list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around My Super Ex-Girlfriend 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/My_Super_Ex_Girlfriend/266943/default.aspx Title: My Super Ex-Girlfriend
Year: 2006
Director: Ivan Reitman
Plot: A regular guy finds out just how hard breaking up can truly be when attempting to call it quits with a clingy female crime fighter who doesn't want to let love die in director Ivan Reitman's super-powered romantic comedy. Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) was looking for love when he first met pretty brunette Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman), and at the time it seemed as if he may had finally actually found it. Jenny isn't just your typical girl, though, because despite her outwardly normal appearance she is actually a powerful superhero dedicated to ridding the streets of crime. Her outward strength betrays a deep-rooted insecurity, too, and when Jenny begins to become a bit too possessive for Matt's laid-back taste, the troubled boyfriend does his best to end the relationship amicably. They say that breaking up isn't easy to do, however, and when your girlfriend is a superhero, that sentiment holds twice the truth as it does under any normal circumstances. Matt is determined to get on with his life, though, and as his budding romance with beautiful co-worker Hannah (Anna Faris) begins to get serious, jealous Jenny scornfully slips into G-Girl mode to prove that hell hath no fury like a woman superhero scorned. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 22
Number of Lists: 13
Number of blog posts: 5
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTMy Super Ex-Girlfriend2006Ivan ReitmanA regular guy finds out just how hard breaking up can truly be when attempting to call it quits with a clingy female crime fighter who doesn't want to let love die in director <a href="/players/P___107926/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ivan Reitman</a>'s super-powered romantic comedy. Matt Saunders (<a href="/players/P___200995/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Luke Wilson</a>) was looking for love when he first met pretty brunette Jenny Johnson (<a href="/players/P____70905/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Uma Thurman</a>), and at the time it seemed as if he may had finally actually found it. Jenny isn't just your typical girl, though, because despite her outwardly normal appearance she is actually a powerful superhero dedicated to ridding the streets of crime. Her outward strength betrays a deep-rooted insecurity, too, and when Jenny begins to become a bit too possessive for Matt's laid-back taste, the troubled boyfriend does his best to end the relationship amicably. They say that breaking up isn't easy to do, however, and when your girlfriend is a superhero, that sentiment holds twice the truth as it does under any normal circumstances. Matt is determined to get on with his life, though, and as his budding romance with beautiful co-worker Hannah (<a href="/players/P___277709/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anna Faris</a>) begins to get serious, jealous Jenny scornfully slips into G-Girl mode to prove that hell hath no fury like a woman superhero scorned. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide22Tag Target (>10)13512http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t88148vu250.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/My_Super_Ex_Girlfriend/266943/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/5/40839.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/5/2009 10:00:20 AM
Body: Many smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/5/2009 10:00:20 AMMany smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Ass_Kicking_Heroine_Films/190/39333/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 1/9/2009 5:19:28 PM
Body: Let's see: Resident Evil BloodRayne Buffy the Vampire Slayer Aeon Flux Charlie's Angels Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc Elektra Freeway Coffy Foxy Brown La Femme Nikita / Point of No Return The Long Kiss Goodnight The Quick and the Dead My Super Ex-Girlfriend Cutthroat Island Red Sonja Supergirl Ultraviolet Catwoman Barb Wire Silver Hawk Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Lady Vengeance For me, I either loved or hated these films. Kill Bill and Alien are probably my favorite female action protagonists.
]]>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:19:28 GMTmercurialTop 51/9/2009 5:19:28 PMLet's see: Resident Evil BloodRayne Buffy the Vampire Slayer Aeon Flux Charlie's Angels Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc Elektra Freeway Coffy Foxy Brown La Femme Nikita / Point of No Return The Long Kiss Goodnight The Quick and the Dead My Super Ex-Girlfriend Cutthroat Island Red Sonja Supergirl Ultraviolet Catwoman Barb Wire Silver Hawk Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Lady Vengeance For me, I either loved or hated these films. Kill Bill and Alien are probably my favorite female action protagonists. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/1/31952.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/1/2008 11:00:51 AM
Body: Will Smith’s new superhero movie, Hancock, may be receiving terrible reviews, but it’s sure to make a lot of money. It is a Will Smith movie, after all. The fact that it’s an original superhero title (meaning not adapted from a comic book or other source material), however, means that if it is a success, it will be the rare movie of its kind to be such. Superhero movies may be huge right now, but really only the pre-sold properties, those with a build-in audience, make the big bucks. A number of original superhero movies are just as worthy of your attention as the Spider-Mans, the Iron Mans, the Batmans and the X-Mens. Sure, much of the time, non-adapted superheroes are lame, as in the cases of Blankman and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But just check out any of the following ten titles and see why it sometimes pays off to put your trust in an unfamiliar hero. The Incredibles - This one did it all: won an Oscar; received favorable reviews across the board; did blockbuster business in theaters and ancillaries (its the sole original superhero movie to break $100 million, domestically, a feat it far surpassed by actually grossing more than $260 million); and featured the single greatest superhero gag (above) ever seen. So there’s proof that a superhero movie can be good and do well without being based on another property. Unbreakable - The only film by M. Night Shyamalan I can enjoy repeatedly and perhaps the only superhero movie besides Batman Begins that audiences can kind of believe might be plausible in the real world. Also, it is perhaps the one origin-story superhero tale that doesn’t necessitate a sequel. The ending may have been anticlimactic, but the scene shown above (I wish the clip began earlier, from the train station scene forward) is one of the greatest superhero fight sequences ever put on film. The Matrix - Meanwhile, this is one origin-story superhero movie that shouldn’t have received a sequel, despite it’s needing one. Or maybe it just shouldn’t have been given the sequels it was given. In a way, the first installment is the perfect superhero movie for the age of video games, because Neo really only has powers in the virtual world. Unfortunately, the subsequent installments ruin this concept. Sky High - It looks really cheesy, but this Harry Potter for the superhero set is actually really clever and consistently entertaining. The common high school plot, in which an unpopular kid becomes popular and ends up screwing over his old friends, is ingeniously lent to the superteen subgenre. It may not hold a candle to the teen metaphors of X2: X-Men United, but it makes those initial Xavier School scenes from the first X-Men look wasteful. Darkman - Long before he sold his soul to the Spider-Man franchise, Sam Raimi created this original superhero tale. I wasn’t really a fan when it came out, but I’d now take it over any of the Spidey movies — even Spider-Man 2. RoboCop - The best superhero tales are really about humanity, not superhumanity, and this satirical sci-fi actioner certainly fits that qualification. It’s not surprising that for the sequel to RoboCop, comic book legend Frank Miller was brought in as a screenwriter, nor is it surprising that the franchise spawned multiple comic book series. Super Fuzz - This one is purely a guilty pleasure, as it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s kind of like Police Academy meets Superman meets Ernest Borgnine. Supah Supah! The Toxic Avenger - Another guilty pleasure, but also a great idea for a superhero movie. These days it’s uncommon to see such a ruthlessly violent superhero, but in his time, Toxie was like a parallel to supervillain protagonists of horror movies, like Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger, for who we continually rooted. Mr. Freedom - Change the communist villains to terrorists, and this would have been ripe for a remake a few years back. The Bush Administration was actually referring to this 1969 superhero farce, about a costumed crusader single-handedly battling the Cold War, whenever it uttered the phrase “enemies of freedom.” Special - I haven’t actually seen this movie, and I’ve been told it’s not quite as great as I expect it to be, but the trailer alone is good enough for me. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:00:51 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/1/2008 11:00:51 AM Will Smith’s new superhero movie, Hancock, may be receiving terrible reviews, but it’s sure to make a lot of money. It is a Will Smith movie, after all. The fact that it’s an original superhero title (meaning not adapted from a comic book or other source material), however, means that if it is a success, it will be the rare movie of its kind to be such. Superhero movies may be huge right now, but really only the pre-sold properties, those with a build-in audience, make the big bucks. A number of original superhero movies are just as worthy of your attention as the Spider-Mans, the Iron Mans, the Batmans and the X-Mens. Sure, much of the time, non-adapted superheroes are lame, as in the cases of Blankman and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But just check out any of the following ten titles and see why it sometimes pays off to put your trust in an unfamiliar hero. The Incredibles - This one did it all: won an Oscar; received favorable reviews across the board; did blockbuster business in theaters and ancillaries (its the sole original superhero movie to break $100 million, domestically, a feat it far surpassed by actually grossing more than $260 million); and featured the single greatest superhero gag (above) ever seen. So there’s proof that a superhero movie can be good and do well without being based on another property. Unbreakable - The only film by M. Night Shyamalan I can enjoy repeatedly and perhaps the only superhero movie besides Batman Begins that audiences can kind of believe might be plausible in the real world. Also, it is perhaps the one origin-story superhero tale that doesn’t necessitate a sequel. The ending may have been anticlimactic, but the scene shown above (I wish the clip began earlier, from the train station scene forward) is one of the greatest superhero fight sequences ever put on film. The Matrix - Meanwhile, this is one origin-story superhero movie that shouldn’t have received a sequel, despite it’s needing one. Or maybe it just shouldn’t have been given the sequels it was given. In a way, the first installment is the perfect superhero movie for the age of video games, because Neo really only has powers in the virtual world. Unfortunately, the subsequent installments ruin this concept. Sky High - It looks really cheesy, but this Harry Potter for the superhero set is actually really clever and consistently entertaining. The common high school plot, in which an unpopular kid becomes popular and ends up screwing over his old friends, is ingeniously lent to the superteen subgenre. It may not hold a candle to the teen metaphors of X2: X-Men United, but it makes those initial Xavier School scenes from the first X-Men look wasteful. Darkman - Long before he sold his soul to the Spider-Man franchise, Sam Raimi created this original superhero tale. I wasn’t really a fan when it came out, but I’d now take it over any of the Spidey movies — even Spider-Man 2. RoboCop - The best superhero tales are really about humanity, not superhumanity, and this satirical sci-fi actioner certainly fits that qualification. It’s not surprising that for the sequel to RoboCop, comic book legend Frank Miller was brought in as a screenwriter, nor is it surprising that the franchise spawned multiple comic book series. Super Fuzz - This one is purely a guilty pleasure, as it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s kind of like Police Academy meets Superman meets Ernest Borgnine. Supah Supah! The Toxic Avenger - Another guilty pleasure, but also a great idea for a superhero movie. These days it’s uncommon to see such a ruthlessly violent superhero, but in his time, Toxie was like a parallel to supervillain protagonists of horror movies, like Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger, for who we continually rooted. Mr. Freedom - Change the communist villains to terrorists, and this would have been ripe for a remake a few years back. The Bush Administration was actually referring to this 1969 superhero farce, about a costumed crusader single-handedly battling the Cold War, whenever it uttered the phrase “enemies of freedom.” Special - I haven’t actually seen this movie, and I’ve been told it’s not quite as great as I expect it to be, but the trailer alone is good enough for me. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/rik_tod/archive/2007/7/29/16807.aspx Post By: rik_tod
Post To: The Cinema 4 Pylon: SpOutpost
Post Date: 7/29/2007 3:32:54 PM
Body: My Super Ex-Girlfriend Director: Ivan Reitman // 2006 [DVD] Cinema 4 Rating: 5 Shark: Great White Shark Appearance: CGI, dialogue Sleeping with Anna Faris should be heavenly, and -- despite my deep and abiding appreciation for toothy marine creatures -- uninterrupted by the sight of a great white shark flying towards one’s head as one sits up in bed after awakening from what was probably the most emotionally and physically fulfilling night of one’s life. Setting my own personal fixation on Ms. Faris aside, this is exactly what happens to Luke Wilson just over an hour deep into the middling special effects comedy, My Super Ex-Girlfriend. Wilson sleeps with Faris, his longtime crush, after breaking up with the voluptuous, but clearly “off her rocker,” superheroine G-Girl, played almost like a mannequin for the most part by Uma Thurman, who really should remain in the employ of a director like Tarantino who clearly worships her and understands her strengths as well as her weaknesses as an actress. (While she is physically perfect for the role, straight comedy is not her forte.) G-Girl, who lives her day-to-day existence in the guise of Jenny Johnson (a name on which, for personal reasons, I shall refrain from further comment), takes this emotional rejection in the manner one expects in a romantic comedy: badly, and with thoughts of revenge on her now “evil” ex-suitor. Only here, since G-Girl is essentially gifted with the powers of Superman (or Supergirl, for that matter), the revenge on a normal human being can get, ahem, potentially deadly for the party receiving the vengeful abuse. Hence, the dream-shattering shark-tossing. Waking up at last with his true love, Wilson hears the taunting words, “Oooh, honey!” outside of the bedroom window. Such a confrontation would be difficult in a normal romantic comedy, since the apartment is several stories up, but when he looks out the window, there is G-Girl, floating casually in mid-air, holding a thrashing, teeth-gnashing great white by the tail. With a modicum of effort, she tosses the shark through the bedroom window, where it lands full force onto Wilson’s side of the bed, snapping its deadly jaws at Wilson as he tucks in his feet. Luke bolts through the apartment, with the shark making several leaps in his direction, including one that ends with the shark closing its jaws mere inches from Wilson’s crotch, finding the couch cushion with its teeth instead. Wilson runs to the other bedroom window, and the shark makes one last leap at the terrified everyman, crashing through the glass and falling to the street below. We hear the screech of tires, a woman’s astonished scream, and several crashing noises, but that is the last we will see of the shark in the film. I assume the lovable predator meets its sad demise at the end of that fall, but Ivan Reitman, who has already directed the pinnacle of special-effects comedy, Ghostbusters, over 20 years ago, never lets us consider the bloody mess remaining, unless one is speaking of this film itself. Faris closes the scene by asking, “Why would G-Girl throw a shark at us?” Wilson answers, “I don’t know,” but the real answer regarding the film is, “Why didn’t Ivan Reitman decide to throw more sharks at them?” In the middle of a big city, several stories up in an apartment building, the last thing anyone expects to see is a giant shark flying through their window. Despite the small show of G-Girl’s incredible powers up to this point, which establishes to a lessened degree that we are living within the fantasy of this film’s world, the shark scene is still such a strong visual non-sequitur, and so absurdly incongruous to the more mundane occurrences to which we have borne witness in the film, that the concept actually seems to work. It is quick, and it is sudden, and it is over before one can really consider its ramifications. It may seem unfair to throw a director’s past classic work in his face, but we simply cannot ignore such an obvious regressive trend in Reitman’s work, and thus we must make comparisons to Ghostbusters here. In that film, the similar point where the audience has to make a wacky leap of visual faith is in the acceptance of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man as a monstrous Godzilla-like screaming terror that will crush the entire city into rubble beneath his Michelin Man-like puffy feet. Reitman tried to play the same gag again in Ghostbusters II, but the Statue of Liberty was far too, eh, ordinary (and expected) -- to play out as wonderfully silly/scary as the Marshmallow Man scenario. Stay-Puft was a perfect choice, both in bringing horror – even the merely comedic variety – out of cuteness, and also for the fact that it, to this day, still plays as a great “What the fuck?” moment. But where the Reitman, Aykroyd and Ramis had it right in that film was in writing the scene so that it wasn’t purely this odd thing that came out of nowhere, but was actually the next bizarre link in a chain of increasing goofiness throughout the film. The Ghostbusters had, up to that moment, seen numerous things that one did not see everyday, each one larger and more threatening than the next, but when Stay-Puft arrives, Bill Murray still has enough bemused shock left in his character to say, indeed, “There’s something you don’t see everyday.” The problem in Girlfriend is that the characters, even the normal citizenry, regularly have incredible things happening around them, all because they exist in a world where G-Girl is in constant battle with Professor Bedlam (downplayed well by Eddie Izzard, even if it is a waste of his talents), her spurned teen sweetheart who has grown up into a “don’t call me a super-villain” super-villain. True, there is a difference in the reality of the news reports and what really occurs (example: Wilson’s casual media-fed reaction to Izzard’s infamy), but this is an angle that is barely explored by Reitman, concentrating instead on the romantic angle. Everyone expects G-Girl to save the day, but when she does display her talents, even the filmmakers seem almost bored with the results. There is no real sense of wonder to her world-saving or to the display of her powers, either in the faces of the characters, or in the way they are displayed onscreen. It’s almost as if the superheroics were tacked onto a standard sitting romantic comedy script at the last minute, and little consideration was given to how this would play off the rest of the script. In the end, G-Girl is merely just a celebrity, and Wilson's character might as well be banging Paris Hilton to get basically the same reaction from his friends. Before the shark scene occurs, there is nothing that can approach it in its inspired wackiness. And after? Nothing but the rote machinations of that “standard sitting romantic comedy script.” When I saw the trailer in the theatre, the only item that even made me halfway wish to see the film was the tossing of the shark, and now, seeing it on DVD, I find that I saved myself some decent coin by not following that slight impulse. Late in the film, Wilson is asked why he has teamed up with the Professor to strip away G-Girl's powers, and the laid-back Wilson thinks for half a second, and replies, "She threw a shark at me!" Though the line is slightly amusing, it mainly serves to point up the flaw in the character's, and thus the writer's, logic. The reason for his revenge should be because the shark-tossing broke up his reverie in bed with the delightful Ms. Faris. Now that's a form of coitus interruptus that could make me kick Superman's ass. I wouldn't even need the Kryptonite...
]]>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:32:54 GMTrik_todThe Cinema 4 Pylon: SpOutpost7/29/2007 3:32:54 PMMy Super Ex-Girlfriend Director: Ivan Reitman // 2006 [DVD] Cinema 4 Rating: 5 Shark: Great White Shark Appearance: CGI, dialogue Sleeping with Anna Faris should be heavenly, and -- despite my deep and abiding appreciation for toothy marine creatures -- uninterrupted by the sight of a great white shark flying towards one&rsquo;s head as one sits up in bed after awakening from what was probably the most emotionally and physically fulfilling night of one&rsquo;s life. Setting my own personal fixation on Ms. Faris aside, this is exactly what happens to Luke Wilson just over an hour deep into the middling special effects comedy, My Super Ex-Girlfriend. Wilson sleeps with Faris, his longtime crush, after breaking up with the voluptuous, but clearly &ldquo;off her rocker,&rdquo; superheroine G-Girl, played almost like a mannequin for the most part by Uma Thurman, who really should remain in the employ of a director like Tarantino who clearly worships her and understands her strengths as well as her weaknesses as an actress. (While she is physically perfect for the role, straight comedy is not her forte.) G-Girl, who lives her day-to-day existence in the guise of Jenny Johnson (a name on which, for personal reasons, I shall refrain from further comment), takes this emotional rejection in the manner one expects in a romantic comedy: badly, and with thoughts of revenge on her now &ldquo;evil&rdquo; ex-suitor. Only here, since G-Girl is essentially gifted with the powers of Superman (or Supergirl, for that matter), the revenge on a normal human being can get, ahem, potentially deadly for the party receiving the vengeful abuse. Hence, the dream-shattering shark-tossing. Waking up at last with his true love, Wilson hears the taunting words, &ldquo;Oooh, honey!&rdquo; outside of the bedroom window. Such a confrontation would be difficult in a normal romantic comedy, since the apartment is several stories up, but when he looks out the window, there is G-Girl, floating casually in mid-air, holding a thrashing, teeth-gnashing great white by the tail. With a modicum of effort, she tosses the shark through the bedroom window, where it lands full force onto Wilson&rsquo;s side of the bed, snapping its deadly jaws at Wilson as he tucks in his feet. Luke bolts through the apartment, with the shark making several leaps in his direction, including one that ends with the shark closing its jaws mere inches from Wilson&rsquo;s crotch, finding the couch cushion with its teeth instead. Wilson runs to the other bedroom window, and the shark makes one last leap at the terrified everyman, crashing through the glass and falling to the street below. We hear the screech of tires, a woman&rsquo;s astonished scream, and several crashing noises, but that is the last we will see of the shark in the film. I assume the lovable predator meets its sad demise at the end of that fall, but Ivan Reitman, who has already directed the pinnacle of special-effects comedy, Ghostbusters, over 20 years ago, never lets us consider the bloody mess remaining, unless one is speaking of this film itself. Faris closes the scene by asking, &ldquo;Why would G-Girl throw a shark at us?&rdquo; Wilson answers, &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t know,&rdquo; but the real answer regarding the film is, &ldquo;Why didn&rsquo;t Ivan Reitman decide to throw more sharks at them?&rdquo; In the middle of a big city, several stories up in an apartment building, the last thing anyone expects to see is a giant shark flying through their window. Despite the small show of G-Girl&rsquo;s incredible powers up to this point, which establishes to a lessened degree that we are living within the fantasy of this film&rsquo;s world, the shark scene is still such a strong visual non-sequitur, and so absurdly incongruous to the more mundane occurrences to which we have borne witness in the film, that the concept actually seems to work. It is quick, and it is sudden, and it is over before one can really consider its ramifications. It may seem unfair to throw a director&rsquo;s past classic work in his face, but we simply cannot ignore such an obvious regressive trend in Reitman&rsquo;s work, and thus we must make comparisons to Ghostbusters here. In that film, the similar point where the audience has to make a wacky leap of visual faith is in the acceptance of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man as a monstrous Godzilla-like screaming terror that will crush the entire city into rubble beneath his Michelin Man-like puffy feet. Reitman tried to play the same gag again in Ghostbusters II, but the Statue of Liberty was far too, eh, ordinary (and expected) -- to play out as wonderfully silly/scary as the Marshmallow Man scenario. Stay-Puft was a perfect choice, both in bringing horror &ndash; even the merely comedic variety &ndash; out of cuteness, and also for the fact that it, to this day, still plays as a great &ldquo;What the fuck?&rdquo; moment. But where the Reitman, Aykroyd and Ramis had it right in that film was in writing the scene so that it wasn&rsquo;t purely this odd thing that came out of nowhere, but was actually the next bizarre link in a chain of increasing goofiness throughout the film. The Ghostbusters had, up to that moment, seen numerous things that one did not see everyday, each one larger and more threatening than the next, but when Stay-Puft arrives, Bill Murray still has enough bemused shock left in his character to say, indeed, &ldquo;There&rsquo;s something you don&rsquo;t see everyday.&rdquo; The problem in Girlfriend is that the characters, even the normal citizenry, regularly have incredible things happening around them, all because they exist in a world where G-Girl is in constant battle with Professor Bedlam (downplayed well by Eddie Izzard, even if it is a waste of his talents), her spurned teen sweetheart who has grown up into a &ldquo;don&rsquo;t call me a super-villain&rdquo; super-villain. True, there is a difference in the reality of the news reports and what really occurs (example: Wilson&rsquo;s casual media-fed reaction to Izzard&rsquo;s infamy), but this is an angle that is barely explored by Reitman, concentrating instead on the romantic angle. Everyone expects G-Girl to save the day, but when she does display her talents, even the filmmakers seem almost bored with the results. There is no real sense of wonder to her world-saving or to the display of her powers, either in the faces of the characters, or in the way they are displayed onscreen. It&rsquo;s almost as if the superheroics were tacked onto a standard sitting romantic comedy script at the last minute, and little consideration was given to how this would play off the rest of the script. In the end, G-Girl is merely just a celebrity, and Wilson&#39;s character might as well be banging Paris Hilton to get basically the same reaction from his friends. Before the shark scene occurs, there is nothing that can approach it in its inspired wackiness. And after? Nothing but the rote machinations of that &ldquo;standard sitting romantic comedy script.&rdquo; When I saw the trailer in the theatre, the only item that even made me halfway wish to see the film was the tossing of the shark, and now, seeing it on DVD, I find that I saved myself some decent coin by not following that slight impulse. Late in the film, Wilson is asked why he has teamed up with the Professor to strip away G-Girl&#39;s powers, and the laid-back Wilson thinks for half a second, and replies, &quot;She threw a shark at me!&quot; Though the line is slightly amusing, it mainly serves to point up the flaw in the character&#39;s, and thus the writer&#39;s, logic. The reason for his revenge should be because the shark-tossing broke up his reverie in bed with the delightful Ms. Faris. Now that&#39;s a form of coitus interruptus that could make me kick Superman&#39;s ass. I wouldn&#39;t even need the Kryptonite... http://www.spout.com/blogs/tyleet1047/archive/2007/6/19/11461.aspx Post By: tyleet1047
Post To: tyleet1047 Blog
Post Date: 6/19/2007 11:06:00 PM
Body: ...but in the end, I can't give it more than three stars, and that third one is a little iffy. This movie has a decent premise and a cast with some supremely untapped talent in it (Eddie Izzard is TOTALLY wasted in this role!) but in the end it falls flat. That said, Rainn Wilson was very amusing!
]]>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:06:00 GMTtyleet1047tyleet1047 Blog6/19/2007 11:06:00 PM...but in the end, I can&#39;t give it more than three stars, and that third one is a little iffy. This movie has a decent premise and a cast with some supremely untapped talent in it (Eddie Izzard is TOTALLY wasted in this role!) but in the end it falls flat. That said, Rainn Wilson was very amusing! http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2007/2/4/5252.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 2/4/2007 9:33:00 AM
Body: Bear with me, I'm still getting used to Spout's new movie pages. Changes!So, I'm looking at all the reviews and such and am really flummoxed by the number of people who liked this movie. I watched it thinking that it might be cute, even though I knew Uma played a basket case with superpowers. Plus, it was a borrowed movie, so I knew my regrets would be minimal as I didn't have to spend money on it.This movie was just plain stupid., however, and a colossal waste of time I didn't hate it, but I was really rather bored.Uma Thurman plays Jenny Johnson, secret identity G-Girl (stupid name). She has superpowers and the will of a superhero. She meets Luke Wilson, miscast as Matt Saunders, a down-on-his-luck-in-love everyman who manages to save her purse from a snatcher. The two begin to court, until Matt realizes Jenny's a bit "off." Plus, he also begins to realize feelings for his co-worker Hannah (Anna Faris), and trouble ensues when he tries to break up with Jenny.I rate this a 4 for fair - nice idea, but didn't pull it off one bit. This movie had a bunch of talented actors in a convoluted storyline that became a hindrance, even if it was supposed to be the point of the whole flick. I am both confused and insulted that Jenny took on crazy girlfriend syndrome even before she got dumped and then abused her flukey powers when she finally did get dumped. It seemed by the backstory that she used to be a sweet girl, friends with her later-archenemy Barry or Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard). A meteor imbued her both with powers and breasts, and she turned psycho? I don't get that at all. Unless the suggestion is that all semi-nerdy women with instant makeovers become psycho...which is where the insulting part comes in. Even if this movie is supposed to parody men's fear of women and relationships, it really over-exploited (and exaggerated) the woman's role. It just made me slightly angry and totally uninterested in whatever happened.Luke Wilson was out of his element here or lacks comedic timing or was directed to be completely uninteresting. He was not believable as anyone's boyfriend, and that made it hard for me to cheer for him, even if he is my favorite Wilson brother.Two actors completely underused were Rainn Wilson, who played Matt's horny best friend, and Eddie Izzard. Actually, Rainn Wilson proves to be the only reason why I decided to give this movie a 4. He did make me laugh with his rambly, misguided sex advice, and his delivery was so spot-on. I almost wished he and Luke Wilson traded places.And Eddie failed to play up the campy side of his evil mastermind. Since the rest of this movie was so campy (and maybe it shouldn't have been), it seems that he had a chance to really let loose and was prevented from doing so. How weird was it to see him looking masculine?All in all, I just did not sympathize with any of these characters and was so bored, I almost fell asleep. This movie was not that funny, even if the idea had potential. As such, it fails the test. I obviously won't be buying this super freak of a movie.
]]>Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:33:00 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts2/4/2007 9:33:00 AMBear with me, I&#39;m still getting used to Spout&#39;s new movie pages. Changes!So, I&#39;m looking at all the reviews and such and am really flummoxed by the number of people who liked this movie. I watched it thinking that it might be cute, even though I knew Uma played a basket case with superpowers. Plus, it was a borrowed movie, so I knew my regrets would be minimal as I didn&#39;t have to spend money on it.This movie was just plain stupid., however, and a colossal waste of time I didn&#39;t hate it, but I was really rather bored.Uma Thurman plays Jenny Johnson, secret identity G-Girl (stupid name). She has superpowers and the will of a superhero. She meets Luke Wilson, miscast as Matt Saunders, a down-on-his-luck-in-love everyman who manages to save her purse from a snatcher. The two begin to court, until Matt realizes Jenny&#39;s a bit "off." Plus, he also begins to realize feelings for his co-worker Hannah (Anna Faris), and trouble ensues when he tries to break up with Jenny.I rate this a 4 for fair - nice idea, but didn&#39;t pull it off one bit. This movie had a bunch of talented actors in a convoluted storyline that became a hindrance, even if it was supposed to be the point of the whole flick. I am both confused and insulted that Jenny took on crazy girlfriend syndrome even before she got dumped and then abused her flukey powers when she finally did get dumped. It seemed by the backstory that she used to be a sweet girl, friends with her later-archenemy Barry or Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard). A meteor imbued her both with powers and breasts, and she turned psycho? I don&#39;t get that at all. Unless the suggestion is that all semi-nerdy women with instant makeovers become psycho...which is where the insulting part comes in. Even if this movie is supposed to parody men&#39;s fear of women and relationships, it really over-exploited (and exaggerated) the woman&#39;s role. It just made me slightly angry and totally uninterested in whatever happened.Luke Wilson was out of his element here or lacks comedic timing or was directed to be completely uninteresting. He was not believable as anyone&#39;s boyfriend, and that made it hard for me to cheer for him, even if he is my favorite Wilson brother.Two actors completely underused were Rainn Wilson, who played Matt&#39;s horny best friend, and Eddie Izzard. Actually, Rainn Wilson proves to be the only reason why I decided to give this movie a 4. He did make me laugh with his rambly, misguided sex advice, and his delivery was so spot-on. I almost wished he and Luke Wilson traded places.And Eddie failed to play up the campy side of his evil mastermind. Since the rest of this movie was so campy (and maybe it shouldn&#39;t have been), it seems that he had a chance to really let loose and was prevented from doing so. How weird was it to see him looking masculine?All in all, I just did not sympathize with any of these characters and was so bored, I almost fell asleep. This movie was not that funny, even if the idea had potential. As such, it fails the test. I obviously won&#39;t be buying this super freak of a movie. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT609316942Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/obsession/MemberTagFilms.aspxobsession
Number of films tagged: 1134

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 136

]]>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:49 GMT113464136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/power/MemberTagFilms.aspxpower
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 104

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:55 GMT60639104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/spoof/MemberTagFilms.aspxspoof
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 34

Number of times used: 71

]]>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:11:30 GMT483471Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/car/MemberTagFilms.aspxcar
Number of films tagged: 1316

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 99

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:32:16 GMT13163299Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/shark/MemberTagFilms.aspxshark
Number of films tagged: 199

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 81

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:48:40 GMT1992981Tag 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/girlfriend/MemberTagFilms.aspxgirlfriend
Number of films tagged: 1237

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 55

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT12371955Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comicbook/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomicbook
Number of films tagged: 70

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 36

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT701736Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/unfunny/MemberTagFilms.aspxunfunny
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 13

]]>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:02:33 GMT131113Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/breakup-romantic/MemberTagFilms.aspxbreakup-romantic
Number of films tagged: 164

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 15

]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 13:09:30 GMT1641015Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/uma/MemberTagFilms.aspxuma
Number of films tagged: 34

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 42

]]>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:45:09 GMT34842Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crimefighter/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrimefighter
Number of films tagged: 72

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

]]>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:02:56 GMT72710Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/heroine/MemberTagFilms.aspxheroine
Number of films tagged: 12

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 12

]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:46:37 GMT12512Tag