list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Munich 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/Munich/264916/default.aspx Title: Munich
Year: 2005
Director: Steven Spielberg
Plot: Much as Steven Spielberg followed 1993's special-effects blockbuster Jurassic Park with a far more downbeat and personal project later the same year, Schindler's List, in 2005 after tearing up the box office with War of the Worlds the director closed out the year with a powerful and thoughtful drama about the human costs of international terrorism. The 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany, were supposed to be a peaceful gathering of outstanding athletes from around the world, but on September 5, the games took a sinister turn when eight masked Palestinian terrorists invaded the Olympic village, killing two Israeli athletes and abducting nine others. The kidnappers demanded safe passage out of Germany in addition to the release of Arab prisoners in Israeli and German prisons, but when they arrived at the Munich airport they were met by German police and military forces, and in the melee that followed, all nine hostages were killed. In the wake of the killings, the Israeli government gave Mossad, the nation's intelligence agency, a special assignment -- to track down and eliminate the Palestinians responsible for the death of the Israeli athletes. A young and idealistic Mossad agent (Eric Bana) is assigned to the four-man unit created to wipe out the Olympic terrorists, but while he believes in serving his country, as their bloody work goes on he begins to buckle under the weight of his work and wonders if he can morally justify his nation's acts of revenge. Munich also stars Geoffrey Rush, Daniel Craig, Mathieu Kassovitz, and Ciarán Hinds. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 40
Number of Lists: 53
Number of blog posts: 10
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:13:15 GMTMunich2005Steven SpielbergMuch as <a href="/players/P___112325/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Steven Spielberg</a> followed 1993's special-effects blockbuster <a href=/films/18496/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Jurassic Park</a> with a far more downbeat and personal project later the same year, <a href=/films/81023/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Schindler's List</a>, in 2005 after tearing up the box office with <a href=/films/251134/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>War of the Worlds</a> the director closed out the year with a powerful and thoughtful drama about the human costs of international terrorism. The 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany, were supposed to be a peaceful gathering of outstanding athletes from around the world, but on September 5, the games took a sinister turn when eight masked Palestinian terrorists invaded the Olympic village, killing two Israeli athletes and abducting nine others. The kidnappers demanded safe passage out of Germany in addition to the release of Arab prisoners in Israeli and German prisons, but when they arrived at the Munich airport they were met by German police and military forces, and in the melee that followed, all nine hostages were killed. In the wake of the killings, the Israeli government gave Mossad, the nation's intelligence agency, a special assignment -- to track down and eliminate the Palestinians responsible for the death of the Israeli athletes. A young and idealistic Mossad agent (<a href="/players/P___224103/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eric Bana</a>) is assigned to the four-man unit created to wipe out the Olympic terrorists, but while he believes in serving his country, as their bloody work goes on he begins to buckle under the weight of his work and wonders if he can morally justify his nation's acts of revenge. Munich also stars <a href="/players/P___151418/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Geoffrey Rush</a>, <a href="/players/P____15549/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Daniel Craig</a>, <a href="/players/P____37013/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mathieu Kassovitz</a>, and <a href="/players/P____32429/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ciarán Hinds</a>. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide40Tag Target (>10)531013http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t79354yuwit.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Munich/264916/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/leeroy711/archive/2008/10/2/35833.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: leeroy711 Blog
Post Date: 10/2/2008 1:44:17 PM
Body: John Adams (2008) *** 1/2 Stars out of 5 Directed by: Tom Hooper Starring: Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson and Stephen Dillane Running Time: 201 minutes Rated: NR Released: 2008 Language: English Review: Something dawned on me as I was watching this series. At one point we watch the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Another shows the inauguration of the first President of the United States. We also see the depiction of the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party early in the series. I came to wonder: Why haven’t I seen this before? Aren’t these some of the most pivotal moments in the shaping of our nation? I’ve read about them in books, and I probably seen some of this stuff re-enacted on the History Channel or public broadcast. But, never on the big screen or a major production cable special such as this. I’ve seen some pretty good political thrillers that are based on historic events, such as Thirteen Days, Munich or Z. But none of those events took place in what could be argued as the most important period of the forming of our nation. The Patriot takes place during this period. But that movie was much less about the events taking place than it was about the characters involved. So why is it that some of the most riveting, philosophically provocative and emotionally charged real life stories have been confined almost solely to the pages of a history book or bad re-enactments on PBS? I have my own speculations but I will quickly remind myself that this is supposed to be a review of the series and not the incessant ravings of a libertarian mind. So, let’s start off where I typically like to, with the cinematography. In the first couple of episodes, I was very taken by some of the beautiful scenery and use of color pallets. A lot of the shots I enjoyed the most were filmed in the winter with a thick bed of snow on the ground contrasted with all of the earthy tones of the various structures and fauna springing up from the ground. Much of these gave a very Norman Rockwell-like impression. There were also plenty of shots that I not only didn’t care for, I was ultimately annoyed with. This series is filled with one technique that was completely overused. What I’m referring to is when the audience is subjected to watching a scene unfold from behind an out of focus obstruction or obstructions. Imagine watching something happen as you are peering through weeds or grass. This makes sense, if you are being laying down in an open field and being chased by Jeepers Creepers. This makes no sense however, when you are watching a heart to heart conversation between a 90 year old John Adams and his beloved son. Why are we hiding in the grass? Are we waiting for a plot twist in which Mr. Adams takes his big walking stick and beats his son to death? (SPOILER ALERT: This does not happen) This series is completely filled with these shots and every one seems very out of place. I removed a half star just for that. Moving along, the cast was quite good. I was a bit worried simply because of my lack of affection to Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney (Mr. and Mrs. Adams, respectively). I was a bit surprised at how much I enjoyed both of their performances. Giamatti put down what I would call his best performance thus far with passion and fervor. Linney played the more patient and reserved, but still passionate counterpart to the team. Tom Wilkinson was very good as the pragmatic yet somewhat frivolous Benjamin Franklin. And Stephen Dillane was Thomas Jefferson. He was a very integral part of Adam’s story. He established himself as Adam’s closest friend and ally. Later, politics would try their friendship to its very brink. He may have been the best performer of the series. It was certainly one of the more challenging roles. One of my favorite scenes is towards the end when John Adam’s doctor says that while some wrote or spoke or fought for this revolution, it was Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson who thought for us all. Rufus Sewell, I believe clearly established himself as the series’ only true antagonist, the empirical Alexander Hamilton. His character was one of the most interesting to watch because it showed (assuming historical accuracy) how quickly a revolution spawn from ideal, philosophy and principal could be infiltrated and sullied by politics and partisanship. The only other problem I had with this series was somewhat inherent in the nature of a miniseries. A decent 2 ½ hour long movie may have a lull that lasts 45 minutes or so. A series that spans about 9 hours however is subject to a much longer and less forgivable lull. The first couple of episodes really pulled me in. We are treated to very well put together depictions of both the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party. Unfortunately, we must very quickly shift to a much slower gear and remain there for the rest of the series. I recall thinking to myself, after watching the fourth or fifth episode, that if I had to wait another week for the next installment, I very likely would have given up on it. I’m glad that I didn’t, because once you have gotten used to the slower pace, you can more easily take in and process the deep rooted philosophical banter that is thrown about between the founding fathers………..and still today. In summary, I will give this series my recommendation. It is more than likely, the most historically accurate telling of the events that took place in New England during the late 18th century. Although, the story is primarily about its namesake, John Adams, it is just as much about the American Revolution as a whole. This story has been sugarcoated and hand fed to us practically since it was current events and any history buff that’s interested in a more candid look at the founding fathers would do themselves justice to pick this one up. Recommendations: If you have already seen this one and enjoyed it, I would suggest checking out other HBO series. I would say Deadwood and Carnivàle are good choices.
]]>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:44:17 GMTleeroy711leeroy711 Blog10/2/2008 1:44:17 PM John Adams (2008) *** 1/2 Stars out of 5 Directed by: Tom Hooper Starring: Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson and Stephen Dillane Running Time: 201 minutes Rated: NR Released: 2008 Language: English Review: Something dawned on me as I was watching this series. At one point we watch the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Another shows the inauguration of the first President of the United States. We also see the depiction of the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party early in the series. I came to wonder: Why haven&rsquo;t I seen this before? Aren&rsquo;t these some of the most pivotal moments in the shaping of our nation? I&rsquo;ve read about them in books, and I probably seen some of this stuff re-enacted on the History Channel or public broadcast. But, never on the big screen or a major production cable special such as this. I&rsquo;ve seen some pretty good political thrillers that are based on historic events, such as Thirteen Days, Munich or Z. But none of those events took place in what could be argued as the most important period of the forming of our nation. The Patriot takes place during this period. But that movie was much less about the events taking place than it was about the characters involved. So why is it that some of the most riveting, philosophically provocative and emotionally charged real life stories have been confined almost solely to the pages of a history book or bad re-enactments on PBS? I have my own speculations but I will quickly remind myself that this is supposed to be a review of the series and not the incessant ravings of a libertarian mind. So, let&rsquo;s start off where I typically like to, with the cinematography. In the first couple of episodes, I was very taken by some of the beautiful scenery and use of color pallets. A lot of the shots I enjoyed the most were filmed in the winter with a thick bed of snow on the ground contrasted with all of the earthy tones of the various structures and fauna springing up from the ground. Much of these gave a very Norman Rockwell-like impression. There were also plenty of shots that I not only didn&rsquo;t care for, I was ultimately annoyed with. This series is filled with one technique that was completely overused. What I&rsquo;m referring to is when the audience is subjected to watching a scene unfold from behind an out of focus obstruction or obstructions. Imagine watching something happen as you are peering through weeds or grass. This makes sense, if you are being laying down in an open field and being chased by Jeepers Creepers. This makes no sense however, when you are watching a heart to heart conversation between a 90 year old John Adams and his beloved son. Why are we hiding in the grass? Are we waiting for a plot twist in which Mr. Adams takes his big walking stick and beats his son to death? (SPOILER ALERT: This does not happen) This series is completely filled with these shots and every one seems very out of place. I removed a half star just for that. Moving along, the cast was quite good. I was a bit worried simply because of my lack of affection to Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney (Mr. and Mrs. Adams, respectively). I was a bit surprised at how much I enjoyed both of their performances. Giamatti put down what I would call his best performance thus far with passion and fervor. Linney played the more patient and reserved, but still passionate counterpart to the team. Tom Wilkinson was very good as the pragmatic yet somewhat frivolous Benjamin Franklin. And Stephen Dillane was Thomas Jefferson. He was a very integral part of Adam&rsquo;s story. He established himself as Adam&rsquo;s closest friend and ally. Later, politics would try their friendship to its very brink. He may have been the best performer of the series. It was certainly one of the more challenging roles. One of my favorite scenes is towards the end when John Adam&rsquo;s doctor says that while some wrote or spoke or fought for this revolution, it was Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson who thought for us all. Rufus Sewell, I believe clearly established himself as the series&rsquo; only true antagonist, the empirical Alexander Hamilton. His character was one of the most interesting to watch because it showed (assuming historical accuracy) how quickly a revolution spawn from ideal, philosophy and principal could be infiltrated and sullied by politics and partisanship. The only other problem I had with this series was somewhat inherent in the nature of a miniseries. A decent 2 &frac12; hour long movie may have a lull that lasts 45 minutes or so. A series that spans about 9 hours however is subject to a much longer and less forgivable lull. The first couple of episodes really pulled me in. We are treated to very well put together depictions of both the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party. Unfortunately, we must very quickly shift to a much slower gear and remain there for the rest of the series. I recall thinking to myself, after watching the fourth or fifth episode, that if I had to wait another week for the next installment, I very likely would have given up on it. I&rsquo;m glad that I didn&rsquo;t, because once you have gotten used to the slower pace, you can more easily take in and process the deep rooted philosophical banter that is thrown about between the founding fathers&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;..and still today. In summary, I will give this series my recommendation. It is more than likely, the most historically accurate telling of the events that took place in New England during the late 18th century. Although, the story is primarily about its namesake, John Adams, it is just as much about the American Revolution as a whole. This story has been sugarcoated and hand fed to us practically since it was current events and any history buff that&rsquo;s interested in a more candid look at the founding fathers would do themselves justice to pick this one up. Recommendations: If you have already seen this one and enjoyed it, I would suggest checking out other HBO series. I would say Deadwood and Carniv&agrave;le are good choices. http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_american_dream/archive/2008/6/15/31263.aspx Post By: The_American_Dream
Post To: The_American_Dream Blog
Post Date: 6/15/2008 11:31:24 PM
Body: FORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more. These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory. Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach. Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great cliché. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it. But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence. Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir. To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view. These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing. Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that. Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies.
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:31:24 GMTThe_American_DreamThe_American_Dream Blog6/15/2008 11:31:24 PMFORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more. These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory. Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach. Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great clich&eacute;. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it. But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence. Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir. To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view. These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing. Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that. Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies. http://www.spout.com/blogs/downwest/archive/2007/12/13/22770.aspx Post By: downwest
Post To: downwest Blog
Post Date: 12/13/2007 10:26:43 AM
Body: Politics aside, this is an impressive work examining the humanity of the situation the plot is describing. It captures what violence can do to people, and what violence that will result in. The cinematography really did give a feel for what was happening in the film, reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan, but with no glossy shine or deliberate overexposure. John Williams once again pulls through with memorable themes and motifs. The wailing woman motif, though affecting here, has almost become old now with its recently widespread use.
]]>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:26:43 GMTdownwestdownwest Blog12/13/2007 10:26:43 AMPolitics aside, this is an impressive work examining the humanity of the situation the plot is describing. It captures what violence can do to people, and what violence that will result in. The cinematography really did give a feel for what was happening in the film, reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan, but with no glossy shine or deliberate overexposure. John Williams once again pulls through with memorable themes and motifs. The wailing woman motif, though affecting here, has almost become old now with its recently widespread use. http://www.spout.com/blogs/tenenbaums/archive/2007/11/27/22219.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Tenenbaums Blog
Post Date: 11/27/2007 1:48:16 AM
Body: In 2005, Steven Spielberg was in somewhat of a funk. It had been 7 years since Saving Private Ryan, and in the meantime he was in a popcorn picture phase. He finished the Kubrick project (A.I.), worked with Tom Cruise twice (Minority Report and War of the Worlds), got by with The Terminal, and in the middle made a little gem called Catch Me If You Can. But where was another “important Spielberg” film? Enter Munich. The exhilarating true story of globetrotting Israel-backed assassin assassins looked like it was lifted out of the mid-70s and proved that Spielberg still cared.Until March, David Fincher was a director known for creeping out audiences in contemporary settings with the help of Brad Pitt. Then he released Zodiac, a meticulous and thoroughly engaging chronicle of the San Francisco citizens obsessively affected by the mysterious titular killer. The Vietnam-era period piece, arguably the best film of the year so far, is his strongest to date and broadened Fincher’s credibility beyond merely a shock director.And then there’s Ridley Scott. Easily mistaken for a technical action director like his brother Tony, he too had an interesting start to the 2000s. After his magnum opus Gladiator came the disgusting, awful Hannibal and the so-so Black Hawk Down. Next was the refreshing change of pace Matchstick Men, the visually stunning but poorly timed Kingdom of Heaven (The Lord of the Rings already had those battle scenes), and A Good Year, a film where few knew what he and Russell Crowe were thinking. But then he signed on to make a project that had been in developmental purgatory for nearly a decade, called American Gangster.As with the above talented directors, Sir Ridley’s career has received a spark courtesy of the appealing grit and glory of the 1970s. Gangster, featuring the long anticipated second teaming of Crowe and Denzel Washington, is not Scott’s ultimate work, but like Spielberg with Munich, it is tantalizing evidence that a top filmmaker can still enthrall audiences on multiple levels.Washington’s Frank Lucas aims to go where no black businessman has gone before, cutting out all the middlemen in the heroin game to guarantee the best product for half the cost. With his mission, Lucas transcends race, playing ignorant society for the fool it is by living fearless, practically invisible, and in complete control. His rewards are immense, and true to the pioneering brand of kingpin that he is, he shares all with his family, his most important thing...next to himself. In typical gangster success fashion, Lucas’ ego creates a blind spot in a once perfect plan, and as a result his rise can only last so long, as can his anonymity to the law.In the shadow of Lucas’ reign of dominance, the true driving force behind the film’s first half, Crowe’s Det. Richie Roberts and his team of hard nosed do-good cops have slowly been piecing together an investigation to uncover the mystery discount drug lord. Trails run cold and apparent sure bets crumble, negating months of work. But then keeping watch at the Ali-Frazier fight, Roberts notices an anomaly: a black man in full chinchilla get-up with amazing seats who is greeted by both boxers. It is Lucas, betrayed by the societal limitations of his race that he tried so hard to overcome, and suddenly the case ignites.The action throughout plays out as if two heavyweight fighters are training for a blind date fight with one another. Washington’s acting stands out for its Training Day lite flamboyance, but Crowe’s is impressive for its subtlety and control. When they meet, the titanic game of chess begins, and then it is over far too soon. The brief union is the cinematic equivalent of tracks featuring both Nas and Jay-Z: the fire is there, but we want a whole album’s worth.Scott’s direction brings together all of the strengths from his previous works. The epic-feeling dialogue between the leper King Baldwin and Balian in Kingdom of Heaven meets the seemingly impossible elevated action of Gladiator and the strength-in-numbers of Thelma and Louise. The result is a tall, diverse, and eloquent film, reminiscent of early Francis Ford Coppola. Scott always had this work in him, but it took a convergence of giants on all ends to make it the vibrant success that it is.But back to the setting. The clothes, the cars, the music, and the general feel are all so remarkably authentic that it is a wonder such a time can be recreated today. Careful attention to the decade has worked wonders for Spielberg, Fincher, and now Scott, and it is with greater expectations that pleasantly surprised audiences await each filmmaker’s next scaffolded work.
]]>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 06:48:16 GMTTenenbaumsTenenbaums Blog11/27/2007 1:48:16 AMIn 2005, Steven Spielberg was in somewhat of a funk. It had been 7 years since Saving Private Ryan, and in the meantime he was in a popcorn picture phase. He finished the Kubrick project (A.I.), worked with Tom Cruise twice (Minority Report and War of the Worlds), got by with The Terminal, and in the middle made a little gem called Catch Me If You Can. But where was another &ldquo;important Spielberg&rdquo; film? Enter Munich. The exhilarating true story of globetrotting Israel-backed assassin assassins looked like it was lifted out of the mid-70s and proved that Spielberg still cared.Until March, David Fincher was a director known for creeping out audiences in contemporary settings with the help of Brad Pitt. Then he released Zodiac, a meticulous and thoroughly engaging chronicle of the San Francisco citizens obsessively affected by the mysterious titular killer. The Vietnam-era period piece, arguably the best film of the year so far, is his strongest to date and broadened Fincher&rsquo;s credibility beyond merely a shock director.And then there&rsquo;s Ridley Scott. Easily mistaken for a technical action director like his brother Tony, he too had an interesting start to the 2000s. After his magnum opus Gladiator came the disgusting, awful Hannibal and the so-so Black Hawk Down. Next was the refreshing change of pace Matchstick Men, the visually stunning but poorly timed Kingdom of Heaven (The Lord of the Rings already had those battle scenes), and A Good Year, a film where few knew what he and Russell Crowe were thinking. But then he signed on to make a project that had been in developmental purgatory for nearly a decade, called American Gangster.As with the above talented directors, Sir Ridley&rsquo;s career has received a spark courtesy of the appealing grit and glory of the 1970s. Gangster, featuring the long anticipated second teaming of Crowe and Denzel Washington, is not Scott&rsquo;s ultimate work, but like Spielberg with Munich, it is tantalizing evidence that a top filmmaker can still enthrall audiences on multiple levels.Washington&rsquo;s Frank Lucas aims to go where no black businessman has gone before, cutting out all the middlemen in the heroin game to guarantee the best product for half the cost. With his mission, Lucas transcends race, playing ignorant society for the fool it is by living fearless, practically invisible, and in complete control. His rewards are immense, and true to the pioneering brand of kingpin that he is, he shares all with his family, his most important thing...next to himself. In typical gangster success fashion, Lucas&rsquo; ego creates a blind spot in a once perfect plan, and as a result his rise can only last so long, as can his anonymity to the law.In the shadow of Lucas&rsquo; reign of dominance, the true driving force behind the film&rsquo;s first half, Crowe&rsquo;s Det. Richie Roberts and his team of hard nosed do-good cops have slowly been piecing together an investigation to uncover the mystery discount drug lord. Trails run cold and apparent sure bets crumble, negating months of work. But then keeping watch at the Ali-Frazier fight, Roberts notices an anomaly: a black man in full chinchilla get-up with amazing seats who is greeted by both boxers. It is Lucas, betrayed by the societal limitations of his race that he tried so hard to overcome, and suddenly the case ignites.The action throughout plays out as if two heavyweight fighters are training for a blind date fight with one another. Washington&rsquo;s acting stands out for its Training Day lite flamboyance, but Crowe&rsquo;s is impressive for its subtlety and control. When they meet, the titanic game of chess begins, and then it is over far too soon. The brief union is the cinematic equivalent of tracks featuring both Nas and Jay-Z: the fire is there, but we want a whole album&rsquo;s worth.Scott&rsquo;s direction brings together all of the strengths from his previous works. The epic-feeling dialogue between the leper King Baldwin and Balian in Kingdom of Heaven meets the seemingly impossible elevated action of Gladiator and the strength-in-numbers of Thelma and Louise. The result is a tall, diverse, and eloquent film, reminiscent of early Francis Ford Coppola. Scott always had this work in him, but it took a convergence of giants on all ends to make it the vibrant success that it is.But back to the setting. The clothes, the cars, the music, and the general feel are all so remarkably authentic that it is a wonder such a time can be recreated today. Careful attention to the decade has worked wonders for Spielberg, Fincher, and now Scott, and it is with greater expectations that pleasantly surprised audiences await each filmmaker&rsquo;s next scaffolded work. http://www.spout.com/blogs/slipofthetongue/archive/2007/6/23/11832.aspx Post By: slipofthetongue
Post To: SlipOfTheTongue Blog
Post Date: 6/23/2007 4:08:00 PM
Body: I don't want to get too deeply into the politics behind this movie's subject matter. Here are a few quick thoughts on MUNICH...1.) I like the cast (Daniel Craig, Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush and others). The acting is quite good.2.) I like the idea of this film and there are a few insights here and there about the pointlessness of violence and our inability to overcome the endless cycle it creates.3.) I liked Janusz Kaminski's cinematography. It is polished without feeling overly glossy. It feels graphic and simple without being over-stylized.4.) Spielberg's filmmaking is becoming rather workmanlike and somewhat lifeless. Both his big budget effects movies and his adult fare (we'll call them "big boy" dramas since he merely plays at having an adult perspective) have become rather a boring affair. He's far from the "event" filmmaker he used to be. The one exception is Schindler's List which was excellent. Saving Private Ryan is somewhat over rated save for a few brilliant sequences.5.) The film is too long and it sort of lays there in front of us like an injured whale washed up on the shore. It's not a bad film (it has its moments) but it doesn't really do much except give us a window into the world of political assassination. After a while I didn't find it particularly compelling to watch, at least not enough to justify its length. That's my two cents!
]]>Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:08:00 GMTslipofthetongueSlipOfTheTongue Blog6/23/2007 4:08:00 PMI don't want to get too deeply into the politics behind this movie's subject matter. Here are a few quick thoughts on MUNICH...1.) I like the cast (Daniel Craig, Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush and others). The acting is quite good.2.) I like the idea of this film and there are a few insights here and there about the pointlessness of violence and our inability to overcome the endless cycle it creates.3.) I liked Janusz Kaminski's cinematography. It is polished without feeling overly glossy. It feels graphic and simple without being over-stylized.4.) Spielberg's filmmaking is becoming rather workmanlike and somewhat lifeless. Both his big budget effects movies and his adult fare (we'll call them "big boy" dramas since he merely plays at having an adult perspective) have become rather a boring affair. He's far from the "event" filmmaker he used to be. The one exception is Schindler's List which was excellent. Saving Private Ryan is somewhat over rated save for a few brilliant sequences.5.) The film is too long and it sort of lays there in front of us like an injured whale washed up on the shore. It's not a bad film (it has its moments) but it doesn't really do much except give us a window into the world of political assassination. After a while I didn't find it particularly compelling to watch, at least not enough to justify its length. That's my two cents! http://www.spout.com/blogs/hazel/archive/2007/5/29/9646.aspx Post By: Hazel
Post To: Hazel Blog
Post Date: 5/29/2007 1:57:16 PM
Body: To me, "overwhelming" defines so many aspects of this movie.  The deep political tension, the task at hand, the emotional trauma, the expectations of the characters, the hopelessness.  It left me feeling so much anxiety and unease that I didn't even realize that this movie was almost 3 hours long.  I loved it.  I thought that it was great that we got some insight into the people behind the special Israeli task force,  and their personal relationship with what their job required of them.  I can't help but love a movie that also attempts to give some insight into how deeply entangled the worldviews inside the Middle East are.
]]>Tue, 29 May 2007 17:57:16 GMTHazelHazel Blog5/29/2007 1:57:16 PMTo me, &quot;overwhelming&quot; defines so many aspects of this movie.  The deep political tension, the task at hand, the emotional trauma, the expectations of the characters, the hopelessness.  It left me feeling so much anxiety and unease that I didn&#39;t even realize that this movie was almost 3 hours long.  I loved it.  I thought that it was great that we got some insight into the people behind the special Israeli task force,  and their personal relationship with what their job required of them.  I can&#39;t help but love a movie that also attempts to give some insight into how deeply entangled the worldviews inside the Middle East are. http://www.spout.com/blogs/sgtdobson/archive/2007/5/7/8374.aspx Post By: SgtDobson
Post To: SgtDobson Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2007 4:40:36 PM
Body: I saw this only a couple months after leaving my first tour in Iraq. Politics nonwithstanding, this movie touches on some very real emotions and issues revolving around fighting, particularly terrorism. What struck me about this movie was how remarkably real the devolution of morality was played out. It was so hard to watch, in part because it forced me to confront my own hatred towards the same terrorists, and come to terms with some other things. In short, this movie sums up the general struggle of the warrior: fighting with honor or fighting without it. But fighting regardless. Not to mention it was visually spectacular. Loved it so much it hurts.
]]>Mon, 07 May 2007 20:40:36 GMTSgtDobsonSgtDobson Blog5/7/2007 4:40:36 PMI saw this only a couple months after leaving my first tour in Iraq. Politics nonwithstanding, this movie touches on some very real emotions and issues revolving around fighting, particularly terrorism. What struck me about this movie was how remarkably real the devolution of morality was played out. It was so hard to watch, in part because it forced me to confront my own hatred towards the same terrorists, and come to terms with some other things. In short, this movie sums up the general struggle of the warrior: fighting with honor or fighting without it. But fighting regardless. Not to mention it was visually spectacular. Loved it so much it hurts. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2007/3/7/6107.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 3/7/2007 1:42:00 AM
Body: Munich (2005), which I saw in a new theatre with wide screen and super-Dolby sound, is a powerful and disturbing movie. It took me a few hours to get to sleep afterwards. It is Steven Spielberg’s imaginative version of the Munich Olympics killings of Israeli athletes by Black September terrorists, but it is primarily about the aftermath when a team of 5 Israeli secret agents tries to track down and assassinate terrorists. The movie is relentlessly violent. A movie about, say, a bank robbery need not be violent at all, but shootings and explosions supposedly make it more exciting. Munich, on the other hand, is entirely about violence, i.e., violence is the subject of the movie. But is this slightly overlong series of killings worth watching? Spielberg poses a very serious and relevant question: How should we respond to terrorist killings? More specifically, is our natural response to “kill them back” effective? The movie answers this second question in a way which will not get it a lot of favourable reviews here: No, it is not effective, because the terrorists only respond with new terrorists and more killings, and the effort to wipe out the endless stream of terrorists kills or brutalizes the people hunting the terrorists. Crucially, the Israeli agent on whom the movie is based, came to exactly the opposite conclusion in real life! Yes, the opposite. He was not particularly bothered by hunting down terrorists. Thus Spielberg’s introductory note that the movie is “based on” real events is true to the letter of the law but not to the spirit. When the real outcome was the opposite of what you create in your film, you are duping viewers who, naturally, think that “based on” means “true in essence but different in details.”Jim Bell
]]>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:42:00 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog3/7/2007 1:42:00 AM Munich (2005), which I saw in a new theatre with wide screen and super-Dolby sound, is a powerful and disturbing movie. It took me a few hours to get to sleep afterwards. It is Steven Spielberg&rsquo;s imaginative version of the Munich Olympics killings of Israeli athletes by Black September terrorists, but it is primarily about the aftermath when a team of 5 Israeli secret agents tries to track down and assassinate terrorists. The movie is relentlessly violent. A movie about, say, a bank robbery need not be violent at all, but shootings and explosions supposedly make it more exciting. Munich, on the other hand, is entirely about violence, i.e., violence is the subject of the movie. But is this slightly overlong series of killings worth watching? Spielberg poses a very serious and relevant question: How should we respond to terrorist killings? More specifically, is our natural response to &ldquo;kill them back&rdquo; effective? The movie answers this second question in a way which will not get it a lot of favourable reviews here: No, it is not effective, because the terrorists only respond with new terrorists and more killings, and the effort to wipe out the endless stream of terrorists kills or brutalizes the people hunting the terrorists. Crucially, the Israeli agent on whom the movie is based, came to exactly the opposite conclusion in real life! Yes, the opposite. He was not particularly bothered by hunting down terrorists. Thus Spielberg&rsquo;s introductory note that the movie is &ldquo;based on&rdquo; real events is true to the letter of the law but not to the spirit. When the real outcome was the opposite of what you create in your film, you are duping viewers who, naturally, think that &ldquo;based on&rdquo; means &ldquo;true in essence but different in details.&rdquo;Jim Bell http://www.spout.com/blogs/rick/archive/2007/1/31/5177.aspx Post By: Rick
Post To: Rick's filmBlog
Post Date: 1/31/2007 2:47:12 PM
Body: I really loved the first 1/3 of this movie, but it eventually fails.  The performances are great but I thought it was eventually crushed under the weight of the "seriousness" it was trying to achieve.  It simply goes on for too long, and feels extremely out of its own depth.  The obsession with food (preparing, sharing, eating), violence, and sex just comes off as...sophomore year of film school.All that said, I will admit that I loved the (tiny bit cheesy) 70's international locations, the overall historical intrigue, and the "Papa" character. 
]]>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:47:12 GMTRickRick's filmBlog1/31/2007 2:47:12 PMI really loved the first 1/3 of this movie, but it eventually fails.  The performances are great but I thought it was eventually crushed under the weight of the &quot;seriousness&quot; it was trying to achieve.  It simply goes on for too long, and feels extremely out of its own depth.  The obsession with food (preparing, sharing, eating), violence, and sex just comes off as...sophomore year of film school.All that said, I will admit that I loved the (tiny bit cheesy) 70&#39;s international locations, the overall historical intrigue, and the &quot;Papa&quot; character.  http://www.spout.com/groups/Realism_and_The_Lack_There_Of/Re_How_things_should_work_and_how_they_do/219/4230/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: quint
Post To: Realism and The Lack There Of
Post Date: 12/13/2006 12:44:59 PM
Body: Leaving doors open has always bothered me. I realize the camera needs to pass through, but little details like that always jump me out of the narrative and back to the realization that this is only a movie. French New Wave flicks play with this, sometimes to good effect. Godard is perhaps overly concerned with reminding us that we are watching a movie. Not that there is anything wrong with that self-consciousness in a film. If it is accidental though, that sucks.I was thinking about Spielberg and the movie Munich. There is a film that does alot of camera dancing. The camera tracks a person coming out of a door and getting into a car. But it is all traced across the myriad reflections on a busy street. It's a virtuoso thing that creates another self-conscious moment. Everything is perfect, every detail, and that is as foreign to reality as Godard's self-conscious nods to the camera.
]]>Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:44:59 GMTquintRealism and The Lack There Of12/13/2006 12:44:59 PMLeaving doors open has always bothered me. I realize the camera needs to pass through, but little details like that always jump me out of the narrative and back to the realization that this is only a movie. French New Wave flicks play with this, sometimes to good effect. Godard is perhaps overly concerned with reminding us that we are watching a movie. Not that there is anything wrong with that self-consciousness in a film. If it is accidental though, that sucks.I was thinking about Spielberg and the movie Munich. There is a film that does alot of camera dancing. The camera tracks a person coming out of a door and getting into a car. But it is all traced across the myriad reflections on a busy street. It's a virtuoso thing that creates another self-conscious moment. Everything is perfect, every detail, and that is as foreign to reality as Godard's self-conscious nods to the camera. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6175

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 606

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:02:41 GMT6175179606Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/violence/MemberTagFilms.aspxviolence
Number of films tagged: 952

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 240

]]>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:34:09 GMT95282240Tag 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/racism/MemberTagFilms.aspxracism
Number of films tagged: 800

Number of people who tagged: 69

Number of times used: 136

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT80069136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politics/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitics
Number of films tagged: 698

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 194

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT69854194Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:25:18 GMT7553101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/terrorism/MemberTagFilms.aspxterrorism
Number of films tagged: 981

Number of people who tagged: 49

Number of times used: 117

]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:04:22 GMT98149117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/wow/MemberTagFilms.aspxwow
Number of films tagged: 28

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 33

]]>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:15:56 GMT283033Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/political/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitical
Number of films tagged: 51

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 65

]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:21:55 GMT512965Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/oscar/MemberTagFilms.aspxoscar
Number of films tagged: 110

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 103

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:03:17 GMT11024103Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Spielberg/MemberTagFilms.aspxSpielberg
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 49

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:14:12 GMT302249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/massacre/MemberTagFilms.aspxmassacre
Number of films tagged: 277

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 46

]]>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:55:55 GMT2772146Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/conflict/MemberTagFilms.aspxconflict
Number of films tagged: 1686

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 41

]]>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:01:49 GMT16862041Tag