list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Next 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/Next/275888/default.aspx Title: Next
Year: 2007
Director: Lee Tamahori
Plot: A man with the ability to see the future and change the outcome of events before they occur is forced to choose between saving himself and saving the world in this supernatural thriller starring Nicolas Cage and directed by Lee Tamahori (Die Another Day, The Edge). Cris Johnson (Cage) is a Las Vegas magician who possesses the unique ability to witness the events of the immediate future moments before they happen. As a child Cris was subjected to a series of cruel experiments by government scientists and doctors, but a change of name and a new identity allowed the tortured psychic to elude detection and start a new life away from the prying eyes of his former captors. Though his clairvoyant vision only extends a few minutes into the future, it has still allowed Cris to eke out a living as a low-rent Las Vegas magician while earning a little extra cash at the blackjack tables. Up to this point in his life Cris has never used his power for anything substantial, but when he experiences a vision of Los Angeles being incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, the small-time magician realizes that he could hold the key to saving millions of lives. But as low as he has tried to lie in recent years, Cris has never completely escaped detection by the government. Now, as terrorists prepare to unleash the ultimate horror on an unsuspecting city, FBI counter terror agent Callie Ferris (Julianne Moore) sets out to capture Cris and convince him to use his exceptional gift to prevent the nuclear nightmare from becoming a terrifying reality. Jessica Biel, Peter Falk, and Thomas Kretschmann co-star in the film, which is based on a short story by acclaimed sci-fi author Philip K. Dick. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 28
Number of Lists: 11
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:17:40 GMTNext2007Lee TamahoriA man with the ability to see the future and change the outcome of events before they occur is forced to choose between saving himself and saving the world in this supernatural thriller starring <a href="/players/P____10155/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Nicolas Cage</a> and directed by <a href="/players/P___194015/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lee Tamahori</a> (<a href=/films/210961/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Die Another Day</a>, <a href=/films/114414/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Edge</a>). Cris Johnson (Cage) is a Las Vegas magician who possesses the unique ability to witness the events of the immediate future moments before they happen. As a child Cris was subjected to a series of cruel experiments by government scientists and doctors, but a change of name and a new identity allowed the tortured psychic to elude detection and start a new life away from the prying eyes of his former captors. Though his clairvoyant vision only extends a few minutes into the future, it has still allowed Cris to eke out a living as a low-rent Las Vegas magician while earning a little extra cash at the blackjack tables. Up to this point in his life Cris has never used his power for anything substantial, but when he experiences a vision of Los Angeles being incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, the small-time magician realizes that he could hold the key to saving millions of lives. But as low as he has tried to lie in recent years, Cris has never completely escaped detection by the government. Now, as terrorists prepare to unleash the ultimate horror on an unsuspecting city, FBI counter terror agent Callie Ferris (<a href="/players/P____50325/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Julianne Moore</a>) sets out to capture Cris and convince him to use his exceptional gift to prevent the nuclear nightmare from becoming a terrifying reality. <a href="/players/P___222949/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jessica Biel</a>, <a href="/players/P____22575/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Peter Falk</a>, and <a href="/players/P____39370/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Thomas Kretschmann</a> co-star in the film, which is based on a short story by acclaimed sci-fi author Philip K. Dick. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide28Tag Target (>10)11822http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s275888.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Next/275888/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/What_is_your_favorite_movie_based_on_or_inspired_b/657/41490/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 4/7/2009 2:53:17 PM
Body: Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. I'm seeing that there are actually several more movies based on Philip K. Dick works to be coming out just in the next couple year including what looks lik a biopic on his life staring Paul Giamatti as Dick called The Owl in Daylight. His works are certainly full of ideas, often sci-fi and psychological that attract filmmakers and story tellers. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Blade RunnerConfessions d'un Barjo (Confessions of a Crap Artist)ImpostorMinority ReportNextPaycheckA Scanner DarklyScreamersTotal Recall
]]>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:53:17 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls4/7/2009 2:53:17 PMPlease reference this thread for the rules of this group. I'm seeing that there are actually several more movies based on Philip K. Dick works to be coming out just in the next couple year including what looks lik a biopic on his life staring Paul Giamatti as Dick called The Owl in Daylight. His works are certainly full of ideas, often sci-fi and psychological that attract filmmakers and story tellers. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Blade RunnerConfessions d'un Barjo (Confessions of a Crap Artist)ImpostorMinority ReportNextPaycheckA Scanner DarklyScreamersTotal Recall http://www.spout.com/groups/Coming_Soon/Re_Upcoming_Movies_Week_of/216/34685/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Coming Soon
Post Date: 9/3/2008 10:37:40 AM
Body: [quote user="TheWorkingDead"] I can't speak for anyone else, but I've become quite the fan of Nicolas Cage these days. ... can you believe that Steve Buscemi, John Cusack, Nicolas Cage and John Malkovich got together and the movie they made was frigging Con Air?!. But, after Wicker Man, I'm a fan again. He's so inappropriately crazy in everything he does that I get a kick out of watching him all the time. I may actually see this one in the theatre. [/quote] Please let me know if you see Bangkok Dangerous. Are you a fan of Ghost Rider and Next? I haven't seen either of those, but they look like good vehicles for Cage to be 'inappropriately crazy.' And I like your note about Con Air. I tried to think of a similar movie but couldn't. Marlon Brando, Robert Deniro and Edward Norton made The Score, but that's just disappointing, not the same crazy league as Con Air.
]]>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:37:40 GMTSkyPilotComing Soon9/3/2008 10:37:40 AM[quote user="TheWorkingDead"] I can't speak for anyone else, but I've become quite the fan of Nicolas Cage these days. ... can you believe that Steve Buscemi, John Cusack, Nicolas Cage and John Malkovich got together and the movie they made was frigging Con Air?!. But, after Wicker Man, I'm a fan again. He's so inappropriately crazy in everything he does that I get a kick out of watching him all the time. I may actually see this one in the theatre. [/quote] Please let me know if you see Bangkok Dangerous. Are you a fan of Ghost Rider and Next? I haven't seen either of those, but they look like good vehicles for Cage to be 'inappropriately crazy.' And I like your note about Con Air. I tried to think of a similar movie but couldn't. Marlon Brando, Robert Deniro and Edward Norton made The Score, but that's just disappointing, not the same crazy league as Con Air. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/4/16/27376.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 4/16/2008 7:00:57 PM
Body: Over our five days at the Institute, we kept returning to serious of binary oppositions: print versus online; doing it for the passion versus doing it for the pay; criticism as consumer reporting versus advocacy for artists. With such circular questions, it’s hard to get anywhere, making it easy to lapse into what filmmaker Kelly Reichardt jokingly referred to at one point as “glass half full of shit” thinking. But out of the morass of questions and unresolvable clashes came an emphasis on compromise and balance: nearly every guest speaker made some mention of making trade offs, of covering for noble failures with less-noble successes. This seemed most prevalent on Saturday, with Reichardt and Tom Kalin’s independent filmmaker panel; Ryan Werner of IFC and Don Krim from KINO representing indie distribution; and, particularly, the online film criticism panel, featuring Eugene Hernandez (indieWIRE), Michael Koresky (Reverse Shot), Matt Zoller Seitz (The House Next Door and The New York Times) and Stu Van Airsdale (The Reeler and Defamer). The issue of blogs as an alternative/corrective to the mainstream media came up early in the day, with Seitz’s explanation for how The House Next Door got started. “I was really irritated by the negative reviews of Terrence Malick’s The New World,” he said, “And I just wanted to write about how great it was like every day.” Though Matt experimented with Google and Amazon’s ad programs, both “were just a pain in the ass to maintain,” and The House Next Door evolved into a not-for-profit clearinghouse for mostly-serious material that an interested community of professional and amateur writers wouldn’t be able to publish elsewhere. It’s an employed film critic’s outlet for non-commercial writing, but it’s also an effort to create a greater balance in the types of voices that get to weigh in on film culture. But to established print critics who whisper to him in confidence that they’d love to have an outlet to write the kind of stuff that appears daily, for no compensation, on The House Next Door, Seitz has no sympathy. “Where do you get off with your sense of superiority, Print, if you constrain your writers in a way that [blogs] don’t?” Seitz says what’s happening online is not in opposition to journalism––it’s returning journalism to what it should be. “Blogs have returned human communication to its natural state,” he said. “Journalism has been a white collar profession for about 20 years now, and it didn’t used to be…a lot of the defense that critics feel has to do with impoliteness.” Of course, in a session just the day before, the lead critic of the New York Times had all but loosened his tie in discomfort at the very mention of the blogosphere, with the stated problem being comment section vitriol. Seitz referred to this factor as “Assholism,” in regards to which he shrugged, “There are certain people who only exist to show up on websites in order to tell you what an idiot you are.” He compared the blog space to high school debate: even though arguments get vicious, “there are rules, and you don’t take it personally.” Newly-minted Defamer Stu VanAirsdale, who usually keeps at least part of a foot in the mainstream print world, concurred. “Blogs are famously kind of a caustic environment. I’m honest, maybe to a fault, but if something’s bullshit, I’m going to say it’s bullshit. That doesn’t mean I’m right, it just means I have an opinion. The print loyalty is absolutely afraid of that dialogue, and they can’t conceive of a world where they’d have to defend themselves.” Stu noted that he had been hired to inject a sense of film culture into Defamer, a site maybe best known for posting images of Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah’s couch, captured by former editor Mark Lisanti with cellphone cam pointed at his TV. Such successes for the site have apparently been few and far between of late, and with Defamer traffic down over the past twelve months, Stu noted that his talents were seen as desirable because they could potentially attract a new audience. One of my fellow Institute fellows, New York Magazine blogger Dan Kois, expressed surprise that famously lowest common denominator-mad Defamer publisher Nick Denton would consider deeper content as a viable traffic raising solution. But as Stu pointed out, the site already has the celeb sex tape beat covered by other writers. With that steady stream of traffic taken care of, Defamer can afford to take a risk on someone like Stu, presumably in the hopes of attracting a wider audience. Over and over again, these discussions came back to compromise. Tom Kalin needed to cast an actress of Julianne Moore’s caliber in order to get funding for his incest-infused true crime movie Savage Grace; Julianne Moore can only make Savage Grace because she pays both her own mortgage and rent on her stardom/bankability by making movies like Next. Filmmakers care primarily about their movies seeing theatrical release, but as Ryan Werner pointed out, VOD is a new revenue stream that can not only support the cost of a theatrical release, but it supports long-term word of mouth for all ancillaries. Seitz even talked about bargaining with an editor at the Newark Star-Ledger: he’d get to do an interview he really wanted to do, if he interviewed Jerry Springer as well. In my first post about attending the Institute, I mentioned something about how I was heading to Queens to confront an existential void. I can’t say that the future looks appreciably less murky just yet, although maybe it will when it dust settles a bit. At least I know I have one thing to look forward to: a never-ending series of deals with devils. Maybe it’s not “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”; maybe it’s more like “if you let me scratch your eyes out, I’ll make it worth your while.” Does it matter, as long as the rent gets paid? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:00:57 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog4/16/2008 7:00:57 PMOver our five days at the Institute, we kept returning to serious of binary oppositions: print versus online; doing it for the passion versus doing it for the pay; criticism as consumer reporting versus advocacy for artists. With such circular questions, it’s hard to get anywhere, making it easy to lapse into what filmmaker Kelly Reichardt jokingly referred to at one point as “glass half full of shit” thinking. But out of the morass of questions and unresolvable clashes came an emphasis on compromise and balance: nearly every guest speaker made some mention of making trade offs, of covering for noble failures with less-noble successes. This seemed most prevalent on Saturday, with Reichardt and Tom Kalin’s independent filmmaker panel; Ryan Werner of IFC and Don Krim from KINO representing indie distribution; and, particularly, the online film criticism panel, featuring Eugene Hernandez (indieWIRE), Michael Koresky (Reverse Shot), Matt Zoller Seitz (The House Next Door and The New York Times) and Stu Van Airsdale (The Reeler and Defamer). The issue of blogs as an alternative/corrective to the mainstream media came up early in the day, with Seitz’s explanation for how The House Next Door got started. “I was really irritated by the negative reviews of Terrence Malick’s The New World,” he said, “And I just wanted to write about how great it was like every day.” Though Matt experimented with Google and Amazon’s ad programs, both “were just a pain in the ass to maintain,” and The House Next Door evolved into a not-for-profit clearinghouse for mostly-serious material that an interested community of professional and amateur writers wouldn’t be able to publish elsewhere. It’s an employed film critic’s outlet for non-commercial writing, but it’s also an effort to create a greater balance in the types of voices that get to weigh in on film culture. But to established print critics who whisper to him in confidence that they’d love to have an outlet to write the kind of stuff that appears daily, for no compensation, on The House Next Door, Seitz has no sympathy. “Where do you get off with your sense of superiority, Print, if you constrain your writers in a way that [blogs] don’t?” Seitz says what’s happening online is not in opposition to journalism––it’s returning journalism to what it should be. “Blogs have returned human communication to its natural state,” he said. “Journalism has been a white collar profession for about 20 years now, and it didn’t used to be…a lot of the defense that critics feel has to do with impoliteness.” Of course, in a session just the day before, the lead critic of the New York Times had all but loosened his tie in discomfort at the very mention of the blogosphere, with the stated problem being comment section vitriol. Seitz referred to this factor as “Assholism,” in regards to which he shrugged, “There are certain people who only exist to show up on websites in order to tell you what an idiot you are.” He compared the blog space to high school debate: even though arguments get vicious, “there are rules, and you don’t take it personally.” Newly-minted Defamer Stu VanAirsdale, who usually keeps at least part of a foot in the mainstream print world, concurred. “Blogs are famously kind of a caustic environment. I’m honest, maybe to a fault, but if something’s bullshit, I’m going to say it’s bullshit. That doesn’t mean I’m right, it just means I have an opinion. The print loyalty is absolutely afraid of that dialogue, and they can’t conceive of a world where they’d have to defend themselves.” Stu noted that he had been hired to inject a sense of film culture into Defamer, a site maybe best known for posting images of Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah’s couch, captured by former editor Mark Lisanti with cellphone cam pointed at his TV. Such successes for the site have apparently been few and far between of late, and with Defamer traffic down over the past twelve months, Stu noted that his talents were seen as desirable because they could potentially attract a new audience. One of my fellow Institute fellows, New York Magazine blogger Dan Kois, expressed surprise that famously lowest common denominator-mad Defamer publisher Nick Denton would consider deeper content as a viable traffic raising solution. But as Stu pointed out, the site already has the celeb sex tape beat covered by other writers. With that steady stream of traffic taken care of, Defamer can afford to take a risk on someone like Stu, presumably in the hopes of attracting a wider audience. Over and over again, these discussions came back to compromise. Tom Kalin needed to cast an actress of Julianne Moore’s caliber in order to get funding for his incest-infused true crime movie Savage Grace; Julianne Moore can only make Savage Grace because she pays both her own mortgage and rent on her stardom/bankability by making movies like Next. Filmmakers care primarily about their movies seeing theatrical release, but as Ryan Werner pointed out, VOD is a new revenue stream that can not only support the cost of a theatrical release, but it supports long-term word of mouth for all ancillaries. Seitz even talked about bargaining with an editor at the Newark Star-Ledger: he’d get to do an interview he really wanted to do, if he interviewed Jerry Springer as well. In my first post about attending the Institute, I mentioned something about how I was heading to Queens to confront an existential void. I can’t say that the future looks appreciably less murky just yet, although maybe it will when it dust settles a bit. At least I know I have one thing to look forward to: a never-ending series of deals with devils. Maybe it’s not “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”; maybe it’s more like “if you let me scratch your eyes out, I’ll make it worth your while.” Does it matter, as long as the rent gets paid? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/16/27375.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/16/2008 7:00:50 PM
Body: Over our five days at the Institute, we kept returning to serious of binary oppositions: print versus online; doing it for the passion versus doing it for the pay; criticism as consumer reporting versus advocacy for artists. With such circular questions, it’s hard to get anywhere, making it easy to lapse into what filmmaker Kelly Reichardt jokingly referred to at one point as “glass half full of shit” thinking. But out of the morass of questions and unresolvable clashes came an emphasis on compromise and balance: nearly every guest speaker made some mention of making trade offs, of covering for noble failures with less-noble successes. This seemed most prevalent on Saturday, with Reichardt and Tom Kalin’s independent filmmaker panel; Ryan Werner of IFC and Don Krim from KINO representing indie distribution; and, particularly, the online film criticism panel, featuring Eugene Hernandez (indieWIRE), Michael Koresky (Reverse Shot), Matt Zoller Seitz (The House Next Door and The New York Times) and Stu Van Airsdale (The Reeler and Defamer). The issue of blogs as an alternative/corrective to the mainstream media came up early in the day, with Seitz’s explanation for how The House Next Door got started. “I was really irritated by the negative reviews of Terrence Malick’s The New World,” he said, “And I just wanted to write about how great it was like every day.” Though Matt experimented with Google and Amazon’s ad programs, both “were just a pain in the ass to maintain,” and The House Next Door evolved into a not-for-profit clearinghouse for mostly-serious material that an interested community of professional and amateur writers wouldn’t be able to publish elsewhere. It’s an employed film critic’s outlet for non-commercial writing, but it’s also an effort to create a greater balance in the types of voices that get to weigh in on film culture. But to established print critics who whisper to him in confidence that they’d love to have an outlet to write the kind of stuff that appears daily, for no compensation, on The House Next Door, Seitz has no sympathy. “Where do you get off with your sense of superiority, Print, if you constrain your writers in a way that [blogs] don’t?” Seitz says what’s happening online is not in opposition to journalism––it’s returning journalism to what it should be. “Blogs have returned human communication to its natural state,” he said. “Journalism has been a white collar profession for about 20 years now, and it didn’t used to be…a lot of the defense that critics feel has to do with impoliteness.” Of course, in a session just the day before, the lead critic of the New York Times had all but loosened his tie in discomfort at the very mention of the blogosphere, with the stated problem being comment section vitriol. Seitz referred to this factor as “Assholism,” in regards to which he shrugged, “There are certain people who only exist to show up on websites in order to tell you what an idiot you are.” He compared the blog space to high school debate: even though arguments get vicious, “there are rules, and you don’t take it personally.” Newly-minted Defamer Stu VanAirsdale, who usually keeps at least part of a foot in the mainstream print world, concurred. “Blogs are famously kind of a caustic environment. I’m honest, maybe to a fault, but if something’s bullshit, I’m going to say it’s bullshit. That doesn’t mean I’m right, it just means I have an opinion. The print loyalty is absolutely afraid of that dialogue, and they can’t conceive of a world where they’d have to defend themselves.” Stu noted that he had been hired to inject a sense of film culture into Defamer, a site maybe best known for posting images of Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah’s couch, captured by former editor Mark Lisanti with cellphone cam pointed at his TV. Such successes for the site have apparently been few and far between of late, and with Defamer traffic down over the past twelve months, Stu noted that his talents were seen as desirable because they could potentially attract a new audience. One of my fellow Institute fellows, New York Magazine blogger Dan Kois, expressed surprise that famously lowest common denominator-mad Defamer publisher Nick Denton would consider deeper content as a viable traffic raising solution. But as Stu pointed out, the site already has the celeb sex tape beat covered by other writers. With that steady stream of traffic taken care of, Defamer can afford to take a risk on someone like Stu, presumably in the hopes of attracting a wider audience. Over and over again, these discussions came back to compromise. Tom Kalin needed to cast an actress of Julianne Moore’s caliber in order to get funding for his incest-infused true crime movie Savage Grace; Julianne Moore can only make Savage Grace because she pays both her own mortgage and rent on her stardom/bankability by making movies like Next. Filmmakers care primarily about their movies seeing theatrical release, but as Ryan Werner pointed out, VOD is a new revenue stream that can not only support the cost of a theatrical release, but it supports long-term word of mouth for all ancillaries. Seitz even talked about bargaining with an editor at the Newark Star-Ledger: he’d get to do an interview he really wanted to do, if he interviewed Jerry Springer as well. In my first post about attending the Institute, I mentioned something about how I was heading to Queens to confront an existential void. I can’t say that the future looks appreciably less murky just yet, although maybe it will when it dust settles a bit. At least I know I have one thing to look forward to: a never-ending series of deals with devils. Maybe it’s not “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”; maybe it’s more like “if you let me scratch your eyes out, I’ll make it worth your while.” Does it matter, as long as the rent gets paid? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:00:50 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/16/2008 7:00:50 PMOver our five days at the Institute, we kept returning to serious of binary oppositions: print versus online; doing it for the passion versus doing it for the pay; criticism as consumer reporting versus advocacy for artists. With such circular questions, it’s hard to get anywhere, making it easy to lapse into what filmmaker Kelly Reichardt jokingly referred to at one point as “glass half full of shit” thinking. But out of the morass of questions and unresolvable clashes came an emphasis on compromise and balance: nearly every guest speaker made some mention of making trade offs, of covering for noble failures with less-noble successes. This seemed most prevalent on Saturday, with Reichardt and Tom Kalin’s independent filmmaker panel; Ryan Werner of IFC and Don Krim from KINO representing indie distribution; and, particularly, the online film criticism panel, featuring Eugene Hernandez (indieWIRE), Michael Koresky (Reverse Shot), Matt Zoller Seitz (The House Next Door and The New York Times) and Stu Van Airsdale (The Reeler and Defamer). The issue of blogs as an alternative/corrective to the mainstream media came up early in the day, with Seitz’s explanation for how The House Next Door got started. “I was really irritated by the negative reviews of Terrence Malick’s The New World,” he said, “And I just wanted to write about how great it was like every day.” Though Matt experimented with Google and Amazon’s ad programs, both “were just a pain in the ass to maintain,” and The House Next Door evolved into a not-for-profit clearinghouse for mostly-serious material that an interested community of professional and amateur writers wouldn’t be able to publish elsewhere. It’s an employed film critic’s outlet for non-commercial writing, but it’s also an effort to create a greater balance in the types of voices that get to weigh in on film culture. But to established print critics who whisper to him in confidence that they’d love to have an outlet to write the kind of stuff that appears daily, for no compensation, on The House Next Door, Seitz has no sympathy. “Where do you get off with your sense of superiority, Print, if you constrain your writers in a way that [blogs] don’t?” Seitz says what’s happening online is not in opposition to journalism––it’s returning journalism to what it should be. “Blogs have returned human communication to its natural state,” he said. “Journalism has been a white collar profession for about 20 years now, and it didn’t used to be…a lot of the defense that critics feel has to do with impoliteness.” Of course, in a session just the day before, the lead critic of the New York Times had all but loosened his tie in discomfort at the very mention of the blogosphere, with the stated problem being comment section vitriol. Seitz referred to this factor as “Assholism,” in regards to which he shrugged, “There are certain people who only exist to show up on websites in order to tell you what an idiot you are.” He compared the blog space to high school debate: even though arguments get vicious, “there are rules, and you don’t take it personally.” Newly-minted Defamer Stu VanAirsdale, who usually keeps at least part of a foot in the mainstream print world, concurred. “Blogs are famously kind of a caustic environment. I’m honest, maybe to a fault, but if something’s bullshit, I’m going to say it’s bullshit. That doesn’t mean I’m right, it just means I have an opinion. The print loyalty is absolutely afraid of that dialogue, and they can’t conceive of a world where they’d have to defend themselves.” Stu noted that he had been hired to inject a sense of film culture into Defamer, a site maybe best known for posting images of Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah’s couch, captured by former editor Mark Lisanti with cellphone cam pointed at his TV. Such successes for the site have apparently been few and far between of late, and with Defamer traffic down over the past twelve months, Stu noted that his talents were seen as desirable because they could potentially attract a new audience. One of my fellow Institute fellows, New York Magazine blogger Dan Kois, expressed surprise that famously lowest common denominator-mad Defamer publisher Nick Denton would consider deeper content as a viable traffic raising solution. But as Stu pointed out, the site already has the celeb sex tape beat covered by other writers. With that steady stream of traffic taken care of, Defamer can afford to take a risk on someone like Stu, presumably in the hopes of attracting a wider audience. Over and over again, these discussions came back to compromise. Tom Kalin needed to cast an actress of Julianne Moore’s caliber in order to get funding for his incest-infused true crime movie Savage Grace; Julianne Moore can only make Savage Grace because she pays both her own mortgage and rent on her stardom/bankability by making movies like Next. Filmmakers care primarily about their movies seeing theatrical release, but as Ryan Werner pointed out, VOD is a new revenue stream that can not only support the cost of a theatrical release, but it supports long-term word of mouth for all ancillaries. Seitz even talked about bargaining with an editor at the Newark Star-Ledger: he’d get to do an interview he really wanted to do, if he interviewed Jerry Springer as well. In my first post about attending the Institute, I mentioned something about how I was heading to Queens to confront an existential void. I can’t say that the future looks appreciably less murky just yet, although maybe it will when it dust settles a bit. At least I know I have one thing to look forward to: a never-ending series of deals with devils. Maybe it’s not “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”; maybe it’s more like “if you let me scratch your eyes out, I’ll make it worth your while.” Does it matter, as long as the rent gets paid? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/pratchettfan/archive/2008/1/29/24485.aspx Post By: pratchettfan
Post To: pratchettfan Blog
Post Date: 1/29/2008 6:03:08 AM
Body: What would you do with the ability to see two minutes into the future? This interesting question is the premise of the movie Next starring Nicolas Cage.For most of his life Chris Johnson (Cage) was hiding in play sight with a small magic act in Las Vegas. He used his gift to survive and earn some money on the gambling table. But then suddenly 8 million people are in danger and the FBI is after him to use his unique ability...The movie is great entertainment and there are many amusing scenes, especially in the first half. In the second part the plot begins to tighten and suspense kicks in. There are some extremely cool pursuits both with cars and on foot. Even if the end disappoints a bit, I'm quite sure that Philip K. Dick's story (on which the movie is based) finished a couple of minutes earlier, it was time well spent :)
]]>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:03:08 GMTpratchettfanpratchettfan Blog1/29/2008 6:03:08 AMWhat would you do with the ability to see two minutes into the future? This interesting question is the premise of the movie Next starring Nicolas Cage.For most of his life Chris Johnson (Cage) was hiding in play sight with a small magic act in Las Vegas. He used his gift to survive and earn some money on the gambling table. But then suddenly 8 million people are in danger and the FBI is after him to use his unique ability...The movie is great entertainment and there are many amusing scenes, especially in the first half. In the second part the plot begins to tighten and suspense kicks in. There are some extremely cool pursuits both with cars and on foot. Even if the end disappoints a bit, I&#39;m quite sure that Philip K. Dick&#39;s story (on which the movie is based) finished a couple of minutes earlier, it was time well spent :) http://www.spout.com/blogs/jouni/archive/2007/9/14/19782.aspx Post By: jouni
Post To: jouni Blog
Post Date: 9/14/2007 3:44:51 PM
Body: I'm a fan of Philip K. Dick, science fiction and also Nicholas Cage. Of course I liked the movie. Besides it was a good one!Compared to others, for example Deja Vu, this was more fun, more real, more plausible, more thrilling and more enjoyable. There was some things that disturbed a bit: magic tricks and why didn't he do those when in need, those looks at camera etc. Minor issues, but could have been clearer before filming. Nevertheless a movie worth watching a second time.
]]>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:44:51 GMTjounijouni Blog9/14/2007 3:44:51 PMI&#39;m a fan of Philip K. Dick, science fiction and also Nicholas Cage. Of course I liked the movie. Besides it was a good one!Compared to others, for example Deja Vu, this was more fun, more real, more plausible, more thrilling and more enjoyable. There was some things that disturbed a bit: magic tricks and why didn&#39;t he do those when in need, those looks at camera etc. Minor issues, but could have been clearer before filming. Nevertheless a movie worth watching a second time. http://www.spout.com/blogs/mson/archive/2007/5/18/8992.aspx Post By: mson
Post To: mson Blog
Post Date: 5/18/2007 3:37:49 PM
Body: This movie had a great premise and for the most part did a good job of playing with that premise. However, the dialog in this movie was TERRIBLE. No, wait it was beyond terrible. How did Julianne Moore let herself get cast for this movie? She can’t need the money, and she had the worst lines by far. I think the screenwriter wanted someone like Pam Anderson then something crazy happened and Julianne Moore took the role. I’ve read other reviews praising the ending but to me it seemed lazy. It’s almost like they had a bunch of good ideas then suddenly ran out and had to end the movie. The action sequences were pretty good and I like Nick Cage but I cannot recommend this movie.
]]>Fri, 18 May 2007 19:37:49 GMTmsonmson Blog5/18/2007 3:37:49 PMThis movie had a great premise and for the most part did a good job of playing with that premise. However, the dialog in this movie was TERRIBLE. No, wait it was beyond terrible. How did Julianne Moore let herself get cast for this movie? She can&rsquo;t need the money, and she had the worst lines by far. I think the screenwriter wanted someone like Pam Anderson then something crazy happened and Julianne Moore took the role. I&rsquo;ve read other reviews praising the ending but to me it seemed lazy. It&rsquo;s almost like they had a bunch of good ideas then suddenly ran out and had to end the movie. The action sequences were pretty good and I like Nick Cage but I cannot recommend this movie. http://www.spout.com/blogs/missgeorge2000/archive/2007/4/29/7809.aspx Post By: missgeorge2000
Post To: missgeorge2000 Blog
Post Date: 4/29/2007 12:50:52 AM
Body: this movie was very drawn out and kind of long.
]]>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 04:50:52 GMTmissgeorge2000missgeorge2000 Blog4/29/2007 12:50:52 AMthis movie was very drawn out and kind of long. http://www.spout.com/blogs/ben_/archive/2007/4/28/7769.aspx Post By: ben_
Post To: ben_ Blog
Post Date: 4/28/2007 2:39:30 PM
Body: i see movies purely for the entertainment value - and if i see a boom or a little mistake here and there (actually i dont always see them) it's not a big deal if i enjoyed the movie - Next was a spur of the moment choice and though i enjoyed the story well enough, it was difficult to overlook the fact that some of the acting seemed kind of stilted - to the point that it felt like julianne moore was having a time of it keeping the scene together. cage did well enough, as did jessica biel... no spoilers but it seemed like the script wasn't quite ready for screen.
]]>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:39:30 GMTben_ben_ Blog4/28/2007 2:39:30 PMi see movies purely for the entertainment value - and if i see a boom or a little mistake here and there (actually i dont always see them) it&#39;s not a big deal if i enjoyed the movie - Next was a spur of the moment choice and though i enjoyed the story well enough, it was difficult to overlook the fact that some of the acting seemed kind of stilted - to the point that it felt like julianne moore was having a time of it keeping the scene together. cage did well enough, as did jessica biel... no spoilers but it seemed like the script wasn&#39;t quite ready for screen. http://www.spout.com/blogs/sydneylnx/archive/2007/4/27/7737.aspx Post By: sydneylnx
Post To: sydneylnx Blog
Post Date: 4/27/2007 7:18:00 PM
]]>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:18:00 GMTsydneylnxsydneylnx Blog4/27/2007 7:18:00 PM http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7161

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1003

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT71611691003Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2414

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 548

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:42 GMT2414126548Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 318

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 459

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:48:03 GMT318111459Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 492

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 258

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMT492101258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/book/MemberTagFilms.aspxbook
Number of films tagged: 683

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 114

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:55:43 GMT68345114Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gambling/MemberTagFilms.aspxgambling
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 81

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:03:25 GMT10823881Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ridiculous/MemberTagFilms.aspxridiculous
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 29

]]>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:30:57 GMT272229Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fbi/MemberTagFilms.aspxfbi
Number of films tagged: 49

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 54

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:51:04 GMT492054Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/short/MemberTagFilms.aspxshort
Number of films tagged: 36

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 37

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:51:17 GMT362037Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/psychic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpsychic
Number of films tagged: 276

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 23

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:34 GMT2761523Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/contrived/MemberTagFilms.aspxcontrived
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 17

]]>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:29:26 GMT161117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/magician/MemberTagFilms.aspxmagician
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 17

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:44:54 GMT141117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/las-vegas/MemberTagFilms.aspxlas-vegas
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 20

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:33:19 GMT131020Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/los-angeles/MemberTagFilms.aspxlos-angeles
Number of films tagged: 45

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 46

]]>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:37:11 GMT451046Tag