list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Little Miss Sunshine 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/Little_Miss_Sunshine/269122/default.aspx Title: Little Miss Sunshine
Year: 2006
Director: Valerie Faris, Jonathan Dayton
Plot: When a pudgy, bespectacled seven-year-old, Olive (Abigail Breslin), voices her desire to take home the coveted Little Miss Sunshine crown at an upcoming beauty pageant, her wildly dysfunctional family sets out on an interstate road trip to ensure her a clear shot at realizing her dreams in former music video directorial team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris' quirky feature debut, starring Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, and Toni Collette. Despite early career success as an outspoken motivational speaker, family patriarch Richard (Kinnear) continues to cling to his "Refuse to Lose" philosophy, much to the chagrin of his increasingly annoyed spouse, Sheryl (Collette). Add into the mix a Nietzsche-reading teenage son (Paul Dano) who has taken a vow of silence until he finds his fate as a fighter pilot; a horny, heroin-happy grandfather (Alan Arkin) with a penchant for creative profanity; and a suicidal genius (Carell) and Proust scholar still reeling about losing both his male lover and his MacArthur Foundation genius grant -- and the stage is set for a road trip in which sanity is sure to take the back seat. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 299
Number of Lists: 161
Number of blog posts: 56
Number of discussion threads: 10
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:47:38 GMTLittle Miss Sunshine2006Valerie Faris, Jonathan DaytonWhen a pudgy, bespectacled seven-year-old, Olive (<a href="/players/P___328341/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Abigail Breslin</a>), voices her desire to take home the coveted Little Miss Sunshine crown at an upcoming beauty pageant, her wildly dysfunctional family sets out on an interstate road trip to ensure her a clear shot at realizing her dreams in former music video directorial team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris' quirky feature debut, starring <a href="/players/P___200274/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Greg Kinnear</a>, <a href="/players/P____10850/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Steve Carell</a>, and <a href="/players/P____14165/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Toni Collette</a>. Despite early career success as an outspoken motivational speaker, family patriarch Richard (Kinnear) continues to cling to his "Refuse to Lose" philosophy, much to the chagrin of his increasingly annoyed spouse, Sheryl (Collette). Add into the mix a Nietzsche-reading teenage son (<a href="/players/P___347608/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Paul Dano</a>) who has taken a vow of silence until he finds his fate as a fighter pilot; a horny, heroin-happy grandfather (<a href="/players/P____79913/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Alan Arkin</a>) with a penchant for creative profanity; and a suicidal genius (Carell) and Proust scholar still reeling about losing both his male lover and his MacArthur Foundation genius grant -- and the stage is set for a road trip in which sanity is sure to take the back seat. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide299Tag Target (>10)16156104http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t89594ly70e.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Little_Miss_Sunshine/269122/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/lightscameraaction/archive/2009/4/20/41661.aspx Post By: lightscameraaction
Post To: lightscameraaction Blog
Post Date: 4/20/2009 10:36:13 AM
Body: Who has even heard of Junior Eurovision??! But to the kids who compete in it, it's the centre of their world. As well as being about the competition, the film is a really interesting look at what life is like for the few kids it focuses on - from Cyprus, Bulgaria, Belgium and Georgia. Their backgrounds are so different but they all have the same passion for singing, and none of them are snotty brats - all just love performing and form strong friendships with the other kids they're competing against. This makes for some really moving scenes, but at the same time, it is genuinely laugh out loud funny! Think along the lines of..... Heavy Load(2008Anvil! The Story of Anvil(2007)Spellbound(2003)This Is Spinal Tap(1984)Little Miss Sunshine(2006Mad Hot Ballroom(2005)
]]>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:36:13 GMTlightscameraactionlightscameraaction Blog4/20/2009 10:36:13 AMWho has even heard of Junior Eurovision??! But to the kids who compete in it, it's the centre of their world. As well as being about the competition, the film is a really interesting look at what life is like for the few kids it focuses on - from Cyprus, Bulgaria, Belgium and Georgia. Their backgrounds are so different but they all have the same passion for singing, and none of them are snotty brats - all just love performing and form strong friendships with the other kids they're competing against. This makes for some really moving scenes, but at the same time, it is genuinely laugh out loud funny! Think along the lines of..... Heavy Load(2008Anvil! The Story of Anvil(2007)Spellbound(2003)This Is Spinal Tap(1984)Little Miss Sunshine(2006Mad Hot Ballroom(2005) http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/What_is_your_favorite_Independent_Spirit_Awards_Be/657/41216/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 3/24/2009 1:16:32 PM
Body: Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. I received a few polls suggestions from group member tadiv. This is one of them. Thanks Tom! If anyone else has any suggestions, you can always send me a message. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Brokeback MountainFar From HeavenJunoLittle Miss SunshineLost in TranslationMementoSidewaysThe Wrestler
]]>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:16:32 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls3/24/2009 1:16:32 PMPlease reference this thread for the rules of this group. I received a few polls suggestions from group member tadiv. This is one of them. Thanks Tom! If anyone else has any suggestions, you can always send me a message. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Brokeback MountainFar From HeavenJunoLittle Miss SunshineLost in TranslationMementoSidewaysThe Wrestler http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_March_3_Motorin/625/40835/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 3/5/2009 1:23:24 AM
Body: I'm a fan of those cheesy monstrosities that cause a double take due to their insane look. The least offensive of the bunch is the bright yellow VW Bus in Little Miss Sunshine which was a character in itself in the film. The Mutt Cutts mobile in Dumb and Dumber was just pure insanity. The Pussy Wagon in Kill Bill. 'Nuff said. The Mirth Mobile in Wayne's World. Comes standard with flames and Twizzler dispenser. The ECTO-1 in Ghostbusters.
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:23:24 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme3/5/2009 1:23:24 AMI'm a fan of those cheesy monstrosities that cause a double take due to their insane look. The least offensive of the bunch is the bright yellow VW Bus in Little Miss Sunshine which was a character in itself in the film. The Mutt Cutts mobile in Dumb and Dumber was just pure insanity. The Pussy Wagon in Kill Bill. 'Nuff said. The Mirth Mobile in Wayne's World. Comes standard with flames and Twizzler dispenser. The ECTO-1 in Ghostbusters. http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2009/1/17/39619.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 1/17/2009 12:18:18 PM
Body: Over the past decade or so, the film community has watched a surge of independent directors make outstanding films that get absolutely no awards recognition except perhaps on the festival circuit. Some of these directors include David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Christopher Nolan, and Danny Boyle. Their movies prior to this year's releases expressed their talent significantly, and yet have been largely ignored by most "major" organizations, most notably the Academy and the Golden Globes--however, they have received awards or nominations from several of the other prestigious associations: aside from various critics awards, Christopher Nolan has a DGA nomination under his belt for Memento; Danny Boyle has been praised and awarded multiple times in the UK, most notably the BAFTA awards; David Fincher, apart from critics awards, has won a DGA for commercials (of all things); and Darren Aronofsky has tragically been shut out of all major awards circles. And then there's this year. Christopher Nolan has another DGA nomination for The Dark Knight, and that along with the multitudes of accolades that the film's receiving, with the exception of the lack of love the Globes showed (cue self-indulgent and inevitable reference to Heath Ledger's Joker...); David Fincher now has a BAFTA nomination to brag about as well as two more DGA nominations (one for commercials), a Golden Globe nomination, and an NBR win--all for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Darren Aronofsky has directed one of the most acclaimed performances of the year in one of the most acclaimed films of the year (The Wrestler), although he has been mostly shut-out of recognition (his most well-known appearance has been flipping off Rourke); and Danny Boyle, a director no longer to be ignored, has been raking in endless attention, from a Golden Globe win, to a DGA nomination, to another BAFTA nomination, and all the way to what is shaping up to be a definite Oscar nomination, and if all goes well, a win. And now to the movie that is the catalyst of his exaltations: Slumdog Millionaire, a film about an Indian "slumdog" who is chosen to be a contestant on India's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? However, most people know almost everything there is to know about this movie already, so I won't continue to bombard you with the same synopsis and review. It's a terrific movie. It's interminably entertaining, with great performances and a love-story that can only be described by the film's overlying theme: destiny. The love between the two leads is not necessarily fully developed, but that's the point. Jamal knows he loves Latika, and would go to the end of the earth to be with her, but the viewer never receives much explanation. Because of this, the film is mystical; it's a seemingly doomed romance, pushing onwards against all odds, with nothing but fate to tie it together. Latika at first seems confused at Jamal's passion, as is the audience, but she is soon enveloped in it, realizing with maturity beyond her age that it will never work. But Jamal sticks with his belief in love and destiny, and that is what brings him to the final round of the show, and an ultimate reunion with his love, and a tragic sacrifice by his brother. Kevin Buist on Spoutblog referred to the film as "hectic and sloppy." I did not perceive that in the least. Slumdog Millionaire definitely has a frenetic, insatiable energy--but I saw it as the allure of youthfulness, which the characters all maintain despite their encounters with situations far beyond their levels of maturity. A particularly magnificent scene occurs when there is a montage of Jamal and Salim, his brother, hustling people on a train, with MIA's Paper Planes blaring on the soundtrack. It brings what I previously knew as a stoner tune, one to blast while driving down a college avenue in a shitty SUV, a whole new level of meaning; it was music and image meshed beautifully to form a scene of childlike wonder. Danny Boyle's masterful direction, as well as miraculously timed editing and grainy, dreamlike photography, allows the film to maintain the viewer's concentration, to captivate them, up to the final shot (of the story), where the magical realism of the film is summed up in a corny, cliched, and wonderful final exchange between lovers, including lines such as "It is destiny" and "Kiss Me." Needless to say, the Bollywood dance sequence slaps a huge goofy smile on your face, no matter what your feelings about the film are--an intoxicatingly happy ending, punctuated by a final tribute to the country that the film owes its liveliness. The film is becoming the subject of slight backlash, like Little Miss Sunshine and Juno before it--however, unlike those two films, I don't feel that Slumdog is deserving of the contrarian treatment. Crash began an era of awards contention is which films undeserving of major awards speculation are pushed to the top of year-end lists and critics awards. The awards season is driven not necessarily by quality of films but by the frenzied, rabid support that they draw from the louder patrons of Hollywood; Crash may not have even been nominated had it not been for an aggressive campaign strategy and an anti-Brokeback backlash. Crash was not a good film. It was an unsubtle, in-your-face anti-racism film--in other words, nothing but white noise. Little Miss Sunshine was a cute, entertaining little film that made it to the top through the support it gained at film festivals. Juno just rode the independent film wave, effortlessly driving its way to the top of contention despite it being corny fluff piece, a crowd pleaser that hid behind a too-hip-for-its-own-good script. Juno isn't necessarily a festival film even--it seemed to pretend it was, but it's my belief that it pretended to be to give it a lovable underdog status. I don't dislike any of the films I just mentioned (except Crash--Paul Haggis sucks). However, I agree with the cynics in that all of them were undeserving of the infinite praise that they received. Slumdog Millionaire is slightly different. It really is an underslumdog (I'm sorry) film--it was made with a low budget in the actual slums of Mumbai, with an entirely Indian cast and a British/Indian film crew. The only reason it is being recognized is because it is being loved consistently by (nearly) all that see it. It is incredible entertainment, a crowd-pleaser with timeless themes of love and destiny, as well as a genuine aesthetic achievement. Something about the film works in a way that none of the aforementioned films do--it is not in the least self-important, and despite its reliance on coincidence and fate, it never once feels forced. It flows, from the chase scene through the slums to the beautiful sequence on the train to the hokey Bollywood finale. It's escapism at its best. Although some Indians are claiming the film as their own with pride, others are denouncing the film for depicting India as a slum. The movie is called SLUMdog Millionaire. It's about a kid from a slum who makes it on a gameshow. It's not claiming to represent India as a whole. It's merely depicting the struggles someone from a slum in Mumbai may face. And do people really begrudge Danny Boyle the attention he's getting? The distinguished auteur behind Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, and Sunshine is getting his due for a film that almost no one had heard about less than a year ago. That's amazing. I'm not saying the film is perfect--it has its flaws. I would not call it the best film of the year--yet. The Dark Knight was magnificent, and Christopher Nolan is overdue for some attention (although he has an Oscar nomination for writing already), as was Benjamin Button, and David Fincher is aching for a statue with such an impressive repertoire (let's just forget Panic Room). I have yet to see The Wrestler, let alone most of the other films in contention. This year is going to be a tight race for the Oscars. I'm suggesting that people not focus on the mania behind films and actually watch the movies and make their own opinions about them. It isn't fair to renounce a movie just because of the attention it's getting; see the movie, and find out for yourself if it's deserving. Seeing movies with an open mind is the key to enjoying them, and fanatical incrimination of films prevents unbiased movie-watching from happening. It's a shame, because when it's time for a movie to receive its due, its achievements are often clouded by rancid smoke, expelled from the black and unwelcoming lungs of deliriously pretentious critics.
]]>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:18:18 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog1/17/2009 12:18:18 PMOver the past decade or so, the film community has watched a surge of independent directors make outstanding films that get absolutely no awards recognition except perhaps on the festival circuit. Some of these directors include David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Christopher Nolan, and Danny Boyle. Their movies prior to this year's releases expressed their talent significantly, and yet have been largely ignored by most "major" organizations, most notably the Academy and the Golden Globes--however, they have received awards or nominations from several of the other prestigious associations: aside from various critics awards, Christopher Nolan has a DGA nomination under his belt for Memento; Danny Boyle has been praised and awarded multiple times in the UK, most notably the BAFTA awards; David Fincher, apart from critics awards, has won a DGA for commercials (of all things); and Darren Aronofsky has tragically been shut out of all major awards circles. And then there's this year. Christopher Nolan has another DGA nomination for The Dark Knight, and that along with the multitudes of accolades that the film's receiving, with the exception of the lack of love the Globes showed (cue self-indulgent and inevitable reference to Heath Ledger's Joker...); David Fincher now has a BAFTA nomination to brag about as well as two more DGA nominations (one for commercials), a Golden Globe nomination, and an NBR win--all for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Darren Aronofsky has directed one of the most acclaimed performances of the year in one of the most acclaimed films of the year (The Wrestler), although he has been mostly shut-out of recognition (his most well-known appearance has been flipping off Rourke); and Danny Boyle, a director no longer to be ignored, has been raking in endless attention, from a Golden Globe win, to a DGA nomination, to another BAFTA nomination, and all the way to what is shaping up to be a definite Oscar nomination, and if all goes well, a win. And now to the movie that is the catalyst of his exaltations: Slumdog Millionaire, a film about an Indian "slumdog" who is chosen to be a contestant on India's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? However, most people know almost everything there is to know about this movie already, so I won't continue to bombard you with the same synopsis and review. It's a terrific movie. It's interminably entertaining, with great performances and a love-story that can only be described by the film's overlying theme: destiny. The love between the two leads is not necessarily fully developed, but that's the point. Jamal knows he loves Latika, and would go to the end of the earth to be with her, but the viewer never receives much explanation. Because of this, the film is mystical; it's a seemingly doomed romance, pushing onwards against all odds, with nothing but fate to tie it together. Latika at first seems confused at Jamal's passion, as is the audience, but she is soon enveloped in it, realizing with maturity beyond her age that it will never work. But Jamal sticks with his belief in love and destiny, and that is what brings him to the final round of the show, and an ultimate reunion with his love, and a tragic sacrifice by his brother. Kevin Buist on Spoutblog referred to the film as "hectic and sloppy." I did not perceive that in the least. Slumdog Millionaire definitely has a frenetic, insatiable energy--but I saw it as the allure of youthfulness, which the characters all maintain despite their encounters with situations far beyond their levels of maturity. A particularly magnificent scene occurs when there is a montage of Jamal and Salim, his brother, hustling people on a train, with MIA's Paper Planes blaring on the soundtrack. It brings what I previously knew as a stoner tune, one to blast while driving down a college avenue in a shitty SUV, a whole new level of meaning; it was music and image meshed beautifully to form a scene of childlike wonder. Danny Boyle's masterful direction, as well as miraculously timed editing and grainy, dreamlike photography, allows the film to maintain the viewer's concentration, to captivate them, up to the final shot (of the story), where the magical realism of the film is summed up in a corny, cliched, and wonderful final exchange between lovers, including lines such as "It is destiny" and "Kiss Me." Needless to say, the Bollywood dance sequence slaps a huge goofy smile on your face, no matter what your feelings about the film are--an intoxicatingly happy ending, punctuated by a final tribute to the country that the film owes its liveliness. The film is becoming the subject of slight backlash, like Little Miss Sunshine and Juno before it--however, unlike those two films, I don't feel that Slumdog is deserving of the contrarian treatment. Crash began an era of awards contention is which films undeserving of major awards speculation are pushed to the top of year-end lists and critics awards. The awards season is driven not necessarily by quality of films but by the frenzied, rabid support that they draw from the louder patrons of Hollywood; Crash may not have even been nominated had it not been for an aggressive campaign strategy and an anti-Brokeback backlash. Crash was not a good film. It was an unsubtle, in-your-face anti-racism film--in other words, nothing but white noise. Little Miss Sunshine was a cute, entertaining little film that made it to the top through the support it gained at film festivals. Juno just rode the independent film wave, effortlessly driving its way to the top of contention despite it being corny fluff piece, a crowd pleaser that hid behind a too-hip-for-its-own-good script. Juno isn't necessarily a festival film even--it seemed to pretend it was, but it's my belief that it pretended to be to give it a lovable underdog status. I don't dislike any of the films I just mentioned (except Crash--Paul Haggis sucks). However, I agree with the cynics in that all of them were undeserving of the infinite praise that they received. Slumdog Millionaire is slightly different. It really is an underslumdog (I'm sorry) film--it was made with a low budget in the actual slums of Mumbai, with an entirely Indian cast and a British/Indian film crew. The only reason it is being recognized is because it is being loved consistently by (nearly) all that see it. It is incredible entertainment, a crowd-pleaser with timeless themes of love and destiny, as well as a genuine aesthetic achievement. Something about the film works in a way that none of the aforementioned films do--it is not in the least self-important, and despite its reliance on coincidence and fate, it never once feels forced. It flows, from the chase scene through the slums to the beautiful sequence on the train to the hokey Bollywood finale. It's escapism at its best. Although some Indians are claiming the film as their own with pride, others are denouncing the film for depicting India as a slum. The movie is called SLUMdog Millionaire. It's about a kid from a slum who makes it on a gameshow. It's not claiming to represent India as a whole. It's merely depicting the struggles someone from a slum in Mumbai may face. And do people really begrudge Danny Boyle the attention he's getting? The distinguished auteur behind Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, and Sunshine is getting his due for a film that almost no one had heard about less than a year ago. That's amazing. I'm not saying the film is perfect--it has its flaws. I would not call it the best film of the year--yet. The Dark Knight was magnificent, and Christopher Nolan is overdue for some attention (although he has an Oscar nomination for writing already), as was Benjamin Button, and David Fincher is aching for a statue with such an impressive repertoire (let's just forget Panic Room). I have yet to see The Wrestler, let alone most of the other films in contention. This year is going to be a tight race for the Oscars. I'm suggesting that people not focus on the mania behind films and actually watch the movies and make their own opinions about them. It isn't fair to renounce a movie just because of the attention it's getting; see the movie, and find out for yourself if it's deserving. Seeing movies with an open mind is the key to enjoying them, and fanatical incrimination of films prevents unbiased movie-watching from happening. It's a shame, because when it's time for a movie to receive its due, its achievements are often clouded by rancid smoke, expelled from the black and unwelcoming lungs of deliriously pretentious critics. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/16/39588.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/16/2009 10:00:41 AM
Body: Each day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton’s Little Miss Sunshine (2006). If you’ve ever wondered why there are so many big-budget films with all-star casts at Sundance in recent years, here’s why: the Little Miss Sunshine scenario. While this particular film is not the cause nor was it the first studio-like movie to arrive in Park City sans distribution, it is perhaps the most exemplary of a situation that’s currently very familiar at the festival. Sometimes a film can come out the worse for the scenario, as in the case of last year’s What Just Happened? But sometimes it can create a “Cinderella story,” as it did for Little Miss Sunshine. Here’s the gist of it: in past years, Little Miss Sunshine would have easily been set up and produced at a studio, at least at a specialty division. But all the majors passed on it save for Focus Features, which ultimately dropped the project after two years of pre-production. So, producer Marc Turtletaub made the film independently through his companies Big Beach Films and Deep River Productions. When Little Miss Sunshine premiered at Sundance, the film was an instant hit, receiving a standing ovation after its first screening. Suddenly all the distributors, most if not all of which had probably passed originally, wanted the movie. After an intense bidding war, Fox Searchlight nabbed the rights for an astonishing price tag of $10.5 million (plus 10% of the gross). The purchase price may have seemed like too much at the time, but it made a lot of sense in business terms. And not necessarily because Searchlight had the skills to turn a little dysfunctional family indie into a $100 million-grossing, multi-Oscar-nominated success. In the current Hollywood economy (not to be confused with the current global economy, because the scenario came way before the financial crisis), it is actually smart for a studio to avoid producing a film for $8 million (the cost of LMS) only to later pay more than $10 million for the finished product. As one prominent indie producer told me, “specialty companies are better off going to Sundance and outright overpaying for a great film than pay less for a something that might be good.” If you’ve read my list of Worst Sundance Sensations, you’ll know that I don’t exactly agree that Little Miss Sunshine is a great film. But enough people disagree with me to have made it a Best Picture nominee and an official Sundance Classic. Anyway, I do love every moment featuring Supporting Actor Oscar-winner Alan Arkin, so below is a clip of one of his greatest, most foul-mouthed scenes, courtesy of Hulu.com. Hulu also has the whole film available for free, which you can view here. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:00:41 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/16/2009 10:00:41 AMEach day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton’s Little Miss Sunshine (2006). If you’ve ever wondered why there are so many big-budget films with all-star casts at Sundance in recent years, here’s why: the Little Miss Sunshine scenario. While this particular film is not the cause nor was it the first studio-like movie to arrive in Park City sans distribution, it is perhaps the most exemplary of a situation that’s currently very familiar at the festival. Sometimes a film can come out the worse for the scenario, as in the case of last year’s What Just Happened? But sometimes it can create a “Cinderella story,” as it did for Little Miss Sunshine. Here’s the gist of it: in past years, Little Miss Sunshine would have easily been set up and produced at a studio, at least at a specialty division. But all the majors passed on it save for Focus Features, which ultimately dropped the project after two years of pre-production. So, producer Marc Turtletaub made the film independently through his companies Big Beach Films and Deep River Productions. When Little Miss Sunshine premiered at Sundance, the film was an instant hit, receiving a standing ovation after its first screening. Suddenly all the distributors, most if not all of which had probably passed originally, wanted the movie. After an intense bidding war, Fox Searchlight nabbed the rights for an astonishing price tag of $10.5 million (plus 10% of the gross). The purchase price may have seemed like too much at the time, but it made a lot of sense in business terms. And not necessarily because Searchlight had the skills to turn a little dysfunctional family indie into a $100 million-grossing, multi-Oscar-nominated success. In the current Hollywood economy (not to be confused with the current global economy, because the scenario came way before the financial crisis), it is actually smart for a studio to avoid producing a film for $8 million (the cost of LMS) only to later pay more than $10 million for the finished product. As one prominent indie producer told me, “specialty companies are better off going to Sundance and outright overpaying for a great film than pay less for a something that might be good.” If you’ve read my list of Worst Sundance Sensations, you’ll know that I don’t exactly agree that Little Miss Sunshine is a great film. But enough people disagree with me to have made it a Best Picture nominee and an official Sundance Classic. Anyway, I do love every moment featuring Supporting Actor Oscar-winner Alan Arkin, so below is a clip of one of his greatest, most foul-mouthed scenes, courtesy of Hulu.com. Hulu also has the whole film available for free, which you can view here. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/13/39472.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/13/2009 5:01:36 PM
Body: Getting ready for the Sundance Film Festival can be very exciting. As we await the event’s Thursday opening, we can’t stop wondering what will be the next big thing. Will this year’s hit be the highly-anticipated Michael Cera project Paper Hearts, or will it be something that we as of yet know nothing about? It’s easy to forget, however, that oftentimes the next big thing is also the next lamest thing. Sundance sensations, those films that are much-buzzed-about, that sell for a lot of money, that go on to be marketed like crazy and ultimately receive Oscar recognition, tend to lend themselves most easily to backlashes. Usually such derision is deserved, as in the case of the following ten films, each of which made a big splash at Sundance despite being bad. 10. Brick (Rian Johnson; 2005 Sundance premiere) When Blade Runner was first released, critics attacked its novelty of combining film noir with science fiction. Yet when Brick arrived in Park City, its similar genre-bending mix of film noir and teen films was welcomed as the most original film in years. In both circumstances, critics were wrong, and while Blade Runner ultimately became a classic, Brick is retrospectively even sillier now than it was when it won a Special Jury Prize “for originality of vision” four years ago. Yes, the film is a fresh idea in theory, but it doesn’t really work on screen, no matter how much you want it to or think it does. It’s simply a novelty gag for film geeks who love noir — while not quite as enjoyable for fans of the teen genre. Is there really anyone who wouldn’t just rather watch a double feature of The Big Sleep and Heathers? 9. Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris; 2006 Sundance premiere) Never mind its impact on the culture of Sundance. The annoying “what will be the next Little Miss Sunshine?” idea was just a substitute for similar questions going back as far as 1990 (“what will be the next sex, lies, and videotape?”). The real problem with LMS is that it’s a decent dysfunctional family comedy that falls apart in the third act. On the positive side, it finally got Alan Arkin an Oscar. But on the more glaring negative side, it also got Abigail Breslin an Oscar nomination. Hardly worthy, also, of its Best Picture nod or its Best Original Screenplay win, the film’s success is the product of a terrific marketing team and moviegoers’ acceptance of cheesy endings — and has nothing to do with the quality of the film. 8. The Brothers McMullen (Edward Burns; 1995 Sundance premiere) While the name Fox Searchlight is now synonymous with marketing the hell out of “indie” sensations like Little Miss Sunshine, Juno and Slumdog Millionaire, the specialty division has been overdoing it with unworthy films since the very first Sundance hit they distributed. The Brothers McMullen is not necessarily a bad film, but it isn’t anything special either. Some say the 1995 fest was the downward turning point for Sundance, whether because it showed us a major “sellout” who wasn’t actually as good as he’d been celebrated as being (Kevin Smith, who disappointed with his sophomore effort, Mallrats) or because a lackluster picture like McMullen won the Grand Jury Prize. And like Smith, Edward Burns ultimately revealed himself to be something of an embarrassment, talent-wise, to the reputation of Sundance alums. 7. Garden State (Zach Braff; 2004 Sundance premiere) 2004 was the year that indie quirkiness got out of hand at Sundance (see #3). Sure, Garden State got us all into The Shins, but it also got filmmakers too into a genre I call “homecoming of age” movies, those banal stories about twenty- and thirty- somethings who revisit their homes due to a dying or dead parent and involve themselves with wacky townies in the process. Any idiot can write a script of this type and fill it with quirky scenery and an obnoxious yet adorable love interest. Sundance must still be getting countless submissions of this kind of film, but unfortunately for the rest of the world’s idiot filmmakers, they aren’t TV stars like Zach Braff. 6. SherryBaby (Laurie Collyer; 2006 Sundance premiere) Sundance has long been a haven for depressing films involving junkies and/or incest, but few have been as overrated as SherryBaby. Once again, it’s all about the star power, as the film might not have been so hyped had Maggie Gyllenhaal not been in the lead. Then again, it might have actually been a better film without her. Grandly over-praised for her performance as the easily played rehabilitating mom, the actress got undeserved kudos simply for being raw and despicable. Her Oscar snub was a relief, at least. 5. Born Into Brothels (Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman; 2004 Sundance premiere) It may have won the documentary Audience Award at Sundance and the documentary Oscar a year later, but that doesn’t excuse Born Into Brothels from being a disgrace to nonfiction filmmaking. One of the most self-satisfying docs ever made, the film will forever be marked by its footage of co-director Zana Briski figuratively patting herself on the back during a fundraiser, with which she sinfully seeks sainthood for involving herself in the lives of her film’s subjects. If documentary was synonymous with charity, Born Into Brothels would indeed be a great film, but documentaries like this should merely be an inspiration to charity, not charity itself. 4. Masked and Anonymous (Larry Charles; 2003 Sundance premiere) One of the most anticipated films of the 2003 festival due to a script co-written by Bob Dylan and an unbelievable cast including Dylan, Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Penelope Cruz, Ed Harris, Luke Wilson, Mickey Rourke, Angela Bassett, Jessica Lange and many other big names, the very messy Masked and Anonymous therefore ended up the biggest disappointment of that year. Its worth was later defended and praised by such critics as Jonathan Rosenbaum, who included it in his 2003 Top Ten list, and Salon.com’s Stephanie Zacharek. But most of us are in agreement that it’s one of the biggest wastes of talent in years. 3. Napoleon Dynamite (Jared Hess; 2004 Sundance premiere) Napoleon Dynamite’s inclusion on this list is likely to upset more people than Brick’s, but at least the Brick devotees can defend their fandom with more than just shouts of “It’s funny!” Because the thing is, Napoleon Dynamite is not comedy. It is merely quirky, which is not the same thing as funny. Jared Hess’ pop culture phenomenon does feature some highly original characters and situations, but his execution of these elements is obvious and uninteresting. “Gosh!” is neither a good punchline nor a good catchphrase. 2. The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez; 1999 Sundance premiere) It must be appreciated as much as attacked for its groundbreaking marketing campaign, and in many ways the film itself can be acknowledged for having a terrific premise with an almost perfect realization of that idea. But for the most part, The Blair Witch Project is a basic, amateur and poorly concluded effort that turned the appeal of indie simplicity on its head. Almost a decade earlier, when filmmakers saw Slacker and said “I can do that,” they were mostly mistaken. But The Blair Witch allowed every schmo with a digital camera to declare, “I can do that,” and be relatively correct in his or her statement. It’s okay for indie filmmaking to seem easy, but when it really is that easy, it degrades the truly talented. 1. Boxing Helena (Jennifer Lynch; 1993 Sundance premiere) Cult appeal notwithstanding, Boxing Helena was one of the first really awful movies to be up for Sundance’s Grand Jury Prize. And although in the 17 years since, the festival has been easily criticized for allowing bad films with lots of buzz and/or big name talent to be included in competition, no film has been as unworthy as this. Had it starred original choice Madonna in the part of the titular amputee, Boxing Helena might have really deserved to at least become a midnight movie. However, with its lesser-name casting, it’s barely even good enough for Skinamax programming. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:01:36 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/13/2009 5:01:36 PMGetting ready for the Sundance Film Festival can be very exciting. As we await the event’s Thursday opening, we can’t stop wondering what will be the next big thing. Will this year’s hit be the highly-anticipated Michael Cera project Paper Hearts, or will it be something that we as of yet know nothing about? It’s easy to forget, however, that oftentimes the next big thing is also the next lamest thing. Sundance sensations, those films that are much-buzzed-about, that sell for a lot of money, that go on to be marketed like crazy and ultimately receive Oscar recognition, tend to lend themselves most easily to backlashes. Usually such derision is deserved, as in the case of the following ten films, each of which made a big splash at Sundance despite being bad. 10. Brick (Rian Johnson; 2005 Sundance premiere) When Blade Runner was first released, critics attacked its novelty of combining film noir with science fiction. Yet when Brick arrived in Park City, its similar genre-bending mix of film noir and teen films was welcomed as the most original film in years. In both circumstances, critics were wrong, and while Blade Runner ultimately became a classic, Brick is retrospectively even sillier now than it was when it won a Special Jury Prize “for originality of vision” four years ago. Yes, the film is a fresh idea in theory, but it doesn’t really work on screen, no matter how much you want it to or think it does. It’s simply a novelty gag for film geeks who love noir — while not quite as enjoyable for fans of the teen genre. Is there really anyone who wouldn’t just rather watch a double feature of The Big Sleep and Heathers? 9. Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris; 2006 Sundance premiere) Never mind its impact on the culture of Sundance. The annoying “what will be the next Little Miss Sunshine?” idea was just a substitute for similar questions going back as far as 1990 (“what will be the next sex, lies, and videotape?”). The real problem with LMS is that it’s a decent dysfunctional family comedy that falls apart in the third act. On the positive side, it finally got Alan Arkin an Oscar. But on the more glaring negative side, it also got Abigail Breslin an Oscar nomination. Hardly worthy, also, of its Best Picture nod or its Best Original Screenplay win, the film’s success is the product of a terrific marketing team and moviegoers’ acceptance of cheesy endings — and has nothing to do with the quality of the film. 8. The Brothers McMullen (Edward Burns; 1995 Sundance premiere) While the name Fox Searchlight is now synonymous with marketing the hell out of “indie” sensations like Little Miss Sunshine, Juno and Slumdog Millionaire, the specialty division has been overdoing it with unworthy films since the very first Sundance hit they distributed. The Brothers McMullen is not necessarily a bad film, but it isn’t anything special either. Some say the 1995 fest was the downward turning point for Sundance, whether because it showed us a major “sellout” who wasn’t actually as good as he’d been celebrated as being (Kevin Smith, who disappointed with his sophomore effort, Mallrats) or because a lackluster picture like McMullen won the Grand Jury Prize. And like Smith, Edward Burns ultimately revealed himself to be something of an embarrassment, talent-wise, to the reputation of Sundance alums. 7. Garden State (Zach Braff; 2004 Sundance premiere) 2004 was the year that indie quirkiness got out of hand at Sundance (see #3). Sure, Garden State got us all into The Shins, but it also got filmmakers too into a genre I call “homecoming of age” movies, those banal stories about twenty- and thirty- somethings who revisit their homes due to a dying or dead parent and involve themselves with wacky townies in the process. Any idiot can write a script of this type and fill it with quirky scenery and an obnoxious yet adorable love interest. Sundance must still be getting countless submissions of this kind of film, but unfortunately for the rest of the world’s idiot filmmakers, they aren’t TV stars like Zach Braff. 6. SherryBaby (Laurie Collyer; 2006 Sundance premiere) Sundance has long been a haven for depressing films involving junkies and/or incest, but few have been as overrated as SherryBaby. Once again, it’s all about the star power, as the film might not have been so hyped had Maggie Gyllenhaal not been in the lead. Then again, it might have actually been a better film without her. Grandly over-praised for her performance as the easily played rehabilitating mom, the actress got undeserved kudos simply for being raw and despicable. Her Oscar snub was a relief, at least. 5. Born Into Brothels (Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman; 2004 Sundance premiere) It may have won the documentary Audience Award at Sundance and the documentary Oscar a year later, but that doesn’t excuse Born Into Brothels from being a disgrace to nonfiction filmmaking. One of the most self-satisfying docs ever made, the film will forever be marked by its footage of co-director Zana Briski figuratively patting herself on the back during a fundraiser, with which she sinfully seeks sainthood for involving herself in the lives of her film’s subjects. If documentary was synonymous with charity, Born Into Brothels would indeed be a great film, but documentaries like this should merely be an inspiration to charity, not charity itself. 4. Masked and Anonymous (Larry Charles; 2003 Sundance premiere) One of the most anticipated films of the 2003 festival due to a script co-written by Bob Dylan and an unbelievable cast including Dylan, Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Penelope Cruz, Ed Harris, Luke Wilson, Mickey Rourke, Angela Bassett, Jessica Lange and many other big names, the very messy Masked and Anonymous therefore ended up the biggest disappointment of that year. Its worth was later defended and praised by such critics as Jonathan Rosenbaum, who included it in his 2003 Top Ten list, and Salon.com’s Stephanie Zacharek. But most of us are in agreement that it’s one of the biggest wastes of talent in years. 3. Napoleon Dynamite (Jared Hess; 2004 Sundance premiere) Napoleon Dynamite’s inclusion on this list is likely to upset more people than Brick’s, but at least the Brick devotees can defend their fandom with more than just shouts of “It’s funny!” Because the thing is, Napoleon Dynamite is not comedy. It is merely quirky, which is not the same thing as funny. Jared Hess’ pop culture phenomenon does feature some highly original characters and situations, but his execution of these elements is obvious and uninteresting. “Gosh!” is neither a good punchline nor a good catchphrase. 2. The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez; 1999 Sundance premiere) It must be appreciated as much as attacked for its groundbreaking marketing campaign, and in many ways the film itself can be acknowledged for having a terrific premise with an almost perfect realization of that idea. But for the most part, The Blair Witch Project is a basic, amateur and poorly concluded effort that turned the appeal of indie simplicity on its head. Almost a decade earlier, when filmmakers saw Slacker and said “I can do that,” they were mostly mistaken. But The Blair Witch allowed every schmo with a digital camera to declare, “I can do that,” and be relatively correct in his or her statement. It’s okay for indie filmmaking to seem easy, but when it really is that easy, it degrades the truly talented. 1. Boxing Helena (Jennifer Lynch; 1993 Sundance premiere) Cult appeal notwithstanding, Boxing Helena was one of the first really awful movies to be up for Sundance’s Grand Jury Prize. And although in the 17 years since, the festival has been easily criticized for allowing bad films with lots of buzz and/or big name talent to be included in competition, no film has been as unworthy as this. Had it starred original choice Madonna in the part of the titular amputee, Boxing Helena might have really deserved to at least become a midnight movie. However, with its lesser-name casting, it’s barely even good enough for Skinamax programming. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Depressing_holidays_dysfunctional_families_fo/190/37173/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 11/10/2008 10:13:51 PM
Body: 10 Best Dysfunctional Families in Movies (in no particular order): 1.) Gosford Park 2.) Beetlejuice 3.) Happiness 4.) Little Miss Sunshine 5.) National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 6.) Mommie Dearest 7.) Parenthood 8.) Slums of Beverly Hills 9.) The Virgin Suicides 10.) Welcome to the Dollhouse
]]>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:13:51 GMTmercurialTop 511/10/2008 10:13:51 PM10 Best Dysfunctional Families in Movies (in no particular order): 1.) Gosford Park 2.) Beetlejuice 3.) Happiness 4.) Little Miss Sunshine 5.) National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 6.) Mommie Dearest 7.) Parenthood 8.) Slums of Beverly Hills 9.) The Virgin Suicides 10.) Welcome to the Dollhouse http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/8/24/34310.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/24/2008 7:35:35 AM
Body: Definitely, Maybe cleverly twists the romantic comedy genre with its memorable set-up. Ryan Reynolds plays Will Hayes, who is about to get divorced from his wife, who is unseen at the beginning of the movie. His daughter Maya, played by Abigail Breslin from Little Miss Sunshine, demands to hear the story of how Will met her mother. He agrees but he creates a challenge for Maya - he will tell the story but he will not use real names so she will have to figure out which character is her mother. It is, Maya says, "a love story mystery". Will has three romantic interests in this film who are very different in personality and style. And yes, one's a blonde, another a brunette and a third a red head. So far, so typical. This film does a nice job though in the way it presents them and it is easy to see why Will could pick any one of the three. Running parallel to the romantic storylines (and often contributing to them) is the story of Will's career. At the start of the movie he is working in advertising yet in the flashbacks he is political and idealistic, dreaming of some day being president. As much as this is a story of relationships, it is also a story of growing up. Ryan Reynolds is fun as Will, particularly in scenes with Breslin who is as cute and adorable as ever. Their chemistry is good and I can buy their relationship, though Reynolds looks far too boyish and young to be the father of a girl her age. The three love interests are played by Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher. They fade into and out of the story as Will grows up but each establishes themselves well. Fisher is cute as a copygirl working on the Clinton campaign who does not have faith in politicians, Weisz as a columnist involved with an older writer (played superbly by Kevin Kline) whilst Banks brings a girl-next-door charm to Emily. We know that Will marries one of those three characters yet we also realise that things will not work out for them. They will get divorced at the end of this film. The mystery plays out with several twists though perhaps lasts a little long before Will completes his story. The character realises in telling the story that he still cares for one of the characters and seeks her out in a typical romcom ending. It is the only thing that feels out of place, ending in a kiss that doesn't match the build up, nor the situation. There is a moment when he looks up at the apartment building that could have been a satisfying and unusual end to the film. It is a small complaint in a film that touches and is prepared to admit the truth that love and relationships do not always work out. That people get hurt and we are not always sure what we wanted until after the chance has passed to get it. Definitely, Maybe is an interesting and unusual romantic comedy that is cute, playful yet also reflects on idealism, growing up and missed opportunities. Sure it's contrived, but the film is witty and charming enough to remain enjoyable throughout although I will be amazed if you don't see the answer to the 'love story mystery' coming a mile off.
]]>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:35:35 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture8/24/2008 7:35:35 AMDefinitely, Maybe cleverly twists the romantic comedy genre with its memorable set-up. Ryan Reynolds plays Will Hayes, who is about to get divorced from his wife, who is unseen at the beginning of the movie. His daughter Maya, played by Abigail Breslin from Little Miss Sunshine, demands to hear the story of how Will met her mother. He agrees but he creates a challenge for Maya - he will tell the story but he will not use real names so she will have to figure out which character is her mother. It is, Maya says, "a love story mystery". Will has three romantic interests in this film who are very different in personality and style. And yes, one's a blonde, another a brunette and a third a red head. So far, so typical. This film does a nice job though in the way it presents them and it is easy to see why Will could pick any one of the three. Running parallel to the romantic storylines (and often contributing to them) is the story of Will's career. At the start of the movie he is working in advertising yet in the flashbacks he is political and idealistic, dreaming of some day being president. As much as this is a story of relationships, it is also a story of growing up. Ryan Reynolds is fun as Will, particularly in scenes with Breslin who is as cute and adorable as ever. Their chemistry is good and I can buy their relationship, though Reynolds looks far too boyish and young to be the father of a girl her age. The three love interests are played by Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher. They fade into and out of the story as Will grows up but each establishes themselves well. Fisher is cute as a copygirl working on the Clinton campaign who does not have faith in politicians, Weisz as a columnist involved with an older writer (played superbly by Kevin Kline) whilst Banks brings a girl-next-door charm to Emily. We know that Will marries one of those three characters yet we also realise that things will not work out for them. They will get divorced at the end of this film. The mystery plays out with several twists though perhaps lasts a little long before Will completes his story. The character realises in telling the story that he still cares for one of the characters and seeks her out in a typical romcom ending. It is the only thing that feels out of place, ending in a kiss that doesn't match the build up, nor the situation. There is a moment when he looks up at the apartment building that could have been a satisfying and unusual end to the film. It is a small complaint in a film that touches and is prepared to admit the truth that love and relationships do not always work out. That people get hurt and we are not always sure what we wanted until after the chance has passed to get it. Definitely, Maybe is an interesting and unusual romantic comedy that is cute, playful yet also reflects on idealism, growing up and missed opportunities. Sure it's contrived, but the film is witty and charming enough to remain enjoyable throughout although I will be amazed if you don't see the answer to the 'love story mystery' coming a mile off. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_August_18_Fat_Kids/625/34133/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/19/2008 8:52:33 PM
Body: I do like the trend of shying away from the negative perception of overweight kids and giving them the chance to do more than make snarky comments about exercise and fart jokes (not that fart jokes are entirely bad) like in Little Miss Sunshine (Abigail Breslin was more chubby than fat - i.e. the little tummy pad they made her wear) and Superbad (in which Jonah Hill is moreso a horned up dweeb than the fat guy).
]]>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:52:33 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme8/19/2008 8:52:33 PMI do like the trend of shying away from the negative perception of overweight kids and giving them the chance to do more than make snarky comments about exercise and fart jokes (not that fart jokes are entirely bad) like in Little Miss Sunshine (Abigail Breslin was more chubby than fat - i.e. the little tummy pad they made her wear) and Superbad (in which Jonah Hill is moreso a horned up dweeb than the fat guy). http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/8/4/33538.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 8/4/2008 10:17:39 PM
Body: You gotta hand it to Kevin Costner. The one-time pretty boy of the silver screen sure isn't afraid to let it all hang out in his most recent screen roles, sporting mid-life muffin tops around the midriff, allowing his thinning mane to sprout from his noggin like some nest of a crazed blue jay, and wearing each wrinkle on his face with pride. In “Swing Vote” his latest role is that of Bud, a slovenly mess of a man who eschews politics and world issues for a hearty game of foozball and the foamy beverage that shares his name. He's like “comedian” Larry the Cable Guy with half an IQ point. And without the overtly hostile racism and homophobia. It seems the fate of the free world rests in his beer-soaked mitts, as a technical glitch allowed a razor's-edge election to be determined by a single ballot. Is that a chad hanging, or is he just happy to see us? Setting off a media maelstrom, Bud is besieged by reporters, camera crews, paparazzi and even the candidates themselves are soon courting the man for that all-important vote. Both incumbent Republican president (played bu Kelsey Grammer) and Democratic contender (played, ironically, by staunch Republican Dennis Hopper) are tossing aside every electoral promise they've made, and changing their party's entire structure in order to suck up to Bud. The Republicans are now the environmental party and the Democrats are in the pro-life camp in order to appeal to Bud's supposed views (even if he really doesn't have a firm stance on anything). This is where “Swing Vote” makes its most fatal error in a film filled with lesser ones along the way. It attempts to emphasize the civic duty of voting, but negates that by giving us candidates willing to whore out their entire campaign, their entire belief system in order to win. Sure, each candidate's PR man (Stanley Tucci is Grammer's Rovian henchman and Nathan Lane is Hopper's craven servant) are pulling the strings, but that just makes the candidates even more pathetic. Do we really care who wins when either politician is so quick to pander in order to get seated. It's this characterization that leads to voter apathy in the first place. The cameos from political pundits in “Swing Vote” will likely mean nothing to those who fall into Bud's base (“Golly! I think that there's Arianna Huffington, founder of Huffington Post!” “Well I'll be! Git a load of Tucker Carlson without his little bow tie, Vern!”). And the supporting actors (Grammer, Hopper, Tucci, Lane) are too thinly scripted to provide any real interest. This leaves the majority on Costner and his on-screen daughter, newcomer Madeline Carroll. Carroll comes across as the only-in-the-movies pre-teen, with a Juno-sized intellect, and demonstrating more responsibility than any of her adult co-stars, despite being surrounded by poverty, alcoholism and drug addiction. It's a fine effort, but she really won't be stealing the crown from Little Miss Sunshine any time soon. Costner tries to increase the voltage with his megawatt smile, but his buffoonery and slapstick are hard to fully laugh at when you consider just what a selfish, irresponsible oxygen-waster his character truly is. He does not deserve a daughter like his, he does not deserve the fawning media, and he certainly does not deserve his own movie.
]]>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:17:39 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog8/4/2008 10:17:39 PMYou gotta hand it to Kevin Costner. The one-time pretty boy of the silver screen sure isn't afraid to let it all hang out in his most recent screen roles, sporting mid-life muffin tops around the midriff, allowing his thinning mane to sprout from his noggin like some nest of a crazed blue jay, and wearing each wrinkle on his face with pride. In &ldquo;Swing Vote&rdquo; his latest role is that of Bud, a slovenly mess of a man who eschews politics and world issues for a hearty game of foozball and the foamy beverage that shares his name. He's like &ldquo;comedian&rdquo; Larry the Cable Guy with half an IQ point. And without the overtly hostile racism and homophobia. It seems the fate of the free world rests in his beer-soaked mitts, as a technical glitch allowed a razor's-edge election to be determined by a single ballot. Is that a chad hanging, or is he just happy to see us? Setting off a media maelstrom, Bud is besieged by reporters, camera crews, paparazzi and even the candidates themselves are soon courting the man for that all-important vote. Both incumbent Republican president (played bu Kelsey Grammer) and Democratic contender (played, ironically, by staunch Republican Dennis Hopper) are tossing aside every electoral promise they've made, and changing their party's entire structure in order to suck up to Bud. The Republicans are now the environmental party and the Democrats are in the pro-life camp in order to appeal to Bud's supposed views (even if he really doesn't have a firm stance on anything). This is where &ldquo;Swing Vote&rdquo; makes its most fatal error in a film filled with lesser ones along the way. It attempts to emphasize the civic duty of voting, but negates that by giving us candidates willing to whore out their entire campaign, their entire belief system in order to win. Sure, each candidate's PR man (Stanley Tucci is Grammer's Rovian henchman and Nathan Lane is Hopper's craven servant) are pulling the strings, but that just makes the candidates even more pathetic. Do we really care who wins when either politician is so quick to pander in order to get seated. It's this characterization that leads to voter apathy in the first place. The cameos from political pundits in &ldquo;Swing Vote&rdquo; will likely mean nothing to those who fall into Bud's base (&ldquo;Golly! I think that there's Arianna Huffington, founder of Huffington Post!&rdquo; &ldquo;Well I'll be! Git a load of Tucker Carlson without his little bow tie, Vern!&rdquo;). And the supporting actors (Grammer, Hopper, Tucci, Lane) are too thinly scripted to provide any real interest. This leaves the majority on Costner and his on-screen daughter, newcomer Madeline Carroll. Carroll comes across as the only-in-the-movies pre-teen, with a Juno-sized intellect, and demonstrating more responsibility than any of her adult co-stars, despite being surrounded by poverty, alcoholism and drug addiction. It's a fine effort, but she really won't be stealing the crown from Little Miss Sunshine any time soon. Costner tries to increase the voltage with his megawatt smile, but his buffoonery and slapstick are hard to fully laugh at when you consider just what a selfish, irresponsible oxygen-waster his character truly is. He does not deserve a daughter like his, he does not deserve the fawning media, and he certainly does not deserve his own movie. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12477

Number of people who tagged: 336

Number of times used: 1475

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT124773361475Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 315

Number of times used: 939

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:40:23 GMT606315939Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1084

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1338

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:12:13 GMT10842531338Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6287

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1137

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:08 GMT62872261137Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hilarious/MemberTagFilms.aspxhilarious
Number of films tagged: 222

Number of people who tagged: 165

Number of times used: 331

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:04 GMT222165331Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 258

Number of people who tagged: 149

Number of times used: 415

]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:42:06 GMT258149415Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fun/MemberTagFilms.aspxfun
Number of films tagged: 459

Number of people who tagged: 142

Number of times used: 296

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:09 GMT459142296Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drugs/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrugs
Number of films tagged: 1642

Number of people who tagged: 130

Number of times used: 487

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:12:04 GMT1642130487Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Quirky/MemberTagFilms.aspxQuirky
Number of films tagged: 131

Number of people who tagged: 110

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT131110249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 523

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 622

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:02:40 GMT523102622Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sweet/MemberTagFilms.aspxsweet
Number of films tagged: 108

Number of people who tagged: 90

Number of times used: 170

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:28:46 GMT10890170Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suicide/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuicide
Number of films tagged: 1827

Number of people who tagged: 80

Number of times used: 184

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT182780184Tag