable network could make. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Best_movie_quotes/_There_s_No_Victory_without_Sacrifice_I_Just_Bou/17/36202/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mythman
Post To: Best movie quotes
Post Date: 10/11/2008 6:01:22 PM
Body: Yep
]]>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:01:22 GMTmythmanBest movie quotes10/11/2008 6:01:22 PMYep http://www.spout.com/blogs/owtkast/archive/2008/9/30/35706.aspx Post By: owtkast
Post To: owtkast Blog
Post Date: 9/30/2008 5:53:48 AM
Body: The worlds largest toy commercial. A touch of nostalgia for us children of the 80's. The unique thing about this film is you love it or hate it, no dangling from the fence. I personally loved it, and the carnage that Director Micheal Bay always brings with him in the film. An excellent blend of cast from now star shai Lebouf and Megan Fox, to wonderful supportin actors like the late Bernie Mac, John Turtorro, Anthony Anderson and Jon Voigt. It's a must see.
]]>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:53:48 GMTowtkastowtkast Blog9/30/2008 5:53:48 AMThe worlds largest toy commercial. A touch of nostalgia for us children of the 80's. The unique thing about this film is you love it or hate it, no dangling from the fence. I personally loved it, and the carnage that Director Micheal Bay always brings with him in the film. An excellent blend of cast from now star shai Lebouf and Megan Fox, to wonderful supportin actors like the late Bernie Mac, John Turtorro, Anthony Anderson and Jon Voigt. It's a must see. http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/9/29/35702.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 9/29/2008 11:06:02 PM
Body: Shia LaBeouf and director D.J. Caruso reworked Hitchock's “Rear Window” for the teen set with adequate results in last year's “Disturbia.” With “Eagle Eye,” the two return in an attempt streamline Francis Ford Coppola's “The Conversation” for the text message set. Call it “The CNVRS8SHN.” On second thought, don't call it at all. “Eagle Eye,” a project long-shelved by LaBeouf's number-one cheerleader Steven Spielberg, has a kernel of an interesting idea rattling around in its hollow head, but it defaults back to the clamor and clatter of the worst of summer blockbusters. With visuals that suggest the film was edited in a Jeep traveling at top speed on a cobblestone street, the film does not so much transition but spasms from one scene to the next. The only reason I sat through the various chases is that I honestly did not know who was in what vehicle and was merely interested in who crawled out of the wreckages. That is very different from 'caring' who did. LeBeouf (don't ask me to pronounce his name, as I have trouble just spelling it correctly) stars as Jerry Shaw, a copy-center jockey who's called home following the funeral of his twin brother killed while on duty in the military. If movies have taught us anything, it's that having a twin rarely has pleasant, uncomplicated outcomes. After the funeral, Jerry returns to his hovel to find it redecorated with the Martha Stewart Terrorist Collection, featuring the latest in weapons, explosives and fertilizer. The discovery is quickly followed by a phone call telling him he's been “activated” and has mere seconds to elude an FBI arrest. He's led on what can only be described as a live-action RPG (role-playing game, for all you geezers out there), in which a faceless female voice directs his every move, while assisting him by manipulating everything from traffic lights to Circuit City Home Theater departments to aid his escape. He accompanied by a yummy mommy Rachel (played by Michelle Monaghan), who is equally befuddled as to her involvement in all this. What “Eagle Eye” attempts is to create panic in a world in which our most prized possession – technology – is both our greatest friend and worst enemy. It delivers him the necessary information to elude the “bad guys,” but it also has compiled every instant message, spending habit, website visit and intersection crossing made in the course of our life. But disembodied voices that inhabit closed-circuit McDonald's televisions and automated parking garage fee signs do not evoke immediate fear from audiences (though Hamburgler can be one scary dude), so we have been given two flesh-and-blood antagonists to occasionally point their guns at our reluctant heroes. Rosario Dawson and Billy Bob Thorton as two Feds in hot pursuit, with Thorton taking on the role of the befuddled, beleaguered agent a la Tommy Lee Jones in “The Fugitive.” LeBeouf, meanwhile, does his LeBest, which is to say that he injects his usual fast-talking, everyguy style in the face of overwhelming (and downright improbable) odds. It's the same card he's pulled in his other big-budget starring roles in “Transformers” and this summer's “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” He's not without his charms, but it's hard to notice talent amidst a cacophony of crashing metal and special effects. Monaghan, meanwhile, is reduced to nail-biting and fretting, which is really all she has time for when the camera remains steady for a nanosecond. The Big Brother paranoia is one rife with thriller possibilities, but “Eagle Eye” opts not to exploit it for all its personal intrusions, but rather replaces it with and Red-Bull-fueled action sequences that numb the senses. It leads to a hacker's fever dream conclusion that is staggeringly idiotic in both explanation and execution. This year marked the 25th anniversary of the release of the kid-friendly paranoid technological thriller “WarGames,” which, aside from its computer graphics, still manages to evoke some nerve-fraying fun. My guess is, in 2033, when “Eagle Eye” reaches the same age, it will hardly register a blip on the radar.
]]>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:06:02 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog9/29/2008 11:06:02 PMShia LaBeouf and director D.J. Caruso reworked Hitchock's &ldquo;Rear Window&rdquo; for the teen set with adequate results in last year's &ldquo;Disturbia.&rdquo; With &ldquo;Eagle Eye,&rdquo; the two return in an attempt streamline Francis Ford Coppola's &ldquo;The Conversation&rdquo; for the text message set. Call it &ldquo;The CNVRS8SHN.&rdquo; On second thought, don't call it at all. &ldquo;Eagle Eye,&rdquo; a project long-shelved by LaBeouf's number-one cheerleader Steven Spielberg, has a kernel of an interesting idea rattling around in its hollow head, but it defaults back to the clamor and clatter of the worst of summer blockbusters. With visuals that suggest the film was edited in a Jeep traveling at top speed on a cobblestone street, the film does not so much transition but spasms from one scene to the next. The only reason I sat through the various chases is that I honestly did not know who was in what vehicle and was merely interested in who crawled out of the wreckages. That is very different from 'caring' who did. LeBeouf (don't ask me to pronounce his name, as I have trouble just spelling it correctly) stars as Jerry Shaw, a copy-center jockey who's called home following the funeral of his twin brother killed while on duty in the military. If movies have taught us anything, it's that having a twin rarely has pleasant, uncomplicated outcomes. After the funeral, Jerry returns to his hovel to find it redecorated with the Martha Stewart Terrorist Collection, featuring the latest in weapons, explosives and fertilizer. The discovery is quickly followed by a phone call telling him he's been &ldquo;activated&rdquo; and has mere seconds to elude an FBI arrest. He's led on what can only be described as a live-action RPG (role-playing game, for all you geezers out there), in which a faceless female voice directs his every move, while assisting him by manipulating everything from traffic lights to Circuit City Home Theater departments to aid his escape. He accompanied by a yummy mommy Rachel (played by Michelle Monaghan), who is equally befuddled as to her involvement in all this. What &ldquo;Eagle Eye&rdquo; attempts is to create panic in a world in which our most prized possession &ndash; technology &ndash; is both our greatest friend and worst enemy. It delivers him the necessary information to elude the &ldquo;bad guys,&rdquo; but it also has compiled every instant message, spending habit, website visit and intersection crossing made in the course of our life. But disembodied voices that inhabit closed-circuit McDonald's televisions and automated parking garage fee signs do not evoke immediate fear from audiences (though Hamburgler can be one scary dude), so we have been given two flesh-and-blood antagonists to occasionally point their guns at our reluctant heroes. Rosario Dawson and Billy Bob Thorton as two Feds in hot pursuit, with Thorton taking on the role of the befuddled, beleaguered agent a la Tommy Lee Jones in &ldquo;The Fugitive.&rdquo; LeBeouf, meanwhile, does his LeBest, which is to say that he injects his usual fast-talking, everyguy style in the face of overwhelming (and downright improbable) odds. It's the same card he's pulled in his other big-budget starring roles in &ldquo;Transformers&rdquo; and this summer's &ldquo;Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.&rdquo; He's not without his charms, but it's hard to notice talent amidst a cacophony of crashing metal and special effects. Monaghan, meanwhile, is reduced to nail-biting and fretting, which is really all she has time for when the camera remains steady for a nanosecond. The Big Brother paranoia is one rife with thriller possibilities, but &ldquo;Eagle Eye&rdquo; opts not to exploit it for all its personal intrusions, but rather replaces it with and Red-Bull-fueled action sequences that numb the senses. It leads to a hacker's fever dream conclusion that is staggeringly idiotic in both explanation and execution. This year marked the 25th anniversary of the release of the kid-friendly paranoid technological thriller &ldquo;WarGames,&rdquo; which, aside from its computer graphics, still manages to evoke some nerve-fraying fun. My guess is, in 2033, when &ldquo;Eagle Eye&rdquo; reaches the same age, it will hardly register a blip on the radar. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 607

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 940

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:10 GMT607316940Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/the/MemberTagFilms.aspxthe
Number of films tagged: 124

Number of people who tagged: 131

Number of times used: 150

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT124131150Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 363

Number of people who tagged: 114

Number of times used: 187

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:09:46 GMT363114187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 317

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 458

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:42:37 GMT317111458Tag 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/Cool/MemberTagFilms.aspxCool
Number of films tagged: 103

Number of people who tagged: 97

Number of times used: 188

]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:20:50 GMT10397188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 367

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:17 GMT22795367Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 91

Number of times used: 122

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT7891122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/80s/MemberTagFilms.aspx80s
Number of films tagged: 87

Number of people who tagged: 90

Number of times used: 162

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:41 GMT8790162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/film/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilm
Number of films tagged: 657

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 190

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT65782190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantastic/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantastic
Number of films tagged: 106

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 137

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:19:21 GMT10674137Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/aliens/MemberTagFilms.aspxaliens
Number of films tagged: 74

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 111

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:12:57 GMT7451111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dumb/MemberTagFilms.aspxdumb
Number of films tagged: 146

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 153

]]>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:20:32 GMT14628153Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/army/MemberTagFilms.aspxarmy
Number of films tagged: 867

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 76

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT8672776Tag