list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Last King of Scotland 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/The_Last_King_of_Scotland/266971/default.aspx Title: The Last King of Scotland
Year: 2006
Director: Kevin MacDonald
Plot: Director Kevin MacDonald teams with screenwriter Jeremy Brock to adapt Giles Foden's novel detailing the brutal reign of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin as seen through the eyes of his personal physician. James McAvoy stars as the doctor who slowly realizes that he is trapped in an inescapable nightmare, and Forest Whitaker assumes the role of the notorious despot. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide

An Interview with Forest Whitaker about The Last King of Scotland(9/01/2006 Telluride Film Festival)
Aaron interviews Forest Whitaker

powered by ODEO

Roundtable review: The Last King of Scotland
On a gondola in Telluride, Aaron moderates a discussion with Bill, Dave, and Rick returning from the premier of The Last King of Scotland. (9/02/06, Telluride Film Festival)

powered by ODEO

Interview with Kevin MacDonald, dir.
On a sidewalk in Telluride, Aaron interviews Kevin MacDonald, director of The Last King of Scotland. (9/02/06, Telluride Film Festival)

powered by ODEO
Times Tagged: 42
Number of Lists: 42
Number of blog posts: 15
Number of discussion threads: 7
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:58:21 GMTThe Last King of Scotland2006Kevin MacDonaldDirector Kevin MacDonald teams with screenwriter Jeremy Brock to adapt Giles Foden's novel detailing the brutal reign of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin as seen through the eyes of his personal physician. <a href="/players/P___357725/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James McAvoy</a> stars as the doctor who slowly realizes that he is trapped in an inescapable nightmare, and <a href="/players/P___116578/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Forest Whitaker</a> assumes the role of the notorious despot. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide <br><br><b>An Interview with Forest Whitaker about <i>The Last King of Scotland</i></b>(9/01/2006 Telluride Film Festival)<br>Aaron interviews Forest Whitaker<br><embed src="http://www.odeo.com/flash/audio_player_tiny_black.swf" quality="high" width="145" height="25" name="audio_player_tiny_black" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="audio_id=1803623&audio_duration=76.0243&valid_sample_rate=true&external_url=http://media.odeo.com/0/1/6/Forest_Whitaker_Edi128K001.mp3" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></embed><br /><a style="font-size: 9px; padding-left: 35px; color: #f39; letter-spacing: -1px; text-decoration: none" href="http://odeo.com/audio/1803623/view">powered by <strong>ODEO</strong></a> <br><br> <b>Roundtable review: The Last King of Scotland</b> <br>On a gondola in Telluride, Aaron moderates a discussion with Bill, Dave, and Rick returning from the premier of The Last King of Scotland. (9/02/06, Telluride Film Festival)<br><embed src="http://odeo.com/flash/audio_player_tiny_black.swf" quality="high" width="145" height="25" name="audio_player_tiny_black" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="audio_id=1827686&audio_duration=290.638&valid_sample_rate=true&external_url=http://media.odeo.com/1/6/5/Gondola.mp3" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></embed><br /><a style="font-size: 9px; padding-left: 35px; color: #f39; letter-spacing: -1px; text-decoration: none" href="http://odeo.com/audio/1827686/view">powered by <strong>ODEO</strong></a><br><br> <b>Interview with Kevin MacDonald, dir.</b><br> On a sidewalk in Telluride, Aaron interviews Kevin MacDonald, director of The Last King of Scotland. (9/02/06, Telluride Film Festival)<br> <embed src="http://odeo.com/flash/audio_player_tiny_black.swf" quality="high" width="145" height="25" name="audio_player_tiny_black" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="audio_id=1804157&audio_duration=244.428&valid_sample_rate=true&external_url=http://media.odeo.com/8/2/7/Kevin_McDonald128K001.mp3" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></embed><br /><a style="font-size: 9px; padding-left: 35px; color: #f39; letter-spacing: -1px; text-decoration: none" href="http://odeo.com/audio/1804157/view">powered by <strong>ODEO</strong></a>42Tag Target (>10)421573http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s266971.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Last_King_of_Scotland/266971/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_10_Male_Performances_Better_Than_the_Movie/190/37079/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 11/7/2008 4:19:02 PM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] Good list. With the movies I've seen (which is most of them), I'd have to agree. I've got one for consideration: I just watched The Last King of Scotland. Forest Whitaker made that movie and got a golden guy for doing so. If it weren't for him, I probably would have hated the movie and the entire concept. He stole every scene he was in, and my biggest complaint was that he wasn't there enough. [/quote] Thanks pippin. And like you, I didn't like much about The Last King of Scotland besides Forest.
]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:19:02 GMTSkyPilotTop 511/7/2008 4:19:02 PM[quote user="pippin06"] Good list. With the movies I've seen (which is most of them), I'd have to agree. I've got one for consideration: I just watched The Last King of Scotland. Forest Whitaker made that movie and got a golden guy for doing so. If it weren't for him, I probably would have hated the movie and the entire concept. He stole every scene he was in, and my biggest complaint was that he wasn't there enough. [/quote] Thanks pippin. And like you, I didn't like much about The Last King of Scotland besides Forest. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_10_Male_Performances_Better_Than_the_Movie/190/37070/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 11/7/2008 3:41:04 PM
Body: Good list. With the movies I've seen (which is most of them), I'd have to agree. I've got one for consideration: I just watched The Last King of Scotland. Forest Whitaker made that movie and got a golden guy for doing so. If it weren't for him, I probably would have hated the movie and the entire concept. He stole every scene he was in, and my biggest complaint was that he wasn't there enough.
]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:41:04 GMTpippin06Top 511/7/2008 3:41:04 PMGood list. With the movies I've seen (which is most of them), I'd have to agree. I've got one for consideration: I just watched The Last King of Scotland. Forest Whitaker made that movie and got a golden guy for doing so. If it weren't for him, I probably would have hated the movie and the entire concept. He stole every scene he was in, and my biggest complaint was that he wasn't there enough. http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/11/4/36948.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 11/4/2008 1:24:44 PM
Body: To warn readers, and due to how I voraciously filled up my Netflix queue when I first subscribed, the next three non-AFI related selections (since I occasionally bump a movie up if it's next on the AFI list) not only revert back to Oscar nominees and winners but seem to focus on message movies about Africa. This would be the first of the three and the second overall of four, if Blood Diamond is included. Forest Whitaker won the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Idi Amin, Ugandan dictator in the late 70s. I never watched the movie on release. I tend not to focus my scant (as time allows) Oscar movie watching efforts on the categories where there is no contest, and Whitaker never faced any real competition that year. I have seen four out of the five Best Actor nominated films from that year now, so it's nice to have the comparison (as a reminder, the five actors nominated were Ryan Gosling for Half Nelson; Will Smith for the The Pursuit of Happyness; Leonardo DiCaprio for Blood Diamond; Peter O'Toole for Venus; and Forest). Since this is an award from two years ago, I'll just focus on the film itself, since I also enjoy watching Oscar films a couple of years after the fact because it minimizes the effects of awards-show hype for me. Yet, again, I digress. The Last King of Scotland is adapted from a novel of the same name. The novel chronicles the events surrounding a fictional character, a doctor Nicholas Garrigan (here played by James McAvoy, aka, Mr. Tumnus), who flees to Africa and Uganda looking for adventure and, apparently, casual sex. Hey, the plot summary above says it that way too! There, while working for a missionary doctor and becoming smitten with his wife, Sarah (Gillian Anderson, aka, Scully), Nicholas bears witness to a village rally by Amin and is taken with his charismatic words. After Amin is injured in a vehicle-on-cow collision and calls for a doctor, and since Nicholas and Sarah are conveniently close by, Nicholas comes to his rescue, having the audacity to speak strongly to Amin and use his gun on the miserable cow without permission. Afterward, Amin is taken with Nicholas and woos him into being his personal family physician. It is during his tenure that Nicholas begins to learn that he is in way over his head, especially after he takes up with Amin's wife Kay (Kerry Washington) and sees Amin for what he really is - a charming, paranoid, and murderous madman. I have problems with this movie. Before I get to the problems, I'll focus on the positives. Forest Whitaker really was larger-than-life astounding here. I don't know much about Idi Amin, but what I do know is that it could not have been easy to get inside the head of this man who tried to talk himself into believing that killing his own countrymen and deporting certain racial and ethnic groups were all for the good of his country. Bridging the divide between mirthful chucklehead and unhinged paranoic was truly a gargantuan feat, and I think he ultimately deserved Oscar gold because no other role could have been as challenging for an actor who has not, traditionally, taken many acting risks. His performance ratcheted up the level of intensity of this film so much because he was so unpredictable, the viewer never knew where the movie or his mood was going. He stole every scene he was in, even when he was coming unglued, and the menace of his benign side was almost as terrifying as the side prone to random (and not-so-random) murders and mutilations. The supporting performances were also good if not great. The performance of the smarmy British consul looking to exploit Nicholas' position was not good. I don't know who that guy was, but he was weird - disaffected, almost surreal, but maybe that was because he was simply a convenient plot device. But wait, I'm focusing on the positives. The direction was decent, using a point-and-shoot documentary style at some points and, at other points, using close-ups to focus on faces and expressions of individuals in large groups listening to or supporting Amin. The unique score was interesting, blending African motifs with hard-edged Western rock in the form of punctuating electric guitar riffs. The pacing was tight - it was an action packed, engaging two hours, and for my money, this was a different film about Africa, in that it didn't focus on the plight as much as on the man responsible for the plight, with the plight being mostly hinted at until Nicholas realizes what is happening in his own mind. But...then there are the problems, and it starts with the novel. I never read the source material, so I don't know how the characters and events were portrayed there, but the largest problem with the film is that it wanted to tell the story of the rise and fall of this dictator, I guess as a historical study. Yet, the story and the film focused almost entirely on the fictional character's experience and perspective. I read on Wikipedia that Nicholas might have been based on a real doctor (not Scottish) who served Amin, but who never had an affair with his wife and remained in Amin's employ only briefly. The film never shifted focus to Amin - Amin was, at times, a peripheral character, even though he was the antagonist of the piece. The film is told from Nicholas' observations, but he, himself, is a problematic character in that he's some sort of whiny, high-minded but hypocritical jerk, which served well to illustrate why this character might have been charmed by Amin in the first place but did not provide the viewer a sympathetic place to start. In fact, I'm not sure how to accept the point of this story overall - am I supposed to view this movie as one that offers both sides of Amin's character (though it draws a conclusion in the end)? Am I supposed to accept that Africa is just another dumping ground for Western (and, therefore, White) manipulation and colonialism (I think that was the underlying message...), even though Nicholas is just a young and naive Western transplant who doesn't understand the realities of the real world? Am I supposed to feel sorry for Mr. Tumnus or feel angry at Amin or even vice versa? Maybe I'm supposed to have all of these opinions, but that smacks of a lack of center, even if left open to interpretation. In the end, I don't think it matters what I feel about what the movie was trying to do and say because the movie follows Nicholas, and Nicholas wasn't real, even if Amin was. And Nicholas' story wasn't complete. The entire movie offered a well-rounded, if flawed, character study of the young man until the end, and then all of the footnotes were about Amin. So, perhaps, the focus was on Amin, the self-titled "Last King of Scotland" (because he felt a kinship with the historically oppressed northern neighbor of England), but the viewer is offered so few glimpses into Amin's perspective. That's probably because no one could really know Amin's perspective, especially now since he's no longer alive. I think the major problem I'm having with the film is that I can't accept it as a non-biased historical study, since there are clearly underlying prejudices on the part of the novelist and/or the screenwriters, and I can't accept it as a work of pure fiction because it uses events that actually happened and doesn't actually work as pure fiction. And if it's a message movie, the message is convoluted. Amin bad? White man bad? The world bad? All of the above? So, my reaction in the end can best be summed up by saying, "What's the point?" These are strong reactions, but I tend to react stronger to a film that is as graphic as this one turned out to be. I have to understand the motivations and what the movie is trying to convey to me in order to process all of the parts, including the ones I may not have liked (and there is a particularly gruesome scene after Amin finds out about the affair). I understand that the blending of fact and fiction is a creative license on the part of the filmmakers, but my ultimate complaint is that if the license is going to be taken, there should be a center and a focus that The Last King of Scotland as a film fails to achieve because it waffles between a historical examination of a dictator, and the motivations of a man who happens to be employed by him - and the latter is more fleshed out, though not tied off in the end, like, perhaps, with some footnote about what happened to Nicholas Garrigan after the end of the movie. Forest Whitaker's performance is great, but the film is not, as I've so verbosely opined. I think in ratings land - and I find this one a tough one to call - I'm landing on a 6.5, between cute and shaky, though it strikes me that Blood Diamond was actually a better movie all in all. Maybe I need to revise that one up to a 7. In any event, this film fails the test because it was intense and graphic and frustrating, and I don't find that Forest Whitaker's performance makes up for that enough to own the film. The Last King of Scotland is a puzzling piece of filmmaking, even if it is a creative examination of world history not widely known in this day, age, and on the Western side of the world.
]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:24:44 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts11/4/2008 1:24:44 PMTo warn readers, and due to how I voraciously filled up my Netflix queue when I first subscribed, the next three non-AFI related selections (since I occasionally bump a movie up if it's next on the AFI list) not only revert back to Oscar nominees and winners but seem to focus on message movies about Africa. This would be the first of the three and the second overall of four, if Blood Diamond is included. Forest Whitaker won the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Idi Amin, Ugandan dictator in the late 70s. I never watched the movie on release. I tend not to focus my scant (as time allows) Oscar movie watching efforts on the categories where there is no contest, and Whitaker never faced any real competition that year. I have seen four out of the five Best Actor nominated films from that year now, so it's nice to have the comparison (as a reminder, the five actors nominated were Ryan Gosling for Half Nelson; Will Smith for the The Pursuit of Happyness; Leonardo DiCaprio for Blood Diamond; Peter O'Toole for Venus; and Forest). Since this is an award from two years ago, I'll just focus on the film itself, since I also enjoy watching Oscar films a couple of years after the fact because it minimizes the effects of awards-show hype for me. Yet, again, I digress. The Last King of Scotland is adapted from a novel of the same name. The novel chronicles the events surrounding a fictional character, a doctor Nicholas Garrigan (here played by James McAvoy, aka, Mr. Tumnus), who flees to Africa and Uganda looking for adventure and, apparently, casual sex. Hey, the plot summary above says it that way too! There, while working for a missionary doctor and becoming smitten with his wife, Sarah (Gillian Anderson, aka, Scully), Nicholas bears witness to a village rally by Amin and is taken with his charismatic words. After Amin is injured in a vehicle-on-cow collision and calls for a doctor, and since Nicholas and Sarah are conveniently close by, Nicholas comes to his rescue, having the audacity to speak strongly to Amin and use his gun on the miserable cow without permission. Afterward, Amin is taken with Nicholas and woos him into being his personal family physician. It is during his tenure that Nicholas begins to learn that he is in way over his head, especially after he takes up with Amin's wife Kay (Kerry Washington) and sees Amin for what he really is - a charming, paranoid, and murderous madman. I have problems with this movie. Before I get to the problems, I'll focus on the positives. Forest Whitaker really was larger-than-life astounding here. I don't know much about Idi Amin, but what I do know is that it could not have been easy to get inside the head of this man who tried to talk himself into believing that killing his own countrymen and deporting certain racial and ethnic groups were all for the good of his country. Bridging the divide between mirthful chucklehead and unhinged paranoic was truly a gargantuan feat, and I think he ultimately deserved Oscar gold because no other role could have been as challenging for an actor who has not, traditionally, taken many acting risks. His performance ratcheted up the level of intensity of this film so much because he was so unpredictable, the viewer never knew where the movie or his mood was going. He stole every scene he was in, even when he was coming unglued, and the menace of his benign side was almost as terrifying as the side prone to random (and not-so-random) murders and mutilations. The supporting performances were also good if not great. The performance of the smarmy British consul looking to exploit Nicholas' position was not good. I don't know who that guy was, but he was weird - disaffected, almost surreal, but maybe that was because he was simply a convenient plot device. But wait, I'm focusing on the positives. The direction was decent, using a point-and-shoot documentary style at some points and, at other points, using close-ups to focus on faces and expressions of individuals in large groups listening to or supporting Amin. The unique score was interesting, blending African motifs with hard-edged Western rock in the form of punctuating electric guitar riffs. The pacing was tight - it was an action packed, engaging two hours, and for my money, this was a different film about Africa, in that it didn't focus on the plight as much as on the man responsible for the plight, with the plight being mostly hinted at until Nicholas realizes what is happening in his own mind. But...then there are the problems, and it starts with the novel. I never read the source material, so I don't know how the characters and events were portrayed there, but the largest problem with the film is that it wanted to tell the story of the rise and fall of this dictator, I guess as a historical study. Yet, the story and the film focused almost entirely on the fictional character's experience and perspective. I read on Wikipedia that Nicholas might have been based on a real doctor (not Scottish) who served Amin, but who never had an affair with his wife and remained in Amin's employ only briefly. The film never shifted focus to Amin - Amin was, at times, a peripheral character, even though he was the antagonist of the piece. The film is told from Nicholas' observations, but he, himself, is a problematic character in that he's some sort of whiny, high-minded but hypocritical jerk, which served well to illustrate why this character might have been charmed by Amin in the first place but did not provide the viewer a sympathetic place to start. In fact, I'm not sure how to accept the point of this story overall - am I supposed to view this movie as one that offers both sides of Amin's character (though it draws a conclusion in the end)? Am I supposed to accept that Africa is just another dumping ground for Western (and, therefore, White) manipulation and colonialism (I think that was the underlying message...), even though Nicholas is just a young and naive Western transplant who doesn't understand the realities of the real world? Am I supposed to feel sorry for Mr. Tumnus or feel angry at Amin or even vice versa? Maybe I'm supposed to have all of these opinions, but that smacks of a lack of center, even if left open to interpretation. In the end, I don't think it matters what I feel about what the movie was trying to do and say because the movie follows Nicholas, and Nicholas wasn't real, even if Amin was. And Nicholas' story wasn't complete. The entire movie offered a well-rounded, if flawed, character study of the young man until the end, and then all of the footnotes were about Amin. So, perhaps, the focus was on Amin, the self-titled "Last King of Scotland" (because he felt a kinship with the historically oppressed northern neighbor of England), but the viewer is offered so few glimpses into Amin's perspective. That's probably because no one could really know Amin's perspective, especially now since he's no longer alive. I think the major problem I'm having with the film is that I can't accept it as a non-biased historical study, since there are clearly underlying prejudices on the part of the novelist and/or the screenwriters, and I can't accept it as a work of pure fiction because it uses events that actually happened and doesn't actually work as pure fiction. And if it's a message movie, the message is convoluted. Amin bad? White man bad? The world bad? All of the above? So, my reaction in the end can best be summed up by saying, "What's the point?" These are strong reactions, but I tend to react stronger to a film that is as graphic as this one turned out to be. I have to understand the motivations and what the movie is trying to convey to me in order to process all of the parts, including the ones I may not have liked (and there is a particularly gruesome scene after Amin finds out about the affair). I understand that the blending of fact and fiction is a creative license on the part of the filmmakers, but my ultimate complaint is that if the license is going to be taken, there should be a center and a focus that The Last King of Scotland as a film fails to achieve because it waffles between a historical examination of a dictator, and the motivations of a man who happens to be employed by him - and the latter is more fleshed out, though not tied off in the end, like, perhaps, with some footnote about what happened to Nicholas Garrigan after the end of the movie. Forest Whitaker's performance is great, but the film is not, as I've so verbosely opined. I think in ratings land - and I find this one a tough one to call - I'm landing on a 6.5, between cute and shaky, though it strikes me that Blood Diamond was actually a better movie all in all. Maybe I need to revise that one up to a 7. In any event, this film fails the test because it was intense and graphic and frustrating, and I don't find that Forest Whitaker's performance makes up for that enough to own the film. The Last King of Scotland is a puzzling piece of filmmaking, even if it is a creative examination of world history not widely known in this day, age, and on the Western side of the world. http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/The_Eagle_Eye_Challenge_Rules_and_Winners/563/35388/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/22/2008 2:39:08 PM
Body: Eagle Eye Challenge & Giveaway Spout's giving away one more Eagle Eye swag package on Monday morning. The winner will get a flash drive that's also a pen, like James Bond spygear! (Sorry, Q screwed up -- the flash drive's still good, but no pen.) You'll also receive a zip-up sweatshirt and t-shirt (see pics at the bottom). How do you play? Each day, Monday through Friday, we'll post a list of ten movies. You must figure out how the movies are connected. For example, you'll see the "FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge" thread in the Filmgaming group. The challenge post will look something like this: Eagle Eye (2008) (1) Phone Booth (2003) (2) The Last King of Scotland (2006) (3) Braveheart (1995) (4) Signs (2002) (5) Alien (1979) (6) Ghostbusters (1984) (7) Space Jam (1996) (8) Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) (9) Chinatown (1974) Add your answers to the challenge post thread. Your list should look something like this: 1. Phones 2. Forest Whitaker 3. Scotland (or Scottish) 4. Mel Gibson 5. Aliens 6. Sigourney Weaver 7. Bill Murray 8. Cartoons (or people and cartoons) 9. Detective (or private detective) Your submissions will be accepted until 9:00 am EST on Monday morning. We'll post the winner 10:00 am. Thanks to everyone for playing! There will only be one winner, so if more than one person gets all the answers right, we decide the winner randomly. How do you know if you've won? The winner will be posted in this thread, so check back here to see if you've won. Just a friendly reminder that the contest isn't happening in this thread-- respond to the Friday thread with your Friday answers. Links FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge THURSDAY Eagle Eye Challenge WEDNESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge TUESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge MONDAY Eagle Eye Challenge All ages are welcome to play. An individual can only win once during the week. All residents of US and Canada are eligible. Our contest rules (see fine print below) apply unless otherwise noted in this post. Have fun, and good luck! 1. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPATION The Promotion will begin on a set date. Spout LLC ("Company") reserves the right to end the Promotion at any time. The Company will post notice at Spout.com when the Promotion has ended. HOW TO PARTICIPATE: If you are an existing member or become a new member, you are eligible to earn the Reward by following the rules of the contest or promotion. 2. REWARD Participant will receive a reward as was outlined in the contest or promotion instructions and rules. In order for participant to be eligible to receive the Reward, the participant must follow the rules and instructions of the contest or promotion. The participants receiving the Reward will be notified by the email address through which they are subscribed to Spout.com. Participants may waive their right to receive the Reward. In the event of such waiver or the disqualification of a participant, such participant will not be entitled to the Reward. Reward has no cash value. If multiple entries for the contest or promotion are received, only the first entry, as determined by Spout.com in its sole discretion, will receive evaluation or reward. 3. ELIGIBILITY AND LIMITATIONS Participants must be at least 18 years old, legal residents of one of the 50 United States or Washington D.C. and members of the Spout.com community. Individuals who use the contest or promotion webpage to enroll themselves in the contest or promotion multiple times using different email addresses will be disqualified. In case of dispute, the authorized account holder of the email address submitted to Spout.com will be considered the participant. The authorized email account subscriber is deemed to be the natural person who is assigned an email address by an Internet-access provider, an online-service provider or another organization that is responsible for assigning email addresses or the domain associated with the submitted email address. Employees of Company and members of the immediate family of any such persons are not eligible to participate and win. The term "immediate family" includes spouses, siblings, parents, children, grandparents, and grandchildren, whether as "in-laws," or by current or past marriage(s), remarriage(s), adoption, co-habitation or other family extension, and any other persons residing at the same household whether or not related. Eligibility regarding the satisfaction of meeting the Reward requirements shall be at the sole discretion of Spout.com. Management reserves the right to refuse a Reward to anyone at anytime. If you have questions regarding your eligibility, please contact us. Promotion is void where prohibited by law. 4. DISCLAIMER Company disclaims all liability for the inability of a participant to complete any information or to deliver the information due to equipment malfunction, busy lines, inadvertent disconnections, acts beyond Company's control, or otherwise. Company disclaims all liability for any delays, misdelivery, loss, or failure in the delivery of any item sent by mail, courier, express, electronic transmission, or other delivery method. 5. PUBLICITY By participating, all participants grant Company exclusive permission to use their names, characters, photographs, voices, and likenesses in connection with this Promotion, including without limitation publishing such information in the Spout.com newsletter, and waive any claims to royalty, right, or remuneration for such use. 6. GENERAL RELEASE By participating in the Promotion participants release Company and each of its respective affiliated companies, directors, officers, employees, representatives, partners and agents from any liability whatsoever for any claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the Promotion or with the acceptance or use of any Reward (including, without limitation, claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages related to personal injuries, death, damage to, loss or destruction of property, rights of publicity or privacy, defamation or portrayal in a false light). COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE PROMOTION AT ANY TIME IF THE WEBSITE IS INFECTED BY A VIRUS, THE WEBSITE IS HACKED OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROMOTION IS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY. 7. DECISIONS Company reserves the right to disqualify any participant and may refuse to give or revoke the Rewards to anyone who is ineligible, has violated any of these terms or conditions, gained or sought to gain unfair advantage in participating in the Promotion, or used fraudulent means to earn the Reward. Return of Reward notification as undeliverable may result in disqualification of the participant. Further, Company will resolve any disputes or ambiguities concerning these terms and conditions and Company's decisions concerning such disputes shall be final. All decisions will be made by Company and are final. Company reserves the right in its sole discretion to suspend, modify, or terminate the Promotion. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply. As a condition to participating in this Promotion, each participant agrees that any and all disputes that cannot be resolved between the parties, and all causes of action arising out of or in connection with this Promotion shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, exclusively before a court located in the State of Michigan having competent jurisdiction, which court shall apply the laws of the State of Michigan, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof. By entering the Promotion both parties hereby waive any and all right to trial by jury.
]]>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:39:08 GMTSkyPilotFilmgaming9/22/2008 2:39:08 PMEagle Eye Challenge &amp; Giveaway Spout's giving away one more Eagle Eye swag package on Monday morning. The winner will get a flash drive that's also a pen, like James Bond spygear! (Sorry, Q screwed up -- the flash drive's still good, but no pen.) You'll also receive a zip-up sweatshirt and t-shirt (see pics at the bottom). How do you play? Each day, Monday through Friday, we'll post a list of ten movies. You must figure out how the movies are connected. For example, you'll see the "FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge" thread in the Filmgaming group. The challenge post will look something like this: Eagle Eye (2008) (1) Phone Booth (2003) (2) The Last King of Scotland (2006) (3) Braveheart (1995) (4) Signs (2002) (5) Alien (1979) (6) Ghostbusters (1984) (7) Space Jam (1996) (8) Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) (9) Chinatown (1974) Add your answers to the challenge post thread. Your list should look something like this: 1. Phones 2. Forest Whitaker 3. Scotland (or Scottish) 4. Mel Gibson 5. Aliens 6. Sigourney Weaver 7. Bill Murray 8. Cartoons (or people and cartoons) 9. Detective (or private detective) Your submissions will be accepted until 9:00 am EST on Monday morning. We'll post the winner 10:00 am. Thanks to everyone for playing! There will only be one winner, so if more than one person gets all the answers right, we decide the winner randomly. How do you know if you've won? The winner will be posted in this thread, so check back here to see if you've won. Just a friendly reminder that the contest isn't happening in this thread-- respond to the Friday thread with your Friday answers. Links FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge THURSDAY Eagle Eye Challenge WEDNESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge TUESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge MONDAY Eagle Eye Challenge All ages are welcome to play. An individual can only win once during the week. All residents of US and Canada are eligible. Our contest rules (see fine print below) apply unless otherwise noted in this post. Have fun, and good luck! 1. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPATION The Promotion will begin on a set date. Spout LLC ("Company") reserves the right to end the Promotion at any time. The Company will post notice at Spout.com when the Promotion has ended. HOW TO PARTICIPATE: If you are an existing member or become a new member, you are eligible to earn the Reward by following the rules of the contest or promotion. 2. REWARD Participant will receive a reward as was outlined in the contest or promotion instructions and rules. In order for participant to be eligible to receive the Reward, the participant must follow the rules and instructions of the contest or promotion. The participants receiving the Reward will be notified by the email address through which they are subscribed to Spout.com. Participants may waive their right to receive the Reward. In the event of such waiver or the disqualification of a participant, such participant will not be entitled to the Reward. Reward has no cash value. If multiple entries for the contest or promotion are received, only the first entry, as determined by Spout.com in its sole discretion, will receive evaluation or reward. 3. ELIGIBILITY AND LIMITATIONS Participants must be at least 18 years old, legal residents of one of the 50 United States or Washington D.C. and members of the Spout.com community. Individuals who use the contest or promotion webpage to enroll themselves in the contest or promotion multiple times using different email addresses will be disqualified. In case of dispute, the authorized account holder of the email address submitted to Spout.com will be considered the participant. The authorized email account subscriber is deemed to be the natural person who is assigned an email address by an Internet-access provider, an online-service provider or another organization that is responsible for assigning email addresses or the domain associated with the submitted email address. Employees of Company and members of the immediate family of any such persons are not eligible to participate and win. The term "immediate family" includes spouses, siblings, parents, children, grandparents, and grandchildren, whether as "in-laws," or by current or past marriage(s), remarriage(s), adoption, co-habitation or other family extension, and any other persons residing at the same household whether or not related. Eligibility regarding the satisfaction of meeting the Reward requirements shall be at the sole discretion of Spout.com. Management reserves the right to refuse a Reward to anyone at anytime. If you have questions regarding your eligibility, please contact us. Promotion is void where prohibited by law. 4. DISCLAIMER Company disclaims all liability for the inability of a participant to complete any information or to deliver the information due to equipment malfunction, busy lines, inadvertent disconnections, acts beyond Company's control, or otherwise. Company disclaims all liability for any delays, misdelivery, loss, or failure in the delivery of any item sent by mail, courier, express, electronic transmission, or other delivery method. 5. PUBLICITY By participating, all participants grant Company exclusive permission to use their names, characters, photographs, voices, and likenesses in connection with this Promotion, including without limitation publishing such information in the Spout.com newsletter, and waive any claims to royalty, right, or remuneration for such use. 6. GENERAL RELEASE By participating in the Promotion participants release Company and each of its respective affiliated companies, directors, officers, employees, representatives, partners and agents from any liability whatsoever for any claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the Promotion or with the acceptance or use of any Reward (including, without limitation, claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages related to personal injuries, death, damage to, loss or destruction of property, rights of publicity or privacy, defamation or portrayal in a false light). COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE PROMOTION AT ANY TIME IF THE WEBSITE IS INFECTED BY A VIRUS, THE WEBSITE IS HACKED OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROMOTION IS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY. 7. DECISIONS Company reserves the right to disqualify any participant and may refuse to give or revoke the Rewards to anyone who is ineligible, has violated any of these terms or conditions, gained or sought to gain unfair advantage in participating in the Promotion, or used fraudulent means to earn the Reward. Return of Reward notification as undeliverable may result in disqualification of the participant. Further, Company will resolve any disputes or ambiguities concerning these terms and conditions and Company's decisions concerning such disputes shall be final. All decisions will be made by Company and are final. Company reserves the right in its sole discretion to suspend, modify, or terminate the Promotion. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply. As a condition to participating in this Promotion, each participant agrees that any and all disputes that cannot be resolved between the parties, and all causes of action arising out of or in connection with this Promotion shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, exclusively before a court located in the State of Michigan having competent jurisdiction, which court shall apply the laws of the State of Michigan, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof. By entering the Promotion both parties hereby waive any and all right to trial by jury. http://www.spout.com/blogs/tadiv/archive/2008/9/5/34812.aspx Post By: tadiv
Post To: tadiv Blog
Post Date: 9/5/2008 7:20:58 PM
Body: Fox Searchlight Pictures and Warner Brothers Pictures present, in association with Celador Films and Film4, Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire. The screenplay was written by Simon Beaufoy. The picture stars Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Anil Kapoor, and Irfan Khan. At the time of this review the film runs 120 minutes and has not yet been rated by the MPAA. The content as seen in my screening would suggest an MPAA "R" rating for scenes of torture and violence. The film is in Hindi and English with English subtitles. A young man, Jamal, who grew up an orphan on the streets of Mimbai, India, gets on the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire to try to contact his girlfriend. He ends up defending himself against fraud charges brought by the host of the show who thinks that there is no way a "slumdog" could know all the answers that he does. How Jamal knows each answer is shown in flashbacks from his tough, dramatic, and tragic youth. Expertly crafted, Slumdog Millionaire has crisp and fast-paced editing by Chris Dickens (Shaun of the Dead, Goal!, and Hot Fuzz) as well as wonderful shot compositions by Anthony Dod Mantle (Dogville, Millions, and The Last King of Scotland). The film includes few name actors and the young actors who play the younger versions of the three main child characters are superb – a true credit to Boyle's direction of the film. Slumdog Millionaire opens with the 18 year-old Jamal taking a beating and being interrogated about his cheating. The beating gives way to electrocution torture and forcing Jamal's head under water in a small bucket. Jamal swears he has not been cheating, so the local police inspector asks how a slumdog could know all the answers to the questions presented. There is an air of contempt in both the police station and on the television show stage as the show is replayed while the questioning continues. The Who Wants to be a Millionaire show is being replayed on tape for the questioning. As each question is asked, Jamal's memory of his life takes us on a roller coaster ride through his life and the horrors he has seen growing up on the streets without any family but his older brother and a girl his age. The three are inseparable until fate tears them apart. Character development is finely executed as we come to know Jamal, his brother, and Latika, the young girl who Jamal loves after he allows her to join he and his brother in some shelter from a monsoon-like rain storm. We also understand the perspectives of the police inspector and the game show's host. The interplay of these characters and other lesser personalities who come and go through the story fill the screen with laughter and trauma alike. Funny, gut-wrenching, and tragic, Slumdog Millionaire is the story of a boy committed to the one he loves. They have been through unimaginable things together and whether she likes it or not, Jamal is determined to rescue Latika from her difficult situation. I have heard some complain about the ending of the story. Can you predict what is going to happen? Maybe, but in my mind's eye, the end was a very satisfying way to close this story of an unimaginably horrid childhood. Slumdog Millionaire was, in my opinion, the best of the fifteen features I saw in Telluride this Labor Day Weekend. Addendum: No doubt someone will ask, so here is a list of the 15 features I saw this year in Telluride: The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, Kisses, Waltz with Bashir, Hunger, Adam Resurrected, Firaaq, A Frozen Dream, Flame & Citron, The Italian Straw Hat, American Violet, Youssou Ndour: I Bring What I Love, Philanthropy, Pirate for the Sea, Flash of Genious, and Slumdog Millionaire.
]]>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:20:58 GMTtadivtadiv Blog9/5/2008 7:20:58 PMFox Searchlight Pictures and Warner Brothers Pictures present, in association with Celador Films and Film4, Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire. The screenplay was written by Simon Beaufoy. The picture stars Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Anil Kapoor, and Irfan Khan. At the time of this review the film runs 120 minutes and has not yet been rated by the MPAA. The content as seen in my screening would suggest an MPAA "R" rating for scenes of torture and violence. The film is in Hindi and English with English subtitles. A young man, Jamal, who grew up an orphan on the streets of Mimbai, India, gets on the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire to try to contact his girlfriend. He ends up defending himself against fraud charges brought by the host of the show who thinks that there is no way a "slumdog" could know all the answers that he does. How Jamal knows each answer is shown in flashbacks from his tough, dramatic, and tragic youth. Expertly crafted, Slumdog Millionaire has crisp and fast-paced editing by Chris Dickens (Shaun of the Dead, Goal!, and Hot Fuzz) as well as wonderful shot compositions by Anthony Dod Mantle (Dogville, Millions, and The Last King of Scotland). The film includes few name actors and the young actors who play the younger versions of the three main child characters are superb &ndash; a true credit to Boyle's direction of the film. Slumdog Millionaire opens with the 18 year-old Jamal taking a beating and being interrogated about his cheating. The beating gives way to electrocution torture and forcing Jamal's head under water in a small bucket. Jamal swears he has not been cheating, so the local police inspector asks how a slumdog could know all the answers to the questions presented. There is an air of contempt in both the police station and on the television show stage as the show is replayed while the questioning continues. The Who Wants to be a Millionaire show is being replayed on tape for the questioning. As each question is asked, Jamal's memory of his life takes us on a roller coaster ride through his life and the horrors he has seen growing up on the streets without any family but his older brother and a girl his age. The three are inseparable until fate tears them apart. Character development is finely executed as we come to know Jamal, his brother, and Latika, the young girl who Jamal loves after he allows her to join he and his brother in some shelter from a monsoon-like rain storm. We also understand the perspectives of the police inspector and the game show's host. The interplay of these characters and other lesser personalities who come and go through the story fill the screen with laughter and trauma alike. Funny, gut-wrenching, and tragic, Slumdog Millionaire is the story of a boy committed to the one he loves. They have been through unimaginable things together and whether she likes it or not, Jamal is determined to rescue Latika from her difficult situation. I have heard some complain about the ending of the story. Can you predict what is going to happen? Maybe, but in my mind's eye, the end was a very satisfying way to close this story of an unimaginably horrid childhood. Slumdog Millionaire was, in my opinion, the best of the fifteen features I saw in Telluride this Labor Day Weekend. Addendum: No doubt someone will ask, so here is a list of the 15 features I saw this year in Telluride: The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, Kisses, Waltz with Bashir, Hunger, Adam Resurrected, Firaaq, A Frozen Dream, Flame &amp; Citron, The Italian Straw Hat, American Violet, Youssou Ndour: I Bring What I Love, Philanthropy, Pirate for the Sea, Flash of Genious, and Slumdog Millionaire. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/9/30952.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/9/2008 1:05:58 PM
Body: There is a scene in the middle of "The Last King of Scotland" featuring Doctor Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) and Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker). In this scene, the bulking, ferocious president of Uganda is whining in pain on his bed. He believes someone has poisoned him, despite "knowing" how he is going to die. Garrigan, a lanky white Scot, performs a quick examination. Then, he looks around the bedroom and tells the president to sit on a footstool while he grabs a baseball bat. Moments later, Garrigan puts Amin into a bear hug from behind, and pushes the bat horizontally into Amin's stomach. The president lets out the biggest, most hilarious fart in movie history. That is the only moment of real levity in this entire film, which details the new government of Uganda tumbling down around a Scottish doctor caught up in the turmoil. Movies like this, and a spate of other "message" pictures which came out last year, are crucial to the film pantheon. Why? Because they illuminate a part of world history the majority of audiences are not familiar with. This is doubly true considering that the events of "The Last King of Scotland" take place in the 1970s (Amin died in 2003). For a large group of people, Idi Amin is just a name. After watching this movie inspired by true events, he becomes more than that. He is a person, a ruler, a general, a teddy bear, a monster. The old saying goes that it is crucial to understand history, lest we are doomed to repeat it. We don't get to see Amin's rise to power (that's handled mostly off screen), but we do see the effects of his schizophrenic rule: he suspects his "advisors" of plotting against him, he is unable to stay committed to any one cause, and he cares about how the world sees him over his own people. This is a man punch-drunk on the idea of power, yet when he attains the ultimate power, he has no idea what to do with it. It's an interesting thing to behold as he, through the course of the movie, promotes and demotes Garrigan from a friend to a personal physician to a close advisor and then back down to a nobody, followed closely by the need for Garrigan to tell him what to do. The end result is a regime predicated on style, not substance. Which, as any rational person can tell you, isn't the way to run a country. Amin, despite whatever faults he developed during his presidency, started saying and doing the right things as far as the audience can tell. His focus was on his country, a president of the people. Amin, as portrayed by multiple award-winner Whitaker, is simultaneously a teddy bear and a monster. In one breath a giant smile can spread across his face at a job well done. In the next, he becomes a paranoid dictator who kills his friends, advisors and even a wife for apparent betrayals. Most other actors can either play cuddly or terrifying, not both. But Whitaker has the body language and the look to do both convincingly, despite the movie truly belonging to McAvoy. As for McAvoy, he leaves a lesser impression when you exit the theater. Not because of anything he does or doesn't do, but because Whitaker is still forefront in your mind. What McAvoy does--playing a naive, terrified, jubilant--he does well, but it can't compare to Whitaker stealing every scene he's in. The main conflict rears its head late in the movie. During a party, Garrigan shacks up with one of Amin's wives (he has at least three) and, as a consequence, she becomes pregnant--which then takes "The Last King of Scotland" into bizarre territory you're never really sure is real or not. And that's where the movie starts to lose its way. Not because the script is badly written, because it's certainly a departure from what we've seen before. This isn't a movie about chases or grotesque torture. It's about Amin's deteriorating government and the one man caught in it. Initially, Garrigan is taken by Amin, no more clearly evidenced than in an early-movie rally. Garrigan is completely taken in every way with this man, who he sees as charismatic and a savior. Until Nicholas sees for himself what Amin is capable of (a "talk" with a former advisor turns into murder), he doesn't believe it. Just like last year's "Catch a Fire", "The Last King of Scotland" is about more than just an event; it's about the people caught up in it. Back to the ending for just a minute. There is a sequence, and I won't go into great detail, in which Nicholas vomits. The way it is edited together caused some confusion. It's edited in a way that makes me wonder if there was some edict against blood and violence in the film. There isn't a reason for it to be put together as is without the decree. Even later on, in the queasy airport torture scene, the "simple" punishment Nicholas endures is similarly bloodless and conspicuously off screen. The one thing that struck me at the end of the film was one act of stupidity by Garrigan. Had he kept his wits about him (not to mention his sobriety), his downward spiral in Uganda wouldn't have accelerated to break-neck speed. Of course, without this lapse, the climax would need to be altogether different, though I'm not sure that's an entirely bad thing. When a character commits an act they (and the audience) know is going to get them in trouble, the credibility of that character is diminished. Horror films are notorious for sending the well-endowed female into a dark house/room/hallway alone only for the killer to attack while the audience collectively screams not to go any further. The same happens here. Immediately before and during this moment of passion, the audience knows no good can come of the liaison. But we're forced to watch it like a car wreck we can't do anything about. There is a minor subplot concerning English operatives in Uganda who try to recruit Garrigan in an effort to assassinate Amin, but it's never really explored or fleshed out; the result is a handful of scenes that don't add up to much in the end. All things considered, though, "The Last King of Scotland" is a riveting film for about 80 percent of its running time. It falls apart, as does every other movie, when the characters play dumb for a single moment. Still, a head-scratching finale doesn't dampen this film too much. Whitaker's performance is as billed: Oscar-worthy, despite the audience expecting him to be on screen more. McAvoy shows he has the chops to hang in there with the best Hollywood can throw at him. "The Last King of Scotland," on a scale of 1 to 10, rates a 7. It's rarely easy to watch and it's not family friendly, but it is a lesson in Ugandan history and, indeed, world history.
]]>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:05:58 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/9/2008 1:05:58 PMThere is a scene in the middle of "The Last King of Scotland" featuring Doctor Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) and Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker). In this scene, the bulking, ferocious president of Uganda is whining in pain on his bed. He believes someone has poisoned him, despite "knowing" how he is going to die. Garrigan, a lanky white Scot, performs a quick examination. Then, he looks around the bedroom and tells the president to sit on a footstool while he grabs a baseball bat. Moments later, Garrigan puts Amin into a bear hug from behind, and pushes the bat horizontally into Amin's stomach. The president lets out the biggest, most hilarious fart in movie history. That is the only moment of real levity in this entire film, which details the new government of Uganda tumbling down around a Scottish doctor caught up in the turmoil. Movies like this, and a spate of other "message" pictures which came out last year, are crucial to the film pantheon. Why? Because they illuminate a part of world history the majority of audiences are not familiar with. This is doubly true considering that the events of "The Last King of Scotland" take place in the 1970s (Amin died in 2003). For a large group of people, Idi Amin is just a name. After watching this movie inspired by true events, he becomes more than that. He is a person, a ruler, a general, a teddy bear, a monster. The old saying goes that it is crucial to understand history, lest we are doomed to repeat it. We don't get to see Amin's rise to power (that's handled mostly off screen), but we do see the effects of his schizophrenic rule: he suspects his "advisors" of plotting against him, he is unable to stay committed to any one cause, and he cares about how the world sees him over his own people. This is a man punch-drunk on the idea of power, yet when he attains the ultimate power, he has no idea what to do with it. It's an interesting thing to behold as he, through the course of the movie, promotes and demotes Garrigan from a friend to a personal physician to a close advisor and then back down to a nobody, followed closely by the need for Garrigan to tell him what to do. The end result is a regime predicated on style, not substance. Which, as any rational person can tell you, isn't the way to run a country. Amin, despite whatever faults he developed during his presidency, started saying and doing the right things as far as the audience can tell. His focus was on his country, a president of the people. Amin, as portrayed by multiple award-winner Whitaker, is simultaneously a teddy bear and a monster. In one breath a giant smile can spread across his face at a job well done. In the next, he becomes a paranoid dictator who kills his friends, advisors and even a wife for apparent betrayals. Most other actors can either play cuddly or terrifying, not both. But Whitaker has the body language and the look to do both convincingly, despite the movie truly belonging to McAvoy. As for McAvoy, he leaves a lesser impression when you exit the theater. Not because of anything he does or doesn't do, but because Whitaker is still forefront in your mind. What McAvoy does--playing a naive, terrified, jubilant--he does well, but it can't compare to Whitaker stealing every scene he's in. The main conflict rears its head late in the movie. During a party, Garrigan shacks up with one of Amin's wives (he has at least three) and, as a consequence, she becomes pregnant--which then takes "The Last King of Scotland" into bizarre territory you're never really sure is real or not. And that's where the movie starts to lose its way. Not because the script is badly written, because it's certainly a departure from what we've seen before. This isn't a movie about chases or grotesque torture. It's about Amin's deteriorating government and the one man caught in it. Initially, Garrigan is taken by Amin, no more clearly evidenced than in an early-movie rally. Garrigan is completely taken in every way with this man, who he sees as charismatic and a savior. Until Nicholas sees for himself what Amin is capable of (a "talk" with a former advisor turns into murder), he doesn't believe it. Just like last year's "Catch a Fire", "The Last King of Scotland" is about more than just an event; it's about the people caught up in it. Back to the ending for just a minute. There is a sequence, and I won't go into great detail, in which Nicholas vomits. The way it is edited together caused some confusion. It's edited in a way that makes me wonder if there was some edict against blood and violence in the film. There isn't a reason for it to be put together as is without the decree. Even later on, in the queasy airport torture scene, the "simple" punishment Nicholas endures is similarly bloodless and conspicuously off screen. The one thing that struck me at the end of the film was one act of stupidity by Garrigan. Had he kept his wits about him (not to mention his sobriety), his downward spiral in Uganda wouldn't have accelerated to break-neck speed. Of course, without this lapse, the climax would need to be altogether different, though I'm not sure that's an entirely bad thing. When a character commits an act they (and the audience) know is going to get them in trouble, the credibility of that character is diminished. Horror films are notorious for sending the well-endowed female into a dark house/room/hallway alone only for the killer to attack while the audience collectively screams not to go any further. The same happens here. Immediately before and during this moment of passion, the audience knows no good can come of the liaison. But we're forced to watch it like a car wreck we can't do anything about. There is a minor subplot concerning English operatives in Uganda who try to recruit Garrigan in an effort to assassinate Amin, but it's never really explored or fleshed out; the result is a handful of scenes that don't add up to much in the end. All things considered, though, "The Last King of Scotland" is a riveting film for about 80 percent of its running time. It falls apart, as does every other movie, when the characters play dumb for a single moment. Still, a head-scratching finale doesn't dampen this film too much. Whitaker's performance is as billed: Oscar-worthy, despite the audience expecting him to be on screen more. McAvoy shows he has the chops to hang in there with the best Hollywood can throw at him. "The Last King of Scotland," on a scale of 1 to 10, rates a 7. It's rarely easy to watch and it's not family friendly, but it is a lesson in Ugandan history and, indeed, world history. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28770.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 10:46:41 PM
Body: There are some movies that rise above averageness because of a single extraordinary performance. It is easier to give a great perforamnce in a great movie than it is to give a great performance in an average movie where less is expected. The first time I noticed a performance of this kind was in The Accused. Had Jodie Foster not played the lead role as a rape victim in that film, I would have dismissed it as a standard TV-level court procedural. But Foster's performance was so strong, so real, that I cared about her. More than anything the by-the-numbers directrion and script had done, Foster's performance made the movie worth seeing. Forest Whitaker's performance in The Last King of Scotland is like that. He not only steals every scene he is in, he gives the scenes a reason for existance. Whitaker has been nominated for Best Actor and I hope he wins, as he deserves to. He plays Idi Amin, the brutal dictator of Uganda, who, as the closing titles tell us, killed over 300,000 of his own countrymen. Having almost no knowlege of the real Amin or of Ugandan history, I can't detect how accurate the movie or Whiatker is (although actor and subject bear a striking physical resemblance). But enough is on the screen to give us a full arc of the character, as he goes from prolitariat idealist to slightly excentric recluse to completly paranoia and insanity. Had the film been a biopic of Amin (and with a better director) it could have been a study of power on the level of Citizen Kane or The Godfather. But unfortantley the movie revolves around a smamy, immature jerk. The film opens newly graduated MD Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) leaves his native to get away from his parents. Joining a UNICEF like orginization Uganda, he coincidentally is called to treat Amin when his hand is lightly wounded in a car accident. Amin has a surprising love for the Scotland and the two strike up what appears to be a friendship, and Garrigan eventually become personal physcian to Amin and his family. Slowly, the doctor begins to realize that Amin's warm personality may be masking a deep insecurity underneath, that will eventually manifest itself in violent ways. The movie's central flaw is that Amin is the not the protagonist of his own story. Whitaker is in a way so good that he damages the movie he's in, drawing attention to how boring and obnoxious Garrigan really is. Worse, Kevin McDonald expects us to identify and care about the doctor. James McAvoy's performance might also be a problem, perhaps another, tougher actor (John Hannah?) might have been able to convey the doctor's naivete while still making somewhat likable and less of dolt. But the movie is still worth seeing, just for Whitaker's performance. What a nice guy Amin was- the life of the party, an amazing orator, a charming statesmen. The fact that we like Amin makes his growing paranoia more and more insiduous- sort of like finding out your high school class president was a serial killer. Even at the end, Amin may not have an inheritnley evil person, but someone who was acting as only he knew how under circumstances he never should have had to deal with. Perhaps if he had earned power instead of been given it, he would have been a really great man. The Last King of Scotland (2006)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 02:46:41 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 10:46:41 PMThere are some movies that rise above averageness because of a single extraordinary performance. It is easier to give a great perforamnce in a great movie than it is to give a great performance in an average movie where less is expected. The first time I noticed a performance of this kind was in The Accused. Had Jodie Foster not played the lead role as a rape victim in that film, I would have dismissed it as a standard TV-level court procedural. But Foster's performance was so strong, so real, that I cared about her. More than anything the by-the-numbers directrion and script had done, Foster's performance made the movie worth seeing. Forest Whitaker's performance in The Last King of Scotland is like that. He not only steals every scene he is in, he gives the scenes a reason for existance. Whitaker has been nominated for Best Actor and I hope he wins, as he deserves to. He plays Idi Amin, the brutal dictator of Uganda, who, as the closing titles tell us, killed over 300,000 of his own countrymen. Having almost no knowlege of the real Amin or of Ugandan history, I can't detect how accurate the movie or Whiatker is (although actor and subject bear a striking physical resemblance). But enough is on the screen to give us a full arc of the character, as he goes from prolitariat idealist to slightly excentric recluse to completly paranoia and insanity. Had the film been a biopic of Amin (and with a better director) it could have been a study of power on the level of Citizen Kane or The Godfather. But unfortantley the movie revolves around a smamy, immature jerk. The film opens newly graduated MD Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) leaves his native to get away from his parents. Joining a UNICEF like orginization Uganda, he coincidentally is called to treat Amin when his hand is lightly wounded in a car accident. Amin has a surprising love for the Scotland and the two strike up what appears to be a friendship, and Garrigan eventually become personal physcian to Amin and his family. Slowly, the doctor begins to realize that Amin's warm personality may be masking a deep insecurity underneath, that will eventually manifest itself in violent ways. The movie's central flaw is that Amin is the not the protagonist of his own story. Whitaker is in a way so good that he damages the movie he's in, drawing attention to how boring and obnoxious Garrigan really is. Worse, Kevin McDonald expects us to identify and care about the doctor. James McAvoy's performance might also be a problem, perhaps another, tougher actor (John Hannah?) might have been able to convey the doctor's naivete while still making somewhat likable and less of dolt. But the movie is still worth seeing, just for Whitaker's performance. What a nice guy Amin was- the life of the party, an amazing orator, a charming statesmen. The fact that we like Amin makes his growing paranoia more and more insiduous- sort of like finding out your high school class president was a serial killer. Even at the end, Amin may not have an inheritnley evil person, but someone who was acting as only he knew how under circumstances he never should have had to deal with. Perhaps if he had earned power instead of been given it, he would have been a really great man. The Last King of Scotland (2006) http://www.spout.com/blogs/chrismorrell/archive/2008/1/29/24531.aspx Post By: chrismorrell
Post To: chrismorrell Blog
Post Date: 1/29/2008 6:56:29 PM
Body: I came back to this because of John Simm's brilliant performance in 'Life On Mars'...Just listing the cast, and the writer gives an idea of how good this is...John Simm"24 hour party people","Human Traffic", Bill Nighy,"Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy","love Actually" ,"Shaun Of the Dead" , "Hot Fuzz"etc ,David Morrissey, "Stoned","Basic Instinct 2",loads of fantastic T.V. KellyMacDonald,"Trainspotting","No Country For Old Men" James McAvoy." Last King of Scotland","Atonement"...written by Paul 'Shameless' Abbott...the story is one of 'political intrigue'...but it's really about the lives of the characters...Apparently,there is a Hollywood version in the pipeline.. Brad Pittas the John Simm character!..i hate it already! Latest news ,that i know of ,is that the writers strike may have claimed this production,with Brad Pitt dropping out... all i would suggest is...if you insist on "remaking" get the best, get John Simm, and keep it set in England...you know what? just forget it!...how could it possibly be better than this production anyway?
]]>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:56:29 GMTchrismorrellchrismorrell Blog1/29/2008 6:56:29 PMI came back to this because of John Simm&#39;s brilliant performance in &#39;Life On Mars&#39;...Just listing the cast, and the writer gives an idea of how good this is...John Simm&quot;24 hour party people&quot;,&quot;Human Traffic&quot;, Bill Nighy,&quot;Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy&quot;,&quot;love Actually&quot; ,&quot;Shaun Of the Dead&quot; , &quot;Hot Fuzz&quot;etc ,David Morrissey, &quot;Stoned&quot;,&quot;Basic Instinct 2&quot;,loads of fantastic T.V. KellyMacDonald,&quot;Trainspotting&quot;,&quot;No Country For Old Men&quot; James McAvoy.&quot; Last King of Scotland&quot;,&quot;Atonement&quot;...written by Paul &#39;Shameless&#39; Abbott...the story is one of &#39;political intrigue&#39;...but it&#39;s really about the lives of the characters...Apparently,there is a Hollywood version in the pipeline.. Brad Pittas the John Simm character!..i hate it already! Latest news ,that i know of ,is that the writers strike may have claimed this production,with Brad Pitt dropping out... all i would suggest is...if you insist on &quot;remaking&quot; get the best, get John Simm, and keep it set in England...you know what? just forget it!...how could it possibly be better than this production anyway? http://www.spout.com/groups/Sound_on_Sight/Re_Re_Episode_15_and_the_rave_over_Blood_Answe/529/23970/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: tadiv
Post To: Sound on Sight
Post Date: 1/16/2008 10:55:14 PM
Body: Ricky -- It's good to read that you don't give out spoilers on the radio show. I find that most of my best film experiences are when I know nothing, or as little as possible, before seeing the film. I'm not sure about your comment "This film is not for everyone. Mostly for ..." - this implies that I must not be a film student or film maker, or, in a broader stroke of the brush, somehow unable to appreciate film as a form of art. I'm not sure I want to make any more comment on that...Regarding your remarks that defend your liking of the film...- Anderson being more mature as a film maker and artist has little to do with the quality of the film - this is not a stab at the quality of the film, I'm just making the logical argument that maturity does not imply a great film will be made. I have not followed Anderson's career, but reviewing his filmography, I have to say that I loved Punch-Drunk Love. I hope that this is not too much of a surprise (I loved Lost in Translation too!). - You mention Dano first, but I think both performances were very strong. I measure a performance on who I observe in the film - is it Paul Dano, or is it Eli Sunday? Dano was better as Eli than he was as Paul Sunday, but I did not really think much about the actor Paul Dano because his performance engaged me with the character. Daniel Plainview was even more engaging as a character. Day-Lewis may well win the Oscar - but if I compare this to the performance given by Forest Whitaker, the Whitaker performance was stronger in my view. I walked out of the Telluride screening of The Last King of Scotland thinking "He has won the Best Actor Oscar." I did not feel that way after Blood.- Reviewing Jack Fisk's filmography reminds me of several interesting film experiences - and one that was not so wonderful - but let's face it, film making is a team effort. My perspective on the photography and set design may be skewed as I was sitting in the front row - I usually try for about the 5th row, but this was a full house and my friend and I arrived while the trailers were running. I do want to see the film again from a not-so-close perspective. My expectations are that I'll get a much better look on the next screening.- I guess I'm not sure what explosion you mean - the initial ignition of the fire or the explosive "blowing out" of that fire... I suppose I liked the ongoing fire better - as the rig crumbled after burning. You're right about people having different tastes - I expected to walk away thinking "Wow, that was fantastic" - sort of like I did in Telluride after The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - but Blood was not so much like that... Your remarks make me think that you think I did not like the film - I did like it - I liked it a lot. There are some great lines of dialog in the film - like the bit about the straw and milkshakes - off the top of my head, I liked the line most when Plainview says to Paul Sunday: "If I travel all the way there and find out that you're a liar, I'll find you and take more than my money back, is that alright with you?"Three and a half stars from Ebert puts the film in contention for his top 10 list - but it has to be one of the best that is so scored. I was interested to read his review after seeing the film - and to review the "At the movies" talk about it. On that show the comment was made that Paul Dano was not up to the challenge of keeping up with Day-Lewis. I think Dano did a fine job. Think of him - and Episode 15 - I recall that there was some wondering about what films he had been in in the past. The film I was really surprised that was not mentioned was L.I.E. That was one of Dano's first films and it was very good.I think that the professional critics, while really liking the film a lot, are not quite ready to jump to the Citizen Kane comparison. I think you are right about future generations - but that general statement is true for art in general. That is, a work of art is often appreciated later rather than sooner... Well, I have to say (or write, as it is) - I have really enjoyed this dialog and hope that our conversation will draw some others to share their opinions here. Looking forward to more episodes of The Naked Lunch Radio Show,Tom
]]>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:55:14 GMTtadivSound on Sight1/16/2008 10:55:14 PMRicky -- It&#39;s good to read that you don&#39;t give out spoilers on the radio show. I find that most of my best film experiences are when I know nothing, or as little as possible, before seeing the film. I&#39;m not sure about your comment "This film is not for everyone. Mostly for ..." - this implies that I must not be a film student or film maker, or, in a broader stroke of the brush, somehow unable to appreciate film as a form of art. I&#39;m not sure I want to make any more comment on that...Regarding your remarks that defend your liking of the film...- Anderson being more mature as a film maker and artist has little to do with the quality of the film - this is not a stab at the quality of the film, I&#39;m just making the logical argument that maturity does not imply a great film will be made. I have not followed Anderson&#39;s career, but reviewing his filmography, I have to say that I loved Punch-Drunk Love. I hope that this is not too much of a surprise (I loved Lost in Translation too!). - You mention Dano first, but I think both performances were very strong. I measure a performance on who I observe in the film - is it Paul Dano, or is it Eli Sunday? Dano was better as Eli than he was as Paul Sunday, but I did not really think much about the actor Paul Dano because his performance engaged me with the character. Daniel Plainview was even more engaging as a character. Day-Lewis may well win the Oscar - but if I compare this to the performance given by Forest Whitaker, the Whitaker performance was stronger in my view. I walked out of the Telluride screening of The Last King of Scotland thinking "He has won the Best Actor Oscar." I did not feel that way after Blood.- Reviewing Jack Fisk&#39;s filmography reminds me of several interesting film experiences - and one that was not so wonderful - but let&#39;s face it, film making is a team effort. My perspective on the photography and set design may be skewed as I was sitting in the front row - I usually try for about the 5th row, but this was a full house and my friend and I arrived while the trailers were running. I do want to see the film again from a not-so-close perspective. My expectations are that I&#39;ll get a much better look on the next screening.- I guess I&#39;m not sure what explosion you mean - the initial ignition of the fire or the explosive "blowing out" of that fire... I suppose I liked the ongoing fire better - as the rig crumbled after burning. You&#39;re right about people having different tastes - I expected to walk away thinking "Wow, that was fantastic" - sort of like I did in Telluride after The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - but Blood was not so much like that... Your remarks make me think that you think I did not like the film - I did like it - I liked it a lot. There are some great lines of dialog in the film - like the bit about the straw and milkshakes - off the top of my head, I liked the line most when Plainview says to Paul Sunday: "If I travel all the way there and find out that you&#39;re a liar, I&#39;ll find you and take more than my money back, is that alright with you?"Three and a half stars from Ebert puts the film in contention for his top 10 list - but it has to be one of the best that is so scored. I was interested to read his review after seeing the film - and to review the "At the movies" talk about it. On that show the comment was made that Paul Dano was not up to the challenge of keeping up with Day-Lewis. I think Dano did a fine job. Think of him - and Episode 15 - I recall that there was some wondering about what films he had been in in the past. The film I was really surprised that was not mentioned was L.I.E. That was one of Dano&#39;s first films and it was very good.I think that the professional critics, while really liking the film a lot, are not quite ready to jump to the Citizen Kane comparison. I think you are right about future generations - but that general statement is true for art in general. That is, a work of art is often appreciated later rather than sooner... Well, I have to say (or write, as it is) - I have really enjoyed this dialog and hope that our conversation will draw some others to share their opinions here. Looking forward to more episodes of The Naked Lunch Radio Show,Tom http://www.spout.com/groups/Sound_on_Sight/Re_Episode_15_and_the_rave_over_Blood_Answer/529/23945/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: NakedLunchRadioShow
Post To: Sound on Sight
Post Date: 1/16/2008 2:59:51 AM
Body: Frist I would just like to say that we never give out any spoilers of any movies that are less than a year old. I am glad that you went back and listened to the show again after you saw the film. Now for your answer. As I mentioned in the show. This film is not for everyone. Mostly for film students and film makers. Also I said that it is a film that will only really be appreciated by future generations. Even the early films by Stanley Kubrick were only considered masterpieces a decade later. A few points of why I like the film so much .. - The film marks a major advance for Anderson who reveals increased maturity and artistic assurance with this film. - Dano’s performance is outstanding. His confidence in his character’s truth is breathtaking. -The original music by Jonny Greenwood is fantastic. - There are good performances, and great performances, and then there are performances that so extraordinary that you can’t look away. Like Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire, and Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver. Day-Lewis gives one as Daniel Plainview. - Anderson delivers an authentic, convincing portrait of this era - Every scene and sequence a fascinating visual perspective -- so that it doesn't look quite like anything we've seen before. (Much of this is due to the great production designer Jack Fisk -- "Mulholland Dr.," "The Thin Red ) - The oil rig explosion is outstanding - The cinematography is eye popping - Of the many Oscar-worthy moments in the film, the best has to be the church scene where Eli forces Daniel to announce himself a sinner. Watch Day-Lewis’ delivery and try to imagine anyone else moving from sarcasm to anger to heartache in the space of those few minutes. I don’t’ know what else to say. You mentioned that you were looking for clues on what you missed. I don’t think you missed anything. People have different tastes. Also I say this time and time again. When you go into a movie with high expectations you are easily disappointed. When you go into a film with no or low expectations, than you have a better chance of enjoying the film if it is half decent. Maybe there was just too much hype. Maybe you like films with more action, films that are a little faster paced and maybe even have a lead female character. I do not know. I try on the show to gear people to the right movies. Movies that are meant for them. Which is why I warned people it was not for everyone and even mentioned that some friends walked out? I just want to close by saying that like it or not, it is a work of art. Maybe it doesn’t entertain every single individual who sees it. However there is not one film that does. In any case we are doing a Paul Thomas Anderson special this Thursday. We will review this film one more time as well as look back at the director’s career. Also Roger Ebert also gave it 3 ½ stars. What I find remarkable is critics who spend so much time tearing apart a great film and focus their review mostly on the negative just to end it by saying something like … “Don’t get me wrong. It’s an amazing movie. Go see it” I actually heard two critics on a pod cast say that after ripping it apart. ????????????????????????????
]]>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:59:51 GMTNakedLunchRadioShowSound on Sight1/16/2008 2:59:51 AMFrist I would just like to say that we never give out any spoilers of any movies that are less than a year old. I am glad that you went back and listened to the show again after you saw the film. Now for your answer. As I mentioned in the show. This film is not for everyone. Mostly for film students and film makers. Also I said that it is a film that will only really be appreciated by future generations. Even the early films by Stanley Kubrick were only considered masterpieces a decade later. A few points of why I like the film so much .. - The film marks a major advance for Anderson who reveals increased maturity and artistic assurance with this film. - Dano&rsquo;s performance is outstanding. His confidence in his character&rsquo;s truth is breathtaking. -The original music by Jonny Greenwood is fantastic. - There are good performances, and great performances, and then there are performances that so extraordinary that you can&rsquo;t look away. Like Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire, and Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver. Day-Lewis gives one as Daniel Plainview. - Anderson delivers an authentic, convincing portrait of this era - Every scene and sequence a fascinating visual perspective -- so that it doesn&#39;t look quite like anything we&#39;ve seen before. (Much of this is due to the great production designer Jack Fisk -- "Mulholland Dr.," "The Thin Red ) - The oil rig explosion is outstanding - The cinematography is eye popping - Of the many Oscar-worthy moments in the film, the best has to be the church scene where Eli forces Daniel to announce himself a sinner. Watch Day-Lewis&rsquo; delivery and try to imagine anyone else moving from sarcasm to anger to heartache in the space of those few minutes. I don&rsquo;t&rsquo; know what else to say. You mentioned that you were looking for clues on what you missed. I don&rsquo;t think you missed anything. People have different tastes. Also I say this time and time again. When you go into a movie with high expectations you are easily disappointed. When you go into a film with no or low expectations, than you have a better chance of enjoying the film if it is half decent. Maybe there was just too much hype. Maybe you like films with more action, films that are a little faster paced and maybe even have a lead female character. I do not know. I try on the show to gear people to the right movies. Movies that are meant for them. Which is why I warned people it was not for everyone and even mentioned that some friends walked out? I just want to close by saying that like it or not, it is a work of art. Maybe it doesn&rsquo;t entertain every single individual who sees it. However there is not one film that does. In any case we are doing a Paul Thomas Anderson special this Thursday. We will review this film one more time as well as look back at the director&rsquo;s career. Also Roger Ebert also gave it 3 &frac12; stars. What I find remarkable is critics who spend so much time tearing apart a great film and focus their review mostly on the negative just to end it by saying something like &hellip; &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t get me wrong. It&rsquo;s an amazing movie. Go see it&rdquo; I actually heard two critics on a pod cast say that after ripping it apart. ???????????????????????????? http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8747

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 828

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:55:31 GMT8747157828Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/music/MemberTagFilms.aspxmusic
Number of films tagged: 4341

Number of people who tagged: 144

Number of times used: 480

]]>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:30:03 GMT4341144480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/escape/MemberTagFilms.aspxescape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 277

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:37:52 GMT286876277Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/women/MemberTagFilms.aspxwomen
Number of films tagged: 598

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 107

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT59844107Tag 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/insanity/MemberTagFilms.aspxinsanity
Number of films tagged: 258

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 47

]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:02:27 GMT2583547Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fear/MemberTagFilms.aspxfear
Number of films tagged: 461

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 90

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:42 GMT4613190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/africa/MemberTagFilms.aspxafrica
Number of films tagged: 490

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 60

]]>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:19:34 GMT4902560Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/graphic/MemberTagFilms.aspxgraphic
Number of films tagged: 21

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 31

]]>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:37:49 GMT212531Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/doctor/MemberTagFilms.aspxdoctor
Number of films tagged: 736

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 63

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:47:27 GMT7362463Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dismemberment/MemberTagFilms.aspxdismemberment
Number of films tagged: 58

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 16

]]>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:12:51 GMT581416Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/deceit/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeceit
Number of films tagged: 11

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 14

]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:08:41 GMT111214Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Actor
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:35:20 GMT78987Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dictator/MemberTagFilms.aspxdictator
Number of films tagged: 204

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 12

]]>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:38:22 GMT204812Tag