list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Norbit 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/Norbit/269628/default.aspx Title: Norbit
Year: 2007
Director: Brian Robbins, Brian Roberts
Plot: A meek and lovable milquetoast married to an overbearing, overweight tyrant finds his life turned upside down when he meets the woman of his dreams in this romantic comedy starring Eddie Murphy, Thandie Newton, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Eddie Griffin. His entire life, Norbit (Murphy) has been picked on and put down, and after being bullied into marrying the most obnoxious woman in town (also Murphy) it appears as if that's the way things will remain until the day he dies. Upon meeting the one woman who seems to accept him for who he is, Norbit is instilled with a newfound sense of hope for the future. In order to find true happiness, however, Norbit will first have to gather the courage to stand up to his monstrous spouse once and for all. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 4
Number of Lists: 10
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 1
]]>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:01:22 GMTNorbit2007Brian Robbins, Brian RobertsA meek and lovable milquetoast married to an overbearing, overweight tyrant finds his life turned upside down when he meets the woman of his dreams in this romantic comedy starring <a href="/players/P____51440/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eddie Murphy</a>, <a href="/players/P____52472/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Thandie Newton</a>, Cuba Gooding Jr., and <a href="/players/P____28790/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eddie Griffin</a>. His entire life, Norbit (Murphy) has been picked on and put down, and after being bullied into marrying the most obnoxious woman in town (also Murphy) it appears as if that's the way things will remain until the day he dies. Upon meeting the one woman who seems to accept him for who he is, Norbit is instilled with a newfound sense of hope for the future. In order to find true happiness, however, Norbit will first have to gather the courage to stand up to his monstrous spouse once and for all. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide4Slightly Tagged (1-5)10811http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s269628.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Norbit/269628/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/25/33094.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/25/2008 6:01:22 PM
Body: Legendary six-time-Oscar-winning make-up artist Rick Baker joined stars Benicio Del Toro and Emily Blunt to bring us the first footage of Universal’s new version of The Wolfman. And it’s a period piece. Highlights: - The origins of the remake stem from Del Toro’s Lon Chaney Jr. fandom. - It looks like “Francis Ford Coppola’s The Wolfman” - Of course, Anthony Hopkins would be more welcome as Van Helsing again - At least it will likely be R-rated, as it looks quite bloody - Baker honors Stan Winston by labeling his death “the end of an era” - Blunt is apparently into two-headed dudes Check out the full liveblog transcript after the jump. 5:31 - Another look at the Wolfman clip: They’re rolling the clip one more time, and now I can see how bloody it is. Brains, guts, carnage. You only see a couple of extremely quick flashes of the Wolfman. It’s very gothic looking, lots of blacks and browns. Full costumes, long takes. It’s almost like Francis Ford Coppola’s The Wolfman. Anthony Hopkins comes up on his son, post-transformation and rasps “You’ve done terrible things.” Apparently he gets caught and is strapped down in a medical observatory while he transforms. We’re out, and it’s not even a full moon 5:29 - Extra guests and more Q&A: Rick Baker brings Dave and Lou Elsey up on stage and introduces them, as they helped out with the creature effects. They’ve worked on Farscape and Star Wars. A pair of twins (they asked a question during the Watchmen panel) get up and ask what the “most fun part of working on the movie was.” Del Toro says, “Uh, the chase.” Rick Baker says, “Is that a two headed man?” and Emily Blunt says, “Hi… what are you doing later?” So now we know all about her secret sexual proclivities. 5:25 - Regarding CGI and “the end of an era”: While it might be del Toro in a costume, it looks like they’ll be using CGI to show the Wolfman’s transformation. Baker is hoping they’ll do something like the physical transformations in An American Werewolf in London. Rick Baker is waxing poetic about Stan Winston and all the contributions he made to the art. He calls his death “The end of an era.” 5:22 - Regarding The Wolfman’s rating: “Will this movie be rated R?” Del Toro: “I don’t think we know yet…” Rick Baker chimes in with “I think based on this trailer it looks like it’ll be rated R.” 5:20 - The Wolfman Q&A, Question #2: Rick Baker gets asked if it’s more challenging to do makeup effects on something like this or working on Norbit, and he said working on human character faces, like Eddie Murphy’s Mr. Wong character, was much more challenging. “But I’ve been making myself up as the Wolfman since I was 10 years old.” Rick Baker quips “Look, it’s Criss Angel!” — the next kid asking a question is wearing some sort of street thug wear and a black bandana. And he looks like Criss Angel… at age 10. Emily Blunt said “I was really terrified during the chase scenes. I was literally running. While wearing a corset.” Del Toro leers: “And I just had to chase her.” Del Toro geekily giggles and admits that he’s a big fan of both Lon Chaney and Lon Chaney Jr.’s film roles, and that he watched all of them. He also got into the old Hammer films like “Curse of the Wolfman”. 5:17 - The Wolfman Q&A, Question #1: Q&A’s start, and the first question is “What similarities are there between this movie and the original?” Del Toro wakes from his bout with narcolepsy to say “That’s a good question for the director….” He’s talking about keeping the movie a period piece, rather than updating it to modern times. “I think you just need to see the picture. I mean, I need to see it too.” 5:14 - Becoming the Wolfman: Benicio said “Putting the makeup on was great, it was building and that was exciting. Taking it off, that was a bit more desperate.” “He cried like a baby,” said Baker. “He may look like a big tough guy, but he’s actually a big pussy.” Del Toro was asked if he studied any animal behavior in order to get into the role, and he quips “I checked out Emily Blunt.” Clearly it was meant as a joke, but it just came off really creepy. Del Toro is talking about how great it was to have Anthony Hopkins on set “Not just as an actor, but as a person.” He literally seems like he’s about to fall asleep. 5:11 - On the decision to get involved: Del Toro is talking about how he loved the Lon Chaney Jr. role in the original movies. Del Toro’s agent saw a poster of The Wolfman in Del Toro’s house, and he said “I’m going to go to Universal and talk to them about this.” So start buying posters, folks. Emily Blunt heard Anthony Hopkins and “Benny” were involved in the film, so she said it was pretty easy to make the decision to take the role. 5:08 - The Wolfman clip: Benicio is sleepily introducing a clip of footage from the movie. No one has seen it yet, except del Toro “But without sound! So I want to hear this.” Mediocre whoops and hollers. Murky shots of a Wolfman running through the woods, and turn of the century townsfolk finding an eviscerated body. A man runs home and melts down his mother’s silver spoons and makes bullets. Anthony Hopkins walks down the stairs, he’s playing Del Toro’s father. Hugo Weaving, better known as Agent Smith, plays the head Wolf hunter. It’s all shot in period, and looks pretty good… except del Toro looks oddly out of place. This just makes me wish that Hopkins was playing Van Helsing in this. Granted, he’s not in the original, but he’s a kickass monster hunter. 5:04 - Rick Baker, Benicio Del Toro and Emily Blunt take the stage: Universal has brought out Rick Baker, sorry… “the legendary Rick Baker” to talk about Wolfman. When Baker heard that Universal was remaking The Wolfman, he called everyone he knew at Universal and said “I have to be involved with this.” Two surprise guests, Emily Blunt and Benicio del Toro. Baker said what’s important is that they didn’t want to make a CGI version of the Wolfman, but they wanted it to actually be a guy in the suit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:01:22 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/25/2008 6:01:22 PM Legendary six-time-Oscar-winning make-up artist Rick Baker joined stars Benicio Del Toro and Emily Blunt to bring us the first footage of Universal’s new version of The Wolfman. And it’s a period piece. Highlights: - The origins of the remake stem from Del Toro’s Lon Chaney Jr. fandom. - It looks like “Francis Ford Coppola’s The Wolfman” - Of course, Anthony Hopkins would be more welcome as Van Helsing again - At least it will likely be R-rated, as it looks quite bloody - Baker honors Stan Winston by labeling his death “the end of an era” - Blunt is apparently into two-headed dudes Check out the full liveblog transcript after the jump. 5:31 - Another look at the Wolfman clip: They’re rolling the clip one more time, and now I can see how bloody it is. Brains, guts, carnage. You only see a couple of extremely quick flashes of the Wolfman. It’s very gothic looking, lots of blacks and browns. Full costumes, long takes. It’s almost like Francis Ford Coppola’s The Wolfman. Anthony Hopkins comes up on his son, post-transformation and rasps “You’ve done terrible things.” Apparently he gets caught and is strapped down in a medical observatory while he transforms. We’re out, and it’s not even a full moon 5:29 - Extra guests and more Q&A: Rick Baker brings Dave and Lou Elsey up on stage and introduces them, as they helped out with the creature effects. They’ve worked on Farscape and Star Wars. A pair of twins (they asked a question during the Watchmen panel) get up and ask what the “most fun part of working on the movie was.” Del Toro says, “Uh, the chase.” Rick Baker says, “Is that a two headed man?” and Emily Blunt says, “Hi… what are you doing later?” So now we know all about her secret sexual proclivities. 5:25 - Regarding CGI and “the end of an era”: While it might be del Toro in a costume, it looks like they’ll be using CGI to show the Wolfman’s transformation. Baker is hoping they’ll do something like the physical transformations in An American Werewolf in London. Rick Baker is waxing poetic about Stan Winston and all the contributions he made to the art. He calls his death “The end of an era.” 5:22 - Regarding The Wolfman’s rating: “Will this movie be rated R?” Del Toro: “I don’t think we know yet…” Rick Baker chimes in with “I think based on this trailer it looks like it’ll be rated R.” 5:20 - The Wolfman Q&A, Question #2: Rick Baker gets asked if it’s more challenging to do makeup effects on something like this or working on Norbit, and he said working on human character faces, like Eddie Murphy’s Mr. Wong character, was much more challenging. “But I’ve been making myself up as the Wolfman since I was 10 years old.” Rick Baker quips “Look, it’s Criss Angel!” — the next kid asking a question is wearing some sort of street thug wear and a black bandana. And he looks like Criss Angel… at age 10. Emily Blunt said “I was really terrified during the chase scenes. I was literally running. While wearing a corset.” Del Toro leers: “And I just had to chase her.” Del Toro geekily giggles and admits that he’s a big fan of both Lon Chaney and Lon Chaney Jr.’s film roles, and that he watched all of them. He also got into the old Hammer films like “Curse of the Wolfman”. 5:17 - The Wolfman Q&A, Question #1: Q&A’s start, and the first question is “What similarities are there between this movie and the original?” Del Toro wakes from his bout with narcolepsy to say “That’s a good question for the director….” He’s talking about keeping the movie a period piece, rather than updating it to modern times. “I think you just need to see the picture. I mean, I need to see it too.” 5:14 - Becoming the Wolfman: Benicio said “Putting the makeup on was great, it was building and that was exciting. Taking it off, that was a bit more desperate.” “He cried like a baby,” said Baker. “He may look like a big tough guy, but he’s actually a big pussy.” Del Toro was asked if he studied any animal behavior in order to get into the role, and he quips “I checked out Emily Blunt.” Clearly it was meant as a joke, but it just came off really creepy. Del Toro is talking about how great it was to have Anthony Hopkins on set “Not just as an actor, but as a person.” He literally seems like he’s about to fall asleep. 5:11 - On the decision to get involved: Del Toro is talking about how he loved the Lon Chaney Jr. role in the original movies. Del Toro’s agent saw a poster of The Wolfman in Del Toro’s house, and he said “I’m going to go to Universal and talk to them about this.” So start buying posters, folks. Emily Blunt heard Anthony Hopkins and “Benny” were involved in the film, so she said it was pretty easy to make the decision to take the role. 5:08 - The Wolfman clip: Benicio is sleepily introducing a clip of footage from the movie. No one has seen it yet, except del Toro “But without sound! So I want to hear this.” Mediocre whoops and hollers. Murky shots of a Wolfman running through the woods, and turn of the century townsfolk finding an eviscerated body. A man runs home and melts down his mother’s silver spoons and makes bullets. Anthony Hopkins walks down the stairs, he’s playing Del Toro’s father. Hugo Weaving, better known as Agent Smith, plays the head Wolf hunter. It’s all shot in period, and looks pretty good… except del Toro looks oddly out of place. This just makes me wish that Hopkins was playing Van Helsing in this. Granted, he’s not in the original, but he’s a kickass monster hunter. 5:04 - Rick Baker, Benicio Del Toro and Emily Blunt take the stage: Universal has brought out Rick Baker, sorry… “the legendary Rick Baker” to talk about Wolfman. When Baker heard that Universal was remaking The Wolfman, he called everyone he knew at Universal and said “I have to be involved with this.” Two surprise guests, Emily Blunt and Benicio del Toro. Baker said what’s important is that they didn’t want to make a CGI version of the Wolfman, but they wanted it to actually be a guy in the suit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/16/32629.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/16/2008 2:00:50 PM
Body: The latest Eddie Murphy comedy, Meet Dave, debuted at a dismal 7th place this past weekend with only $5.3 million (on Monday it had already dropped down to #8), marking the worst wide-release opening for the actor since The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Can you spot the connection between these two movies? If you noted that they’re both sci-fi comedies, you’re smarter than the average movie exec, apparently. After comedy subgenre failures like Pluto Nash and Vampire in Brooklyn, you’d think producers would have known better than to cast the broad comedy star in something like Meet Dave. Actually, its distributor, Fox, may have started growing wise to the issue when it threw away the original title, Starship Dave. A few writers have now addressed some of the reasons why Meet Dave failed, and it should be clear how to avoid such a bomb in the future. At the L.A. Times, Patrick Goldstein argues the sci-fi comedy case, though figured out the subgenre can sometimes go blockbuster, as the Men in Black movies show us. He also notes all the horrible crap that Fox has been putting out lately, displaying how shocking it is that this particular film did so much more poorly than garbage like Alvin and the Chipmunks and even What Happens in Vegas. Still, there seems to be some debate over whether or not Meet Dave suffered from actually being a sci-fi comedy or from Fox’s failure to own up to the fact and market it as such. Meanwhile, at Defamer, Stu Van Airsdale offers the simple idea that kids today just don’t give a rats ass about Eddie Murphy. And neither does anyone else. But enough people cared to allow Norbit to come really close to grossing a million bucks, and the people tend to enjoy him, as Anne Thompson claims, when he’s in disguise (of course, he also makes big bucks when his face is visible and he’s surrounded by talking animals or rambunctious kids). Considering his recent Oscar nomination (for Dreamgirls), he probably just needs to go serious for a bit. Or merely stay away from the spacemen roles. It’s definitely not too late for Murphy, despite Vulture blog’s call for his retirement. Personally, I stayed away from Meet Dave because it seemed a lot like a cross between What Planet Are You From? and Innerspace, neither of which I particularly enjoyed (well, I have a soft spot for the latter as a huge Joe Dante fan). That, and I guess I’m in the Stu-designated camp since I haven’t bothered with any of Murphy’s films since I Spy (and honestly I stopped caring after The Distinguished Gentleman — I didn’t even see Beverly Hills Cop III). As for the people who have cared in the past, neither the little kids nor the older fans likely saw any appeal in Meet Dave. Maybe Murphy needs to decide to go directly for the family films or directly for the raunchy stuff (it still works well enough for Martin Lawrence and others). Trying for the middle clearly isn’t working. What was your reason for avoiding the flop? The star? The subgenre? The fact that a ton of other bigger blockbusters are out right now? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:00:50 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/16/2008 2:00:50 PMThe latest Eddie Murphy comedy, Meet Dave, debuted at a dismal 7th place this past weekend with only $5.3 million (on Monday it had already dropped down to #8), marking the worst wide-release opening for the actor since The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Can you spot the connection between these two movies? If you noted that they’re both sci-fi comedies, you’re smarter than the average movie exec, apparently. After comedy subgenre failures like Pluto Nash and Vampire in Brooklyn, you’d think producers would have known better than to cast the broad comedy star in something like Meet Dave. Actually, its distributor, Fox, may have started growing wise to the issue when it threw away the original title, Starship Dave. A few writers have now addressed some of the reasons why Meet Dave failed, and it should be clear how to avoid such a bomb in the future. At the L.A. Times, Patrick Goldstein argues the sci-fi comedy case, though figured out the subgenre can sometimes go blockbuster, as the Men in Black movies show us. He also notes all the horrible crap that Fox has been putting out lately, displaying how shocking it is that this particular film did so much more poorly than garbage like Alvin and the Chipmunks and even What Happens in Vegas. Still, there seems to be some debate over whether or not Meet Dave suffered from actually being a sci-fi comedy or from Fox’s failure to own up to the fact and market it as such. Meanwhile, at Defamer, Stu Van Airsdale offers the simple idea that kids today just don’t give a rats ass about Eddie Murphy. And neither does anyone else. But enough people cared to allow Norbit to come really close to grossing a million bucks, and the people tend to enjoy him, as Anne Thompson claims, when he’s in disguise (of course, he also makes big bucks when his face is visible and he’s surrounded by talking animals or rambunctious kids). Considering his recent Oscar nomination (for Dreamgirls), he probably just needs to go serious for a bit. Or merely stay away from the spacemen roles. It’s definitely not too late for Murphy, despite Vulture blog’s call for his retirement. Personally, I stayed away from Meet Dave because it seemed a lot like a cross between What Planet Are You From? and Innerspace, neither of which I particularly enjoyed (well, I have a soft spot for the latter as a huge Joe Dante fan). That, and I guess I’m in the Stu-designated camp since I haven’t bothered with any of Murphy’s films since I Spy (and honestly I stopped caring after The Distinguished Gentleman — I didn’t even see Beverly Hills Cop III). As for the people who have cared in the past, neither the little kids nor the older fans likely saw any appeal in Meet Dave. Maybe Murphy needs to decide to go directly for the family films or directly for the raunchy stuff (it still works well enough for Martin Lawrence and others). Trying for the middle clearly isn’t working. What was your reason for avoiding the flop? The star? The subgenre? The fact that a ton of other bigger blockbusters are out right now? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_Movie_and_Actor_Acronyms/598/29784/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 5/22/2008 9:30:06 PM
Body: Neisha Folkes Oren Waters Richard Gant B I Terry Crews Norbit. Hehe.
]]>Fri, 23 May 2008 01:30:06 GMTSmooth_JMovie Games5/22/2008 9:30:06 PMNeisha Folkes Oren Waters Richard Gant B I Terry Crews Norbit. Hehe. http://www.spout.com/blogs/evilhomer7g/archive/2008/3/18/26372.aspx Post By: evilhomer7g
Post To: evilhomer7g Blog
Post Date: 3/18/2008 6:53:41 PM
Body: VERY BAD PLOT AND WAS A HORRIBLE MOVIE. WORST MOVIE IVE SEEN.
]]>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:53:41 GMTevilhomer7gevilhomer7g Blog3/18/2008 6:53:41 PMVERY BAD PLOT AND WAS A HORRIBLE MOVIE. WORST MOVIE IVE SEEN. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/6/21/11593.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/21/2007 2:01:11 PM
Body: When word got out that Angelina Jolie would be playing the French/Afro-Cuban Mariane Pearl in A Mighty Heart, a small but very vocal segment of the population jumped to decry the casting as racist. Labeling Jolie's work in the film sight unseen a"blackface performance", the blog Racialicious declared that Jolie (who is, you know, trying to save the world by adopting a bunch of kids of different races) should have known better than to accept the part. "Given that Jolie has two children of color, I would have thought that she might have been more sensitive to issues of race and the place of women of color instead of following in the footsteps of Al Jolson." Even actress Thandie Newton (who was last seen in a paragon of cultural responsibility called Norbit) jumped into the debate, telling a UK tabloid that she was "shocked" Jolie had "been blacked up to play a black woman." Anyone who really knows the history of Hollywood blackface understands that it's ridiculous to compare Jolie (who appears in Heart wearing a wig and a healthy dose of bronzer) to Jolson, who smeared shoe polish on his face in caricature of Black performers (a caricature that, it must be noted, was not generally considered racist at the time). Still, it's been interesting to see how mainstream critics deal with the issue in their Mighty Heart write-ups. Newsweek devoted an entire paragraph to the issue: The studio releasing Heart, Paramount Vantage, insists that Jolie's makeup was not darkened for the role, and that any complexion variation is caused by the film's lighting. If they are lying--which is probable--it's only by a little. In costume and under natural light, Jolie looks, at most, a shade or two duskier than her natural complexion. Regardless, both Jolie and Pearl say they were blindsided by the charges. "I know that people are frustrated at the lack of great roles [for people of color], but I think they've picked the wrong example here," Jolie says. Pearl is more pointed: "This is not about skin color. I wanted her to play me because I trust her." She sighs. "Aren't we past this?" I haven't found a review yet that professes Jolie's makeup to be a problem. On the contrary: most high-profile film critics are male, and for them, a new Angelina Jolie movie is, like, the event of the year. Jolie dressed up as Mariane Pearl is not so much an opportunity to contemplate racial and cultural dynamics as it is an opportunity to fantasy role play. Anthony Lane, whose New Yorker review is devoted primarily to the "problem" of Jolie's schizophrenic sexpot/saint split, contemplates Jolie's "corkscrewed hair [and] tinted skin," but is far more interested in her lips, which he dubs "the world’s most recognizable mouth." (He also makes the laughable suggestion that Jolie would have been somehow better suited to the career of blonde bombshell Jayne Mansfield.) Certainly, no one seems to be getting more pleasure out of this than New York's David Edelstein, who comes close to crossing the line of common decency by suggesting that Jolie has been "dipped in caramel." On the whole, A Mighty Heart is very much a film about reflection, perception, and projection. As a star, Jolie often functions as a blank screen for the projection of the audience's desires. As usual, despite Jolie's efforts to generate interest in the issues that she deems important, it seems to be much more interesting to talk about what's it's like to look at her. We'll have more Mighty Heart chatter on Friday's edition of FilmCouch. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:01:11 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/21/2007 2:01:11 PM When word got out that Angelina Jolie would be playing the French/Afro-Cuban Mariane Pearl in A Mighty Heart, a small but very vocal segment of the population jumped to decry the casting as racist. Labeling Jolie's work in the film sight unseen a"blackface performance", the blog Racialicious declared that Jolie (who is, you know, trying to save the world by adopting a bunch of kids of different races) should have known better than to accept the part. "Given that Jolie has two children of color, I would have thought that she might have been more sensitive to issues of race and the place of women of color instead of following in the footsteps of Al Jolson." Even actress Thandie Newton (who was last seen in a paragon of cultural responsibility called Norbit) jumped into the debate, telling a UK tabloid that she was "shocked" Jolie had "been blacked up to play a black woman." Anyone who really knows the history of Hollywood blackface understands that it's ridiculous to compare Jolie (who appears in Heart wearing a wig and a healthy dose of bronzer) to Jolson, who smeared shoe polish on his face in caricature of Black performers (a caricature that, it must be noted, was not generally considered racist at the time). Still, it's been interesting to see how mainstream critics deal with the issue in their Mighty Heart write-ups. Newsweek devoted an entire paragraph to the issue: The studio releasing Heart, Paramount Vantage, insists that Jolie's makeup was not darkened for the role, and that any complexion variation is caused by the film's lighting. If they are lying--which is probable--it's only by a little. In costume and under natural light, Jolie looks, at most, a shade or two duskier than her natural complexion. Regardless, both Jolie and Pearl say they were blindsided by the charges. "I know that people are frustrated at the lack of great roles [for people of color], but I think they've picked the wrong example here," Jolie says. Pearl is more pointed: "This is not about skin color. I wanted her to play me because I trust her." She sighs. "Aren't we past this?" I haven't found a review yet that professes Jolie's makeup to be a problem. On the contrary: most high-profile film critics are male, and for them, a new Angelina Jolie movie is, like, the event of the year. Jolie dressed up as Mariane Pearl is not so much an opportunity to contemplate racial and cultural dynamics as it is an opportunity to fantasy role play. Anthony Lane, whose New Yorker review is devoted primarily to the "problem" of Jolie's schizophrenic sexpot/saint split, contemplates Jolie's "corkscrewed hair [and] tinted skin," but is far more interested in her lips, which he dubs "the world’s most recognizable mouth." (He also makes the laughable suggestion that Jolie would have been somehow better suited to the career of blonde bombshell Jayne Mansfield.) Certainly, no one seems to be getting more pleasure out of this than New York's David Edelstein, who comes close to crossing the line of common decency by suggesting that Jolie has been "dipped in caramel." On the whole, A Mighty Heart is very much a film about reflection, perception, and projection. As a star, Jolie often functions as a blank screen for the projection of the audience's desires. As usual, despite Jolie's efforts to generate interest in the issues that she deems important, it seems to be much more interesting to talk about what's it's like to look at her. We'll have more Mighty Heart chatter on Friday's edition of FilmCouch. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/the1theonlyjp/archive/2007/5/31/9822.aspx Post By: The1TheOnlyJP
Post To: The Paxton Log
Post Date: 5/31/2007 12:26:11 PM
Body: It's goin' down, well at least in theaters this weekend. In the comedy 'Norbit', Eddie Murphy is once again wearing a fatsuit, this time playing the over-sized, self-indulgent, fury-filled Rasputia. That is actually the only purpose of this film sadly; giving Murphy the excuse to parade around in a fatsuit for another go around. Other than that, 'Norbit' is pointless.For a film with the main character's name in the title, Norbit himself isn't all that interesting. Eddie Murphy fails to add any real liveliness or hilarity to him which is disappointing. From the half-baked lisp to the whiney persona created, he's almost a chore to watch. However, upon viewing the trailer we already know that his wife Rasputia, also played by Murphy, is the real star of the film. So how was she? Well, a little better than Norbit. A lot more fun to watch anyways. If this weren't a comedy though, it'd be almost impossible not to hate her completely. She's pretty much the ultimate bitch with her overt aggression and extreme arrogance. The worst part about her is the catchphrase she coins and uses over and over in the film: "How you doin'?". It wasn't funny the first time it was said, and it wasn't funny any of the thirty-five times after. I must admit that even with the predictabiliy in the usage of that line, there were a couple of things that did shock me a tad. The first being, Norbit and Rasputia have an old woman as a neighbor who owns a little pug named Lloyd. (No, that's not the shocking part.) There's an instance in the film where Norbit is thrown out of a window and is laying in the front yard. The pug who has been injured purposely by Rasputia and is now sporting one of those wheely-deals that help dogs legs heal goes over to Norbit and proceeds to lick his face. Norbit soon after asks Lloyd what is he going to do about Rasputia. Then it happens, Lloyd replies with, "Kill the bitch." Totally out of left field there. Maybe it was some odd homage to 'Dr. Dolittle', I'm really not sure.The other notable shocker was the score of the film. Now this isn't something most people even going to pay attention to while watching a film, but I do. David Newman whose previous work includes the scores for 'Ice Age' and 'Serenity' is the guy who composed the music for 'Norbit'. I was so impressed with his work here, I ended up going to Borders after I left theater to buy the soundtrack that includes his compositions as well as the songs featured in the film. I have to say 'Norbit Sneaks Out' and 'Norbit and Kate' are the best.Another one of the very few highlights of 'Norbit' is the presence of Eddie Griffin and the performance he gives as the pimp Pope Sweet Jesus. Yes, you may be scratching your heads at the thought of such a character being mentioned as such. It's true though and the charisma Griffin has is what makes him a pleasure to watch. He's smooth, relaxed, & on point at all times while delivering his lines that are surprisingly not over the top in this otherwise showcase for jokes of that type.Those over the top jokes and gags are unfortunately what will be bringing all the people to the theaters this weekend as Rasputia crushes young Hannibal Lecter at the box office. Be warned, 'Norbit' may have the glasses and Mr. Nice Guy likeness, but he is no 'Nutty Professor' by any means. - originally written on Feb. 10 '07
]]>Thu, 31 May 2007 16:26:11 GMTThe1TheOnlyJPThe Paxton Log5/31/2007 12:26:11 PMIt&#39;s goin&#39; down, well at least in theaters this weekend. In the comedy &#39;Norbit&#39;, Eddie Murphy is once again wearing a fatsuit, this time playing the over-sized, self-indulgent, fury-filled Rasputia. That is actually the only purpose of this film sadly; giving Murphy the excuse to parade around in a fatsuit for another go around. Other than that, &#39;Norbit&#39; is pointless.For a film with the main character&#39;s name in the title, Norbit himself isn&#39;t all that interesting. Eddie Murphy fails to add any real liveliness or hilarity to him which is disappointing. From the half-baked lisp to the whiney persona created, he&#39;s almost a chore to watch. However, upon viewing the trailer we already know that his wife Rasputia, also played by Murphy, is the real star of the film. So how was she? Well, a little better than Norbit. A lot more fun to watch anyways. If this weren&#39;t a comedy though, it&#39;d be almost impossible not to hate her completely. She&#39;s pretty much the ultimate bitch with her overt aggression and extreme arrogance. The worst part about her is the catchphrase she coins and uses over and over in the film: &quot;How you doin&#39;?&quot;. It wasn&#39;t funny the first time it was said, and it wasn&#39;t funny any of the thirty-five times after. I must admit that even with the predictabiliy in the usage of that line, there were a couple of things that did shock me a tad. The first being, Norbit and Rasputia have an old woman as a neighbor who owns a little pug named Lloyd. (No, that&#39;s not the shocking part.) There&#39;s an instance in the film where Norbit is thrown out of a window and is laying in the front yard. The pug who has been injured purposely by Rasputia and is now sporting one of those wheely-deals that help dogs legs heal goes over to Norbit and proceeds to lick his face. Norbit soon after asks Lloyd what is he going to do about Rasputia. Then it happens, Lloyd replies with, &quot;Kill the bitch.&quot; Totally out of left field there. Maybe it was some odd homage to &#39;Dr. Dolittle&#39;, I&#39;m really not sure.The other notable shocker was the score of the film. Now this isn&#39;t something most people even going to pay attention to while watching a film, but I do. David Newman whose previous work includes the scores for &#39;Ice Age&#39; and &#39;Serenity&#39; is the guy who composed the music for &#39;Norbit&#39;. I was so impressed with his work here, I ended up going to Borders after I left theater to buy the soundtrack that includes his compositions as well as the songs featured in the film. I have to say &#39;Norbit Sneaks Out&#39; and &#39;Norbit and Kate&#39; are the best.Another one of the very few highlights of &#39;Norbit&#39; is the presence of Eddie Griffin and the performance he gives as the pimp Pope Sweet Jesus. Yes, you may be scratching your heads at the thought of such a character being mentioned as such. It&#39;s true though and the charisma Griffin has is what makes him a pleasure to watch. He&#39;s smooth, relaxed, &amp; on point at all times while delivering his lines that are surprisingly not over the top in this otherwise showcase for jokes of that type.Those over the top jokes and gags are unfortunately what will be bringing all the people to the theaters this weekend as Rasputia crushes young Hannibal Lecter at the box office. Be warned, &#39;Norbit&#39; may have the glasses and Mr. Nice Guy likeness, but he is no &#39;Nutty Professor&#39; by any means. - originally written on Feb. 10 &#39;07 http://www.spout.com/blogs/halo1205/archive/2007/5/20/9067.aspx Post By: halo1205
Post To: halo1205 Blog
Post Date: 5/20/2007 5:29:00 PM
Body: I am new here, and am starting on a bad foot... or one that recently stepped into a big pile of poo anyhow! I dunno why I watched Norbit, but I did. And it is a shame i will forever bear. Eddie! Dude! What wuz ya thinking? Moreso, Thandie! Girl! What was you thinking??? I have really like Thandie Newton since Flirting but she has since systematically found the wort crap to be in.
]]>Sun, 20 May 2007 21:29:00 GMThalo1205halo1205 Blog5/20/2007 5:29:00 PMI am new here, and am starting on a bad foot... or one that recently stepped into a big pile of poo anyhow! I dunno why I watched Norbit, but I did. And it is a shame i will forever bear. Eddie! Dude! What wuz ya thinking? Moreso, Thandie! Girl! What was you thinking??? I have really like Thandie Newton since Flirting but she has since systematically found the wort crap to be in. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/4/3/6695.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/3/2007 3:28:51 PM
Body: I love it when film critics and other journalists and op-ed people get into debates via their articles and columns. A little drama between national media outlets never hurts. Recently, Wall Street Journal movie critic Joe Morgenstern wrote a column in response to an article a few weeks back by Peter Bart, Variety's editor-in-chief. There are some personal digs between the two that I won't bother getting into (they're amusing), but the central question is interesting: Should critics be more in tune with what the masses (Bart calls them the "popcorn crowd") really enjoy seeing at the multiplex? Bart's column started with this: Box office data this year suggests that filmgoers seem to be having a great time at the multiplexes. The critics, by contrast, may be shopping around for a new line of work. He goes on to say that movies like 300, Ghost Rider, Wild Hogs, and Norbit have been slammed by critics but have done very well in the box office. "The situation underscores yet again the disconnect between the cinematic appetites of critics vs. those of the popcorn crowd," Bart writes. He suggests that there are two types of movie-going public: those propelled by buzz and those who are more discriminating--the wait-and-see-what-critics-say crowd. So why are movie critics only in tune with that second demographic (and so out of synch when it comes to popular culture)? Morgenstern's rebuttal goes primarily like this: Audiences are Hollywood's harshest critics, and, despite box office numbers, they're clamoring for a higher level of filmmaking. Here's how he puts it: And you [Bart], like I, surely hear the drumbeat of complaints from Hollywood's harshest critics -- not those of us who are paid to ply this peculiar trade, but longtime movie lovers, and ticket buyers, who've come to expect a certain level of intelligence and expertise in filmed entertainment. They don't think of themselves as elitists, and they'd rather not abandon the multiplexes until the level starts to rise come September. Week after week, though, they find themselves dismayed, and alienated, by the very productions that you point to as proof of Hollywood's health. I'm not sure I entirely agree with either of them. I can't quite tell what Morgenstern is defending (his belief that Hollywood needs to step it up a notch?), and Bart's idea that critics should "make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture" seems to defeat the very nature of a critic. Here's what I think. Bart's take on the two general types of movie-goers is right on, and we each have our advocates, guiding us along the way. Those who love getting caught up in the buzz have marketing and distribution campaigns at work for them. And those who want to think through it a bit more before laying down their money have the opinions of critics, be they professional or experts on spout.com. It seems like there's enough room for all types to do their thing their way. Syndicated Feed From:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:28:51 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/3/2007 3:28:51 PMI love it when film critics and other journalists and op-ed people get into debates via their articles and columns. A little drama between national media outlets never hurts. Recently, Wall Street Journal movie critic Joe Morgenstern wrote a column in response to an article a few weeks back by Peter Bart, Variety's editor-in-chief. There are some personal digs between the two that I won't bother getting into (they're amusing), but the central question is interesting: Should critics be more in tune with what the masses (Bart calls them the "popcorn crowd") really enjoy seeing at the multiplex? Bart's column started with this: Box office data this year suggests that filmgoers seem to be having a great time at the multiplexes. The critics, by contrast, may be shopping around for a new line of work. He goes on to say that movies like 300, Ghost Rider, Wild Hogs, and Norbit have been slammed by critics but have done very well in the box office. "The situation underscores yet again the disconnect between the cinematic appetites of critics vs. those of the popcorn crowd," Bart writes. He suggests that there are two types of movie-going public: those propelled by buzz and those who are more discriminating--the wait-and-see-what-critics-say crowd. So why are movie critics only in tune with that second demographic (and so out of synch when it comes to popular culture)? Morgenstern's rebuttal goes primarily like this: Audiences are Hollywood's harshest critics, and, despite box office numbers, they're clamoring for a higher level of filmmaking. Here's how he puts it: And you [Bart], like I, surely hear the drumbeat of complaints from Hollywood's harshest critics -- not those of us who are paid to ply this peculiar trade, but longtime movie lovers, and ticket buyers, who've come to expect a certain level of intelligence and expertise in filmed entertainment. They don't think of themselves as elitists, and they'd rather not abandon the multiplexes until the level starts to rise come September. Week after week, though, they find themselves dismayed, and alienated, by the very productions that you point to as proof of Hollywood's health. I'm not sure I entirely agree with either of them. I can't quite tell what Morgenstern is defending (his belief that Hollywood needs to step it up a notch?), and Bart's idea that critics should "make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture" seems to defeat the very nature of a critic. Here's what I think. Bart's take on the two general types of movie-goers is right on, and we each have our advocates, guiding us along the way. Those who love getting caught up in the buzz have marketing and distribution campaigns at work for them. And those who want to think through it a bit more before laying down their money have the opinions of critics, be they professional or experts on spout.com. It seems like there's enough room for all types to do their thing their way. Syndicated Feed From:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/filmfreek2007/archive/2007/2/14/5469.aspx Post By: FilmFreek2007
Post To: FilmFreek2007 Blog
Post Date: 2/14/2007 12:59:38 PM
Body: "Norbit" tells the story of the title character (Eddie Murphy in a hysterical return to physical comedy), a nice guy who thinks he's well-protected from any bullies once he's get married to Rasputia (Murphy). But once Norbit discovers how overbearing, abusive, unfaithful, and downright mean Rasputia, he must get out of the relationship and fast. Norbit finally has a reason to end his marriage with Rasputia after childhood pal Kate (Thandie Newton) returns to town and Norbit & Kate are happy when they reunited with each other. But standing in the way are not only Rasputia, but also her three vicious brothers and Kate's scheming & two-timing fiance (Cuba Gooding, Jr.). Helping Norbit along the way are two reformed pimps (Eddie Griffin & Katt Williams) who are trying to get back in the game and Norbit's orphanage father figure Mr. Wong (Murphy). While at times it has some flaws, "Norbit" is both funny & lovable with enough laughs to keep you rolling until the end.
]]>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:59:38 GMTFilmFreek2007FilmFreek2007 Blog2/14/2007 12:59:38 PM&quot;Norbit&quot; tells the story of the title character (Eddie Murphy in a hysterical return to physical comedy), a nice guy who thinks he&#39;s well-protected from any bullies once he&#39;s get married to Rasputia (Murphy). But once Norbit discovers how overbearing, abusive, unfaithful, and downright mean Rasputia, he must get out of the relationship and fast. Norbit finally has a reason to end his marriage with Rasputia after childhood pal Kate (Thandie Newton) returns to town and Norbit &amp; Kate are happy when they reunited with each other. But standing in the way are not only Rasputia, but also her three vicious brothers and Kate&#39;s scheming &amp; two-timing fiance (Cuba Gooding, Jr.). Helping Norbit along the way are two reformed pimps (Eddie Griffin &amp; Katt Williams) who are trying to get back in the game and Norbit&#39;s orphanage father figure Mr. Wong (Murphy). While at times it has some flaws, &quot;Norbit&quot; is both funny &amp; lovable with enough laughs to keep you rolling until the end. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lovetriangle/MemberTagFilms.aspxlovetriangle
Number of films tagged: 2902

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 75

]]>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:12:01 GMT29023875Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/courage/MemberTagFilms.aspxcourage
Number of films tagged: 1054

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 80

]]>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:24:48 GMT10542880Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hillarious/MemberTagFilms.aspxhillarious
Number of films tagged: 32

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 42

]]>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:45:00 GMT322542Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/out/MemberTagFilms.aspxout
Number of films tagged: 19

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 20

]]>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:17:50 GMT191920Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/laugh/MemberTagFilms.aspxlaugh
Number of films tagged: 33

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 37

]]>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:17:50 GMT331337Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/loud/MemberTagFilms.aspxloud
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 7

]]>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:17:50 GMT777Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overweight/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverweight
Number of films tagged: 73

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 7

]]>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:07:06 GMT7357Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/obnoxious/MemberTagFilms.aspxobnoxious
Number of films tagged: 28

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:26:23 GMT2833Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/milquetoast/MemberTagFilms.aspxmilquetoast
Number of films tagged: 70

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Thu, 04 Jan 2007 14:00:32 GMT7011Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overbearing/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverbearing
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:33:19 GMT2711Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dreamgirl/MemberTagFilms.aspxdreamgirl
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:07:06 GMT4800Tag