list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Raiders of the Lost Ark 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/Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark/28020/default.aspx Title: Raiders of the Lost Ark
Year: 1981
Director: Steven Spielberg
Plot: Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is no ordinary archeologist. When we first see him, he is somewhere in the Peruvian jungle in 1936, running a booby-trapped gauntlet (complete with an over-sized rolling boulder) to fetch a solid-gold idol. He loses this artifact to his chief rival, a French archeologist named Belloq (Paul Freeman), who then prepares to kill our hero. In the first of many serial-like escapes, Indy eludes Belloq by hopping into a convenient plane. So, then: is Indiana Jones afraid of anything? Yes, snakes. The next time we see Jones, he's a soft-spoken, bespectacled professor. He is then summoned from his ivy-covered environs by Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott) to find the long-lost Ark of the Covenant. The Nazis, it seems, are already searching for the Ark, which the mystical-minded Hitler hopes to use to make his stormtroopers invincible. But to find the Ark, Indy must first secure a medallion kept under the protection of Indy's old friend Abner Ravenwood, whose daughter, Marion (Karen Allen), evidently has a "history" with Jones. Whatever their personal differences, Indy and Marion become partners in one action-packed adventure after another, ranging from wandering the snake pits of the Well of Souls to surviving the pyrotechnic unearthing of the sacred Ark. A joint project of Hollywood prodigies George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, with a script co-written by Lawrence Kasdan and Philip Kaufman, among others, Raiders of the Lost Ark is not so much a movie as a 115-minute thrill ride. Costing 22 million dollars (nearly three times the original estimate), Raiders of the Lost Ark reaped 200 million dollars during its first run. It was followed by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1985) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989), as well as a short-lived TV-series "prequel." ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 98
Number of Lists: 149
Number of blog posts: 26
Number of discussion threads: 11
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:35:20 GMTRaiders of the Lost Ark1981Steven SpielbergIndiana Jones (<a href="/players/P____24238/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Harrison Ford</a>) is no ordinary archeologist. When we first see him, he is somewhere in the Peruvian jungle in 1936, running a booby-trapped gauntlet (complete with an over-sized rolling boulder) to fetch a solid-gold idol. He loses this artifact to his chief rival, a French archeologist named Belloq (<a href="/players/P____90515/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Paul Freeman</a>), who then prepares to kill our hero. In the first of many serial-like escapes, Indy eludes Belloq by hopping into a convenient plane. So, then: is Indiana Jones afraid of anything? Yes, snakes. The next time we see Jones, he's a soft-spoken, bespectacled professor. He is then summoned from his ivy-covered environs by Marcus Brody (<a href="/players/P____21589/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Denholm Elliott</a>) to find the long-lost Ark of the Covenant. The Nazis, it seems, are already searching for the Ark, which the mystical-minded Hitler hopes to use to make his stormtroopers invincible. But to find the Ark, Indy must first secure a medallion kept under the protection of Indy's old friend Abner Ravenwood, whose daughter, Marion (<a href="/players/P_____1033/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Karen Allen</a>), evidently has a "history" with Jones. Whatever their personal differences, Indy and Marion become partners in one action-packed adventure after another, ranging from wandering the snake pits of the Well of Souls to surviving the pyrotechnic unearthing of the sacred Ark. A joint project of Hollywood prodigies <a href="/players/P___100308/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Lucas</a> and <a href="/players/P___112325/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Steven Spielberg</a>, with a script co-written by <a href="/players/P____96824/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lawrence Kasdan</a> and <a href="/players/P____96903/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Philip Kaufman</a>, among others, Raiders of the Lost Ark is not so much a movie as a 115-minute thrill ride. Costing 22 million dollars (nearly three times the original estimate), Raiders of the Lost Ark reaped 200 million dollars during its first run. It was followed by <a href=/films/17013/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom</a> (1985) and <a href=/films/17012/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade</a> (1989), as well as a short-lived TV-series "prequel." ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide98Tag Target (>10)14926114http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/v716211lomd.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark/28020/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2009/8/21/43673.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 8/21/2009 12:38:37 PM
Body: What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Raiders of the Lost Ark is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#60)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#10)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Indiana Jones is the #2 hero)The Revised Top 100 (#66) Ah...Raiders of the Lost Ark. This is probably going to be another wholly biased review because, frankly, I have seen this movie almost as much as Star Wars or the Wizard of Oz and practically know it by heart. Raiders of the Lost Ark is, hands-down, the best entry in the Indiana Jones series. It remains exciting and fun to watch even though I have seen it enough to recite lines along with the film. It completely deserves its AFI rankings (though I might have rated it a bit higher on the 100 Greatest lists). Plus, it's just one of those films that most people know and love, and that kind of popularity should be worth something. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is an archaeologist, but not just any archaeologist. When he is not hazarding South American jungles and perilous trap-laden caves in search of golden relics that seem to be subsequently stolen by his arch rival, a Frenchman named Rene Belloq (Paul Freeman), he is playing professor of archaeology courses seemingly teeming with admiring women. His finds are sold to a museum helmed by Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), who on Indy's most recent return from Peru, invites him to speak to two representatives of the United States government. These representatives tell Indiana that the Nazis are in search of the legendary Ark of the Covenant, the vessel by which the tablets of the Ten Commandments were carried from Mount Sinai to wherever the Ark rested after its migration, which is one of those mysteries and legends about which self-respecting archaeologists vehemently ponder. Indy figures out that the Nazis aim to use the rumored powers of the Ark, which may invoke the wrath of God, to lay waste to their enemies, and the G-Men inform him that the Nazis have been searching for the long-lost city of Tanis, rumored to be outside of Cairo in Egypt. The only problem is, they lack one key relic, which the G-Men believe to be in the hands of Indy's former mentor, Abner Ravenwood, and his daughter Marion (Karen Allen), with whom Indy has had a mysterious and seemingly tempestuous history. Indy, on condition that the Ark be donated to Marcus' museum, agrees to seek out the Ravenwoods and, ultimately, the Lost Ark itself, never expecting what he encounters in this adventure. Fortunately, Indy seems to have no fears - well, except one. He famously hates snakes, which unfortunately seem to haunt him wherever he goes. Much has been written about the conception and execution of the Indiana Jones films. Created by producer George Lucas as a testament to the old radio serials of the 30s and 40s, he was able to recruit Steven Spielberg to direct and Lawrence Kasdan and Philip Kaufman to pen the screenplay. Add to that an iconic score from John Williams and acting ingredients including the likes of Ford, Allen, John Rhys-Davies as Sallah, and other gruesome and interesting characters, and you basically have something close to the perfect action-adventure movie. Frankly, that is really what Raiders of the Lost Ark is. It deserves its props from the AFI because it is such a fun film that, for me, has never become old. When I was younger, I had nightmares after I observed the Ark lay waste to the bodies of Nazi soliders, but even today, my heart pounds ever so slightly each time I watch Indiana sneak into the map room, or watch the Ark being lifted from its hiding place lit by its golden adornments, or see the Nazis and Belloq take it to the island to test its powers. It's super fun to watch Indy singlehandedly take back the truck carrying the Ark while simultaneously besting about 20 Nazi soldiers. Plus, Harrison Ford was - and is - such a handsome man, especially back in the day, All I'm saying is that he can be my hero any day, mmk? More to the point, though, Lucas, Spielberg, et al created a rare vehicle - a movie that is never boring no matter how many times one views it, with some truly artistic touches (the opening wipe from the Paramount logo to the similar-looking Peruvian mountain is a stroke of genius), and some truly advanced special effects for 1981. Ford and Allen have perfect chemistry - she was the only girl for Indiana all along and should have been in every film. Hearkening back to a specific time period and drawing upon resources from that period - in particular, employing the Nazis as the primary villain of the piece - makes the story circumstances that much more thrilling. The story itself is a gem, perfect in its execution. Most of all, though, the movie is fun. It's absolutely fun and entertaining, and sometimes, that's all a film needs to be. I love this film, really, and am surprised when people do not seem to share my love for it. I have considered whether or not the film has any flaws - I mean, I suppose the faces of the melting Nazis look just a little fake in retrospect, and there are some lilting pacing issues in the middle of the film, when Indy is trying to steal back the Ark, but really, these issues are small, miniscule, even trivial really. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a great movie, though, and on the patented ratings scale, I see it warranting a 9.5 for being between perfectly entertaining and a masterpiece, because it's close (so close) to being another triumph of Spielberg's. I also see it passing the test, since I've owned the original Indy trilogy since its previous release on DVD. If you haven't seen this film, hie thee unto a local rental store or to your Netflix queue and sign up. You won't be disappointed - it's popcorn flick goodness in addition to a riproaring good time.
]]>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:38:37 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts8/21/2009 12:38:37 PM What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Raiders of the Lost Ark is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#60)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#10)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Indiana Jones is the #2 hero)The Revised Top 100 (#66) Ah...Raiders of the Lost Ark. This is probably going to be another wholly biased review because, frankly, I have seen this movie almost as much as Star Wars or the Wizard of Oz and practically know it by heart. Raiders of the Lost Ark is, hands-down, the best entry in the Indiana Jones series. It remains exciting and fun to watch even though I have seen it enough to recite lines along with the film. It completely deserves its AFI rankings (though I might have rated it a bit higher on the 100 Greatest lists). Plus, it's just one of those films that most people know and love, and that kind of popularity should be worth something. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is an archaeologist, but not just any archaeologist. When he is not hazarding South American jungles and perilous trap-laden caves in search of golden relics that seem to be subsequently stolen by his arch rival, a Frenchman named Rene Belloq (Paul Freeman), he is playing professor of archaeology courses seemingly teeming with admiring women. His finds are sold to a museum helmed by Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), who on Indy's most recent return from Peru, invites him to speak to two representatives of the United States government. These representatives tell Indiana that the Nazis are in search of the legendary Ark of the Covenant, the vessel by which the tablets of the Ten Commandments were carried from Mount Sinai to wherever the Ark rested after its migration, which is one of those mysteries and legends about which self-respecting archaeologists vehemently ponder. Indy figures out that the Nazis aim to use the rumored powers of the Ark, which may invoke the wrath of God, to lay waste to their enemies, and the G-Men inform him that the Nazis have been searching for the long-lost city of Tanis, rumored to be outside of Cairo in Egypt. The only problem is, they lack one key relic, which the G-Men believe to be in the hands of Indy's former mentor, Abner Ravenwood, and his daughter Marion (Karen Allen), with whom Indy has had a mysterious and seemingly tempestuous history. Indy, on condition that the Ark be donated to Marcus' museum, agrees to seek out the Ravenwoods and, ultimately, the Lost Ark itself, never expecting what he encounters in this adventure. Fortunately, Indy seems to have no fears - well, except one. He famously hates snakes, which unfortunately seem to haunt him wherever he goes. Much has been written about the conception and execution of the Indiana Jones films. Created by producer George Lucas as a testament to the old radio serials of the 30s and 40s, he was able to recruit Steven Spielberg to direct and Lawrence Kasdan and Philip Kaufman to pen the screenplay. Add to that an iconic score from John Williams and acting ingredients including the likes of Ford, Allen, John Rhys-Davies as Sallah, and other gruesome and interesting characters, and you basically have something close to the perfect action-adventure movie. Frankly, that is really what Raiders of the Lost Ark is. It deserves its props from the AFI because it is such a fun film that, for me, has never become old. When I was younger, I had nightmares after I observed the Ark lay waste to the bodies of Nazi soliders, but even today, my heart pounds ever so slightly each time I watch Indiana sneak into the map room, or watch the Ark being lifted from its hiding place lit by its golden adornments, or see the Nazis and Belloq take it to the island to test its powers. It's super fun to watch Indy singlehandedly take back the truck carrying the Ark while simultaneously besting about 20 Nazi soldiers. Plus, Harrison Ford was - and is - such a handsome man, especially back in the day, All I'm saying is that he can be my hero any day, mmk? More to the point, though, Lucas, Spielberg, et al created a rare vehicle - a movie that is never boring no matter how many times one views it, with some truly artistic touches (the opening wipe from the Paramount logo to the similar-looking Peruvian mountain is a stroke of genius), and some truly advanced special effects for 1981. Ford and Allen have perfect chemistry - she was the only girl for Indiana all along and should have been in every film. Hearkening back to a specific time period and drawing upon resources from that period - in particular, employing the Nazis as the primary villain of the piece - makes the story circumstances that much more thrilling. The story itself is a gem, perfect in its execution. Most of all, though, the movie is fun. It's absolutely fun and entertaining, and sometimes, that's all a film needs to be. I love this film, really, and am surprised when people do not seem to share my love for it. I have considered whether or not the film has any flaws - I mean, I suppose the faces of the melting Nazis look just a little fake in retrospect, and there are some lilting pacing issues in the middle of the film, when Indy is trying to steal back the Ark, but really, these issues are small, miniscule, even trivial really. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a great movie, though, and on the patented ratings scale, I see it warranting a 9.5 for being between perfectly entertaining and a masterpiece, because it's close (so close) to being another triumph of Spielberg's. I also see it passing the test, since I've owned the original Indy trilogy since its previous release on DVD. If you haven't seen this film, hie thee unto a local rental store or to your Netflix queue and sign up. You won't be disappointed - it's popcorn flick goodness in addition to a riproaring good time. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/26/41266.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/26/2009 10:01:24 AM
Body: Next week, Vin Diesel returns (along with Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez and Jordanna Brewster) to the Fast and the Furious franchise, which he’d abandoned after the first movie (he did have a cameo in part 3). When news first hit that he’d be reprising the role of Dominic Toretto for the fourth installment, simply titled Fast & Furious, most of us saw the actor as returning under a veil of shame. Because he initially departed the series with an inflated ego — and with it unrealistic salary demands — it does seem obvious that Diesel is now only desperately crawling back because his career failed to take off the way he’d hoped it would. This is quite sad considering not even Steve Guttenberg ever crawled back to the Police Academy movies, nor did Burt Reynolds ever get dragged back for a fourth Smokey and the Bandit. But there have been other shameful returns by stars to franchises they’d previously sat out of (whether the hiatus was of their own choosing or not). Only one of these may have been as desperate as Diesel now appears, but it’s worth looking at four additional actors and actresses who should be very embarrassed of their delayed reprisals. Karen Allen Returned to: Indiana Jones franchise with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Karen Allen’s absence from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade after playing the female lead in Raiders of the Lost Ark was not because she believed herself above those sequels. Her character, Marion Ravenwood, simply wasn’t written into them. And her return to the series was surely not because her career needed a boost. Her relative disappearance from films after 1990 was actually for personal reasons (she wanted to devote time to raising her son), not necessarily because she could no longer garner significant roles. So why is she on this list? Because even though it must have been quite tempting to again work with Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford, especially in a role that is beloved by fans, she should have had a little more reserve, because she ended up looking like an easily employed, easily exploited actress. At least she didn’t have to swing through trees, and at least she didn’t receive the brunt of criticism with the film, but the latter fortune is also mostly because she’s given so little to do in the movie. Her participation in the film is largely forgettable, yet her association with the film is not. Instead of bothering with this very disappointing sequel, Allen should have held out for the more necessary Starman follow-up (continuing from where the TV series left off, of course). Sean Connery Returned to: James Bond franchise with Never Say Never Again (1983) Officially, it wasn’t exactly the James Bond franchise, because Never Say Never Again wasn’t made by EON Productions, though this clarification makes Sean Connery’s return to the role of 007 even more shameful. After Diamonds Are Forever, which had already marked his first delayed return as Bond (after the quick interruption of George Lazenby in the part with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service), the actor claimed he’d never return to the role he’d originated onscreen (this led to the film’s title), but obviously he was offered enough money to not only reprise the character but also to slap EON’s Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman in the face by agreeing to appear in an unofficial installment initially meant to directly compete head to head with EON’s own Octopussy, which starred Roger Moore as Bond. In agreeing to the film, Connery cemented his reputation for questionable career choices, most clearly influenced by big paychecks. Though he’d previously been enticed by huge offers, including the astonishing $2 million he demanded to come back to Bond for Diamonds, this time he showed a great lack of concern for fans of the Bond franchise through his apparent greediness. Given his love for big money, it’s surprising that he never sold himself out of retirement for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Maybe his asking price has just gotten so out of hand that even Lucas and Spielberg couldn’t afford him. Lorraine Gary Returned to: Jaws franchise with Jaws: The Revenge (1987) She hadn’t been onscreen in eight years, but Lorraine Gary’s absence from films following her appearance in Spielberg’s 1941 was reportedly her choice. Certainly with a husband as powerful as Sid Sheinberg (President of MCA, Inc. for more than 30 years), she didn’t really need to work, and yet for some odd reason she came out of retirement to reprise her role as Ellen Brody for the dreadful fourth installment of Jaws. According to a press release for the movie, Gary claims she was drawn to the script because of how well it explored her character, which deserved more development than Jaws and Jaws II had allowed for. Gary has also admitted that she was partly lured back with the appeal of playing opposite Michael Caine, romantically. But again, with a husband as powerful as Sheinberg, she probably could have been given a better film with which to come back and with which to make out with Caine. Now, she’s unfortunately more memorable for having starred in Jaws: The Revenge than for originating the role in the first film. Gene Hackman Returned to: Superman franchise with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) Somewhat like Connery (his A Bridge Too Far costar), Gene Hackman ended up returning to a character thanks to a change in producers. He abandoned the Superman franchise after the first film — though he’d shot some scenes for Superman II, so he does appear in the sequel — because Alexander and Ilya Salkind fired Richard Donner as the director of the second installment. So, when new producers Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus took over the series, Hackman was fine with reprising his portrayal of Lex Luthor. Surely there was a big paycheck involved in addition to the appeal of new management, but with an ultimate budget of only $17 million (slashed from the planned $40 million), he couldn’t have gotten away with much. At least Christopher Reeve, in his deal to return to the series, was given the opportunity to star in a pet project, Street Smart. All Hackman ended up with was an embarrassing addition to his resume, one that displayed a lack of concern for Superman fans and a disappointing preference for pay over prestige. Peter Sellers Returned to: Pink Panther franchise with The Return of the Pink Panther (1975) Following The Pink Panther and its sequel, A Shot in the Dark, Peter Sellers declined to return to the series, and Alan Arkin took over the role for part 3, Inspector Clouseau. It made sense at the time, as Sellers was still doing quite well through the late 1960s. But after a number of flops in the early ‘70s, Sellers was wooed back to the franchise, obviously with the promise of a lot of money. And another two installments came about with reportedly increased paychecks. In fact, he was set to play Inspector Clouseau in another installment (the series’ seventh, his sixth), but he died before it went into production. Fortunately for his legacy, he also made the wonderful Being There before his death, so he didn’t go out completely on a desperation downturn. Like Sellers’ last few Pink Panther movies, the new Fast and the Furious installment will be a huge hit, but there is a cost of reputation and an increase of shame that comes with the returned wealth and popularity. Then again, Diesel probably isn’t sinking any lower than he did for The Pacifier, right? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:01:24 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/26/2009 10:01:24 AMNext week, Vin Diesel returns (along with Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez and Jordanna Brewster) to the Fast and the Furious franchise, which he’d abandoned after the first movie (he did have a cameo in part 3). When news first hit that he’d be reprising the role of Dominic Toretto for the fourth installment, simply titled Fast & Furious, most of us saw the actor as returning under a veil of shame. Because he initially departed the series with an inflated ego — and with it unrealistic salary demands — it does seem obvious that Diesel is now only desperately crawling back because his career failed to take off the way he’d hoped it would. This is quite sad considering not even Steve Guttenberg ever crawled back to the Police Academy movies, nor did Burt Reynolds ever get dragged back for a fourth Smokey and the Bandit. But there have been other shameful returns by stars to franchises they’d previously sat out of (whether the hiatus was of their own choosing or not). Only one of these may have been as desperate as Diesel now appears, but it’s worth looking at four additional actors and actresses who should be very embarrassed of their delayed reprisals. Karen Allen Returned to: Indiana Jones franchise with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Karen Allen’s absence from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade after playing the female lead in Raiders of the Lost Ark was not because she believed herself above those sequels. Her character, Marion Ravenwood, simply wasn’t written into them. And her return to the series was surely not because her career needed a boost. Her relative disappearance from films after 1990 was actually for personal reasons (she wanted to devote time to raising her son), not necessarily because she could no longer garner significant roles. So why is she on this list? Because even though it must have been quite tempting to again work with Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford, especially in a role that is beloved by fans, she should have had a little more reserve, because she ended up looking like an easily employed, easily exploited actress. At least she didn’t have to swing through trees, and at least she didn’t receive the brunt of criticism with the film, but the latter fortune is also mostly because she’s given so little to do in the movie. Her participation in the film is largely forgettable, yet her association with the film is not. Instead of bothering with this very disappointing sequel, Allen should have held out for the more necessary Starman follow-up (continuing from where the TV series left off, of course). Sean Connery Returned to: James Bond franchise with Never Say Never Again (1983) Officially, it wasn’t exactly the James Bond franchise, because Never Say Never Again wasn’t made by EON Productions, though this clarification makes Sean Connery’s return to the role of 007 even more shameful. After Diamonds Are Forever, which had already marked his first delayed return as Bond (after the quick interruption of George Lazenby in the part with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service), the actor claimed he’d never return to the role he’d originated onscreen (this led to the film’s title), but obviously he was offered enough money to not only reprise the character but also to slap EON’s Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman in the face by agreeing to appear in an unofficial installment initially meant to directly compete head to head with EON’s own Octopussy, which starred Roger Moore as Bond. In agreeing to the film, Connery cemented his reputation for questionable career choices, most clearly influenced by big paychecks. Though he’d previously been enticed by huge offers, including the astonishing $2 million he demanded to come back to Bond for Diamonds, this time he showed a great lack of concern for fans of the Bond franchise through his apparent greediness. Given his love for big money, it’s surprising that he never sold himself out of retirement for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Maybe his asking price has just gotten so out of hand that even Lucas and Spielberg couldn’t afford him. Lorraine Gary Returned to: Jaws franchise with Jaws: The Revenge (1987) She hadn’t been onscreen in eight years, but Lorraine Gary’s absence from films following her appearance in Spielberg’s 1941 was reportedly her choice. Certainly with a husband as powerful as Sid Sheinberg (President of MCA, Inc. for more than 30 years), she didn’t really need to work, and yet for some odd reason she came out of retirement to reprise her role as Ellen Brody for the dreadful fourth installment of Jaws. According to a press release for the movie, Gary claims she was drawn to the script because of how well it explored her character, which deserved more development than Jaws and Jaws II had allowed for. Gary has also admitted that she was partly lured back with the appeal of playing opposite Michael Caine, romantically. But again, with a husband as powerful as Sheinberg, she probably could have been given a better film with which to come back and with which to make out with Caine. Now, she’s unfortunately more memorable for having starred in Jaws: The Revenge than for originating the role in the first film. Gene Hackman Returned to: Superman franchise with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) Somewhat like Connery (his A Bridge Too Far costar), Gene Hackman ended up returning to a character thanks to a change in producers. He abandoned the Superman franchise after the first film — though he’d shot some scenes for Superman II, so he does appear in the sequel — because Alexander and Ilya Salkind fired Richard Donner as the director of the second installment. So, when new producers Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus took over the series, Hackman was fine with reprising his portrayal of Lex Luthor. Surely there was a big paycheck involved in addition to the appeal of new management, but with an ultimate budget of only $17 million (slashed from the planned $40 million), he couldn’t have gotten away with much. At least Christopher Reeve, in his deal to return to the series, was given the opportunity to star in a pet project, Street Smart. All Hackman ended up with was an embarrassing addition to his resume, one that displayed a lack of concern for Superman fans and a disappointing preference for pay over prestige. Peter Sellers Returned to: Pink Panther franchise with The Return of the Pink Panther (1975) Following The Pink Panther and its sequel, A Shot in the Dark, Peter Sellers declined to return to the series, and Alan Arkin took over the role for part 3, Inspector Clouseau. It made sense at the time, as Sellers was still doing quite well through the late 1960s. But after a number of flops in the early ‘70s, Sellers was wooed back to the franchise, obviously with the promise of a lot of money. And another two installments came about with reportedly increased paychecks. In fact, he was set to play Inspector Clouseau in another installment (the series’ seventh, his sixth), but he died before it went into production. Fortunately for his legacy, he also made the wonderful Being There before his death, so he didn’t go out completely on a desperation downturn. Like Sellers’ last few Pink Panther movies, the new Fast and the Furious installment will be a huge hit, but there is a cost of reputation and an increase of shame that comes with the returned wealth and popularity. Then again, Diesel probably isn’t sinking any lower than he did for The Pacifier, right? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/11/38235.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/11/2008 11:01:42 AM
Body: The fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/11/2008 11:01:42 AMThe fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/28/36732.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/28/2008 12:01:16 PM
Body: It seems the Scandinavians know something we don’t: the Nazis are coming back. There are a slew of delicious looking indie features coming out of Northern Europe, three of which share a common antagonist: Nazis. Why this sudden interest in a decades-old threat? What is it about the present day that makes fascism even scarier than usual? Iron Sky, a Finnish film about Nazis escaping to the moon at the end of WWII and returning to destroy Earth in 2018, is currently in pre-production. The filmmakers did a terrific job promoting their last film, Star Wreck, online. For Iron Sky, they are involving fans in every step of the process, including funding. They’ve already produced a killer trailer (see above). The English subtitled version of the trailer for Dead Snow hit the web last week (via Twitch). The film, produced in Norway, follows a group of young people in a secluded cabin, fighting for survival against a horde of zombie Nazis. It looks like classic horror based on a fresh and funny premise. But why Nazis and why now? The third film that comes to mind when thinking about this trend is not a genre film like the other two, but a WWII period piece. Flame & Citron, a Danish film about the true story of resistance fighters in Copenhagen, is a superb blend of action, espionage, and high drama. Nazis have been villains in movies for as long as they’ve been around. In many ways they’re the perfect adversaries. They’ve driven, methodical, and ruthlessly evil. Indiana Jones, The Rocketeer, and Hellboy, among many others, have had success inserting Nazis into fantasy. In the case of these movies, as well as Iron Sky and Dead Snow, the Nazi threat is amped up by a fantastic trump card, a hidden ace that would let the fascists overturn the precarious balance of power. It could be a jet pack, the Ark of the Covenant, a secret moon base, or hunger for brains long after death. So in one sense, the move toward more Nazi villains is obvious: they are scary and evil. But I think there is more to it. This is somewhat speculative, but there is a sense of dread and paranoia that is very palpable, especially in Flame & Citron, which seems more relevant now than ever before. I normally devote this weekly column to post-apocalyptic or dystopian futures, but talking about Flame & Citron seems appropriate here. Although it is set in WWII, it is essentially apocalyptic, the characters are struggling to prevent the end of their world. Without the advantage of hindsight there was no light at the end of the tunnel. While the cost of the War on the United States was tremendous, I imagine the impact of the war on nations that were occupied or otherwise strong-armed by the Nazis was even more dreadful. What Flame & Citron reveals is that fascism is such a sneaky enemy because while it seeks to destroy dissenters, it also rewards the party faithful. In other words, every individual has to choose whether to oppose fascism and face certain doom, or tolerate it and try to play it to their advantage. It’s not unreasonable to say that the renewed interest in the threat of fascism, especially from a part of the world like Northern Europe, is directly linked to current global politics. With the proliferation of terrorist watch lists, warrantless wiretapping, and secret prisons, nations and individuals not directly effected by the conflict are forced to choose: remain complicit, or stand up to a threat you may feel powerless to stop. Either way, these are scary times. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:01:16 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/28/2008 12:01:16 PM It seems the Scandinavians know something we don’t: the Nazis are coming back. There are a slew of delicious looking indie features coming out of Northern Europe, three of which share a common antagonist: Nazis. Why this sudden interest in a decades-old threat? What is it about the present day that makes fascism even scarier than usual? Iron Sky, a Finnish film about Nazis escaping to the moon at the end of WWII and returning to destroy Earth in 2018, is currently in pre-production. The filmmakers did a terrific job promoting their last film, Star Wreck, online. For Iron Sky, they are involving fans in every step of the process, including funding. They’ve already produced a killer trailer (see above). The English subtitled version of the trailer for Dead Snow hit the web last week (via Twitch). The film, produced in Norway, follows a group of young people in a secluded cabin, fighting for survival against a horde of zombie Nazis. It looks like classic horror based on a fresh and funny premise. But why Nazis and why now? The third film that comes to mind when thinking about this trend is not a genre film like the other two, but a WWII period piece. Flame & Citron, a Danish film about the true story of resistance fighters in Copenhagen, is a superb blend of action, espionage, and high drama. Nazis have been villains in movies for as long as they’ve been around. In many ways they’re the perfect adversaries. They’ve driven, methodical, and ruthlessly evil. Indiana Jones, The Rocketeer, and Hellboy, among many others, have had success inserting Nazis into fantasy. In the case of these movies, as well as Iron Sky and Dead Snow, the Nazi threat is amped up by a fantastic trump card, a hidden ace that would let the fascists overturn the precarious balance of power. It could be a jet pack, the Ark of the Covenant, a secret moon base, or hunger for brains long after death. So in one sense, the move toward more Nazi villains is obvious: they are scary and evil. But I think there is more to it. This is somewhat speculative, but there is a sense of dread and paranoia that is very palpable, especially in Flame & Citron, which seems more relevant now than ever before. I normally devote this weekly column to post-apocalyptic or dystopian futures, but talking about Flame & Citron seems appropriate here. Although it is set in WWII, it is essentially apocalyptic, the characters are struggling to prevent the end of their world. Without the advantage of hindsight there was no light at the end of the tunnel. While the cost of the War on the United States was tremendous, I imagine the impact of the war on nations that were occupied or otherwise strong-armed by the Nazis was even more dreadful. What Flame & Citron reveals is that fascism is such a sneaky enemy because while it seeks to destroy dissenters, it also rewards the party faithful. In other words, every individual has to choose whether to oppose fascism and face certain doom, or tolerate it and try to play it to their advantage. It’s not unreasonable to say that the renewed interest in the threat of fascism, especially from a part of the world like Northern Europe, is directly linked to current global politics. With the proliferation of terrorist watch lists, warrantless wiretapping, and secret prisons, nations and individuals not directly effected by the conflict are forced to choose: remain complicit, or stand up to a threat you may feel powerless to stop. Either way, these are scary times. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Grew_up_in_the_80_s/Re_First_film_you_remember_seeing_in_the_theatre/38/35201/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Tizzy
Post To: Grew up in the 80's
Post Date: 9/16/2008 2:58:42 PM
Body: In 1980 (I was about 5), I saw Nine to Five in a drive-in. I think that's the first movie I saw in a theater (of sorts). The next one I remember actually going to a theater to see was Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981. I didn't understand Nine to Five at the time, but I was totally excited about Raiders of the Lost Ark!
]]>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:58:42 GMTTizzyGrew up in the 80's9/16/2008 2:58:42 PMIn 1980 (I was about 5), I saw Nine to Five in a drive-in. I think that's the first movie I saw in a theater (of sorts). The next one I remember actually going to a theater to see was Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981. I didn't understand Nine to Five at the time, but I was totally excited about Raiders of the Lost Ark! http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/8/26/34424.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 8/26/2008 10:01:07 PM
Body: In preparation for the fourth movie, and because I got a review copy of the new DVD box-set of the films, I watched all three of the original Indiana Jones movies, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade. Since I watch them on a somewhat regular basis (probably about once a year) these movies have aged with me, meaning my perception of them isn’t so much colored by the years as they develop in a similar way as children. Raiders still winds up being the best of the batch, which Temple of Doom coming off not as bad as conventional wisdom now paints it as being. Crusade, though, is now impossible to watch as anything other than the beginning of the end for George Lucas. There are more outright sight-gags and more moments that he probably giggled over but which didn’t wind up being nearly as funny on-screen as he thought they were going to be. (Basically anything involving Marcus Brody, a character that I actually physically feel bad for since in this movie he’s portrayed as a bumbling dolt compared to the savvy advisor and conscious to Indy’s “jump first” persona.) It’s not that the movie is bad, but there’s clearly a sense that it’s trying to be “funny” and not “entertaining” in the same vein that Raiders was. Still, the chemistry between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery saves the movie and it’s strongest when the two are together on-screen. The Indy film-fest did, overall, create a good base for me to later see the new flick. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was, I’ll admit, a lot of fun to watch though with some obvious problems. Let’s dispense with those problems first: The clumsy way that we’re informed of the death of Henry Jones Sr. and Brody completely takes the viewer out of the movie and really betrays Lucas’ influence on the screenplay. Only he would make the assumption that the audience is so stupid that their passing needs to be laid in this heavy-handed a manner. Cate Blanchett’s accent. Come on. I don’t actually have a problem with the very ending of the flick other than it’s the same finale as X-Files: Fight the Future with the alien space ship rising out of its hiding place and ascending into the beyond. Let’s be honest: The whole red ants thing was a tad ridiculous. This scene, more than anything else in the last decade or so, points to the undeniable fact that CGI will never be as engaging or frightening as practical effects since it’s hard to feel on-edge about something that’s so clearly been computer-designed. So what worked? I actually thought the interactions between Indy and Mutt Williams was both believable and enjoyable. Shia Labouf’s performance isn’t nearly as bad as people have painted it as being, aside from a couple of moments where he’s channeling a character out of an early Roger Corman teen “bras and knives” flick. I’m convinced John Hurt’s performance is based on him not knowing entirely where he was and what movie he was in. It’s so out there that it actually comes full circle into being the most grounded character of the entire movie. Ray Winstone’s character needs to be given his own web-based animated shorts to flesh out his back-story, even if it’s Indy-free stories that we’re given. Winstone is asked to be Convenient Plot Device more than once but he does so will gusto and sells the back-and-forth that his character is required to engage in. Finally, Harrison Ford looks like he *wants* to be there, something that he hasn’t been able to pull off in quite a while. I’m not saying it’s his best turn as Indy but he finally looks like he’s trying to sell the character. The last time I remember seeing him do that is in Clear and Present Danger. He’s obviously just having fun returning to one of the two characters that made him a star and that comes through, even during the movie’s most illogical sequences. Overall, though, this was a fun flick and I think it’s a worthy entry in the Indiana Jones franchise. I’m OK with it being the last Indy flick in much the same way that I was OK with Crusade being the last movie. Let’s now leave them for us to enjoy all four films as a complete set of the archeologist’s adventures (aside from the Young Indy series as well as the various comics incarnations, but you know what I mean). Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:01:07 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog8/26/2008 10:01:07 PMIn preparation for the fourth movie, and because I got a review copy of the new DVD box-set of the films, I watched all three of the original Indiana Jones movies, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade. Since I watch them on a somewhat regular basis (probably about once a year) these movies have aged with me, meaning my perception of them isn’t so much colored by the years as they develop in a similar way as children. Raiders still winds up being the best of the batch, which Temple of Doom coming off not as bad as conventional wisdom now paints it as being. Crusade, though, is now impossible to watch as anything other than the beginning of the end for George Lucas. There are more outright sight-gags and more moments that he probably giggled over but which didn’t wind up being nearly as funny on-screen as he thought they were going to be. (Basically anything involving Marcus Brody, a character that I actually physically feel bad for since in this movie he’s portrayed as a bumbling dolt compared to the savvy advisor and conscious to Indy’s “jump first” persona.) It’s not that the movie is bad, but there’s clearly a sense that it’s trying to be “funny” and not “entertaining” in the same vein that Raiders was. Still, the chemistry between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery saves the movie and it’s strongest when the two are together on-screen. The Indy film-fest did, overall, create a good base for me to later see the new flick. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was, I’ll admit, a lot of fun to watch though with some obvious problems. Let’s dispense with those problems first: The clumsy way that we’re informed of the death of Henry Jones Sr. and Brody completely takes the viewer out of the movie and really betrays Lucas’ influence on the screenplay. Only he would make the assumption that the audience is so stupid that their passing needs to be laid in this heavy-handed a manner. Cate Blanchett’s accent. Come on. I don’t actually have a problem with the very ending of the flick other than it’s the same finale as X-Files: Fight the Future with the alien space ship rising out of its hiding place and ascending into the beyond. Let’s be honest: The whole red ants thing was a tad ridiculous. This scene, more than anything else in the last decade or so, points to the undeniable fact that CGI will never be as engaging or frightening as practical effects since it’s hard to feel on-edge about something that’s so clearly been computer-designed. So what worked? I actually thought the interactions between Indy and Mutt Williams was both believable and enjoyable. Shia Labouf’s performance isn’t nearly as bad as people have painted it as being, aside from a couple of moments where he’s channeling a character out of an early Roger Corman teen “bras and knives” flick. I’m convinced John Hurt’s performance is based on him not knowing entirely where he was and what movie he was in. It’s so out there that it actually comes full circle into being the most grounded character of the entire movie. Ray Winstone’s character needs to be given his own web-based animated shorts to flesh out his back-story, even if it’s Indy-free stories that we’re given. Winstone is asked to be Convenient Plot Device more than once but he does so will gusto and sells the back-and-forth that his character is required to engage in. Finally, Harrison Ford looks like he *wants* to be there, something that he hasn’t been able to pull off in quite a while. I’m not saying it’s his best turn as Indy but he finally looks like he’s trying to sell the character. The last time I remember seeing him do that is in Clear and Present Danger. He’s obviously just having fun returning to one of the two characters that made him a star and that comes through, even during the movie’s most illogical sequences. Overall, though, this was a fun flick and I think it’s a worthy entry in the Indiana Jones franchise. I’m OK with it being the last Indy flick in much the same way that I was OK with Crusade being the last movie. Let’s now leave them for us to enjoy all four films as a complete set of the archeologist’s adventures (aside from the Young Indy series as well as the various comics incarnations, but you know what I mean). Originally posted on:Chris Thilk http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/26/31749.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/26/2008 5:00:43 PM
Body: Over the weekend, Wanted had a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com. It’s since gone down to 81% (at the time of this writing — and with top critics it’s down to 67%), though that’s still pretty good for a movie that initially looked like just another Matrix knockoff. But will the good reviews make for great box office? Last night, while viewing the latest trailer in a theater with some friends, I mentioned that Wanted was receiving great reviews. Nobody believed me at first, and then they didn’t care; they still thought it looked terrible. Good reviews rarely help an action movie, and bad reviews rarely deter audiences from seeing them. However, if we look at the top 5 most critically acclaimed action movies, it’s clear that people do often prefer a good action film to a bad one. The next 5, on the other hand… The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 98%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #9 ($377 million) Sample Critic Quote: “The film event of the millennium.” (Richard Corliss, Time) My Analysis: In terms of both reviews and gross, it is possible that, yes, this final LOTR film was the film event of the millennium only three years in. It even won the Oscar for Best Picture, as well as ten other Academy Awards. However, we do have a few hundred years left, and Corliss’ assessment is likely to be challenged one of these centuries. Casino Royale (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #133 ($167.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “This is the best James Bond film in at least 17 years, and Daniel Craig might be the best 007 … ever.” (Eric D. Snider, EricDSnider.com) My Analysis: Most critics and audiences agreed that this was one of the best 007 films ever and that Craig was at least the best Bond since Connery. Still, it only grossed a mere $7 million more than Die Another Day, which was certified rotten by RT. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 97%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #62 ($227.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “It is probably the best action films to date that doesn’t involved so much special effects.” (Wilson Morales, BlackFilm.com) My Analysis: I agree that it’s the best of the series and one of the best action movies in years, maybe even best to date not involving special effects, as Morales says. But really the only reason that Ultimatum is higher up on the b.o. charts than The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy is because people took awhile to get into the series, with many of Ultimatum’s audience having seen the previous two for the first time on DVD. Still, along with both Return of the King and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it’s one of the rare threequels that earned the highest gross of its series. Considering Return, that says one thing, while considering Indy, that says something else. Spider-Man 2 (2004) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #10 ($373.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “[It's sure to] join the upper echelons of action movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, and Die Hard.” (Jeffrey Overstreet, Looking Closer) My Analysis: If this sequel were switched in ranking with its predecessor (see below), it might say something more about reviews equaling revenue, but otherwise between the two installments, there is evidence that good superhero movies will perform better than bad ones. Just don’t pay any attention to Spider-Man 3, which is also pretty close on the b.o. charts, but which is pretty far below in RT ranking (62%, whole; 44%, top critics). Iron Man (2008) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #26 ($305.9 million and counting) Sample Critic Quote: “It’s the best movie of its kind since the second Spider-Man movie four years ago.” (Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle) My Analysis: Fitting to LaSalle’s quote that Iron Man is just behind Spider-Man 2, and with only another $70 million to go in order to be just behind it on the b.o. chart. Unfortunately, as far as ticket sales show, it’s really only the best movie of its kind since the third Spider-Man movie one year ago. Spy Kids (2001) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 96%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #309 ($112.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “To sum up, if you want your children to someday appreciate the true art of cinema, Spy Kids is a terrific movie to start with.” (Bob Strauss, Los Angeles Daily News) My Analysis: If by “true art of cinema” Strauss means the kind of action movies that receive good reviews, then he’s right. Film critics love the well-directed spy movies (see #2 and #3). As for kids, they don’t care about reviews, which explains why Alvin and the Chipmunks made almost double what Spy Kids grossed. Out of Sight (1998) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 90%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #1,395 ($37.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “In a summer filled with mega-hyped disappointments, Out of Sight proves the undeniable value of story, characterization, and — most of all — intelligence.” (Mike McGranaghan, Aisle Seat) My Analysis: The mega-hyped disappointments of that summer include Godzilla, which made about $100 million more than this film. Of course, Out of Sight isn’t really an action-packed action movie, and it only starred George Clooney, who despite being a huge movie star has never really been that big a box office draw. Meanwhile, 1998’s biggest box office winner, the more-action-packed Saving Private Ryan (which RT apparently doesn’t consider to be an action movie), was also one of the five best-reviewed films of the year. Hot Fuzz (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #2,029 ($23.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Hot Fuzz is everything an action-comedy should be. It achieves through parody what most films in the genre can’t accomplish straight.” (Nathan Rabin, The Onion A.V. Club) My Analysis: The best action buddy comedy in ten years, yet it’s gross is hardly comparable to the box office success of the Rush Hour movies, Bad Boys II, Lethal Weapon 4 and … Starsky & Hutch? Even Jimmy Fallon’s Taxi performed better domestically. Rescue Dawn (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 88%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #3,970 ($5.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “A potentially commercial audience-pleaser that retains all of the characteristic Herzog complexity and nuance, Rescue Dawn is an electrifying action adventure that clamps your nerves with jaws of steel.” (Rex Reed, New York Observer) My Analysis: Too bad more moviegoers don’t read Rex Reed, because that’s a mighty good sell. Unfortunately, Rescue Dawn suffered a double blow because of who directed it. Critics certainly overpraised it, just because it’s an Herzog film; audiences likely avoided it because of the same reason (not by name, but had it opened bigger right away, audiences wouldn’t have even noticed the art house connection and might have gone to see the new action movie starring “Batman”). Spider-Man (2002) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 85%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #7 ($403.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Let the gauntlet be thrown: Spider-Man may be the best comic adaptation of all time.” (Todd Gilchrest, FilmStew.com) My Analysis: In terms of box office receipts, it is indeed the best comic adaptation of all time. But as we see by two titles above, it’s since been beat in terms of critical acclaim, just in this decade alone (and from earlier, at least Superman: The Movie has a better RT score). Still, it would almost be evidence that critics and box office can sometimes go hand in hand if it weren’t for that certified rotten movie that ranks just above it on the box office chart: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/26/2008 5:00:43 PMOver the weekend, Wanted had a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com. It’s since gone down to 81% (at the time of this writing — and with top critics it’s down to 67%), though that’s still pretty good for a movie that initially looked like just another Matrix knockoff. But will the good reviews make for great box office? Last night, while viewing the latest trailer in a theater with some friends, I mentioned that Wanted was receiving great reviews. Nobody believed me at first, and then they didn’t care; they still thought it looked terrible. Good reviews rarely help an action movie, and bad reviews rarely deter audiences from seeing them. However, if we look at the top 5 most critically acclaimed action movies, it’s clear that people do often prefer a good action film to a bad one. The next 5, on the other hand… The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 98%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #9 ($377 million) Sample Critic Quote: “The film event of the millennium.” (Richard Corliss, Time) My Analysis: In terms of both reviews and gross, it is possible that, yes, this final LOTR film was the film event of the millennium only three years in. It even won the Oscar for Best Picture, as well as ten other Academy Awards. However, we do have a few hundred years left, and Corliss’ assessment is likely to be challenged one of these centuries. Casino Royale (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #133 ($167.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “This is the best James Bond film in at least 17 years, and Daniel Craig might be the best 007 … ever.” (Eric D. Snider, EricDSnider.com) My Analysis: Most critics and audiences agreed that this was one of the best 007 films ever and that Craig was at least the best Bond since Connery. Still, it only grossed a mere $7 million more than Die Another Day, which was certified rotten by RT. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 97%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #62 ($227.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “It is probably the best action films to date that doesn’t involved so much special effects.” (Wilson Morales, BlackFilm.com) My Analysis: I agree that it’s the best of the series and one of the best action movies in years, maybe even best to date not involving special effects, as Morales says. But really the only reason that Ultimatum is higher up on the b.o. charts than The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy is because people took awhile to get into the series, with many of Ultimatum’s audience having seen the previous two for the first time on DVD. Still, along with both Return of the King and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it’s one of the rare threequels that earned the highest gross of its series. Considering Return, that says one thing, while considering Indy, that says something else. Spider-Man 2 (2004) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #10 ($373.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “[It's sure to] join the upper echelons of action movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, and Die Hard.” (Jeffrey Overstreet, Looking Closer) My Analysis: If this sequel were switched in ranking with its predecessor (see below), it might say something more about reviews equaling revenue, but otherwise between the two installments, there is evidence that good superhero movies will perform better than bad ones. Just don’t pay any attention to Spider-Man 3, which is also pretty close on the b.o. charts, but which is pretty far below in RT ranking (62%, whole; 44%, top critics). Iron Man (2008) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #26 ($305.9 million and counting) Sample Critic Quote: “It’s the best movie of its kind since the second Spider-Man movie four years ago.” (Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle) My Analysis: Fitting to LaSalle’s quote that Iron Man is just behind Spider-Man 2, and with only another $70 million to go in order to be just behind it on the b.o. chart. Unfortunately, as far as ticket sales show, it’s really only the best movie of its kind since the third Spider-Man movie one year ago. Spy Kids (2001) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 96%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #309 ($112.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “To sum up, if you want your children to someday appreciate the true art of cinema, Spy Kids is a terrific movie to start with.” (Bob Strauss, Los Angeles Daily News) My Analysis: If by “true art of cinema” Strauss means the kind of action movies that receive good reviews, then he’s right. Film critics love the well-directed spy movies (see #2 and #3). As for kids, they don’t care about reviews, which explains why Alvin and the Chipmunks made almost double what Spy Kids grossed. Out of Sight (1998) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 90%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #1,395 ($37.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “In a summer filled with mega-hyped disappointments, Out of Sight proves the undeniable value of story, characterization, and — most of all — intelligence.” (Mike McGranaghan, Aisle Seat) My Analysis: The mega-hyped disappointments of that summer include Godzilla, which made about $100 million more than this film. Of course, Out of Sight isn’t really an action-packed action movie, and it only starred George Clooney, who despite being a huge movie star has never really been that big a box office draw. Meanwhile, 1998’s biggest box office winner, the more-action-packed Saving Private Ryan (which RT apparently doesn’t consider to be an action movie), was also one of the five best-reviewed films of the year. Hot Fuzz (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #2,029 ($23.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Hot Fuzz is everything an action-comedy should be. It achieves through parody what most films in the genre can’t accomplish straight.” (Nathan Rabin, The Onion A.V. Club) My Analysis: The best action buddy comedy in ten years, yet it’s gross is hardly comparable to the box office success of the Rush Hour movies, Bad Boys II, Lethal Weapon 4 and … Starsky & Hutch? Even Jimmy Fallon’s Taxi performed better domestically. Rescue Dawn (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 88%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #3,970 ($5.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “A potentially commercial audience-pleaser that retains all of the characteristic Herzog complexity and nuance, Rescue Dawn is an electrifying action adventure that clamps your nerves with jaws of steel.” (Rex Reed, New York Observer) My Analysis: Too bad more moviegoers don’t read Rex Reed, because that’s a mighty good sell. Unfortunately, Rescue Dawn suffered a double blow because of who directed it. Critics certainly overpraised it, just because it’s an Herzog film; audiences likely avoided it because of the same reason (not by name, but had it opened bigger right away, audiences wouldn’t have even noticed the art house connection and might have gone to see the new action movie starring “Batman”). Spider-Man (2002) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 85%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #7 ($403.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Let the gauntlet be thrown: Spider-Man may be the best comic adaptation of all time.” (Todd Gilchrest, FilmStew.com) My Analysis: In terms of box office receipts, it is indeed the best comic adaptation of all time. But as we see by two titles above, it’s since been beat in terms of critical acclaim, just in this decade alone (and from earlier, at least Superman: The Movie has a better RT score). Still, it would almost be evidence that critics and box office can sometimes go hand in hand if it weren’t for that certified rotten movie that ranks just above it on the box office chart: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Gore_is_where_you_find_it/222/31644/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 6/24/2008 7:02:49 PM
Body: Thank you for linking those for me, June! You are very sweet and pretty too... Have I told you lately that I love you? (it's ok, Froggy doesn't mind.... she knows all about 'us') ... I will be listing some of the interesting ones from "vol. 2" very shortly.... Thanks Again!
]]>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:02:49 GMTDr_GorHORROR MOVIES 1016/24/2008 7:02:49 PMThank you for linking those for me, June! You are very sweet and pretty too... Have I told you lately that I love you? (it's ok, Froggy doesn't mind.... she knows all about 'us') ... I will be listing some of the interesting ones from "vol. 2" very shortly.... Thanks Again! http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Gore_is_where_you_find_it/222/31587/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: divinemsjunebug
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 6/24/2008 1:16:12 AM
Body: That is really interesting, Gor. It is really amazing how desensatized (spelling) I am anymore, half of these movies I kept thinking - there isn't any gorey scenes in that movie, but when I started thinking about it, yes there are some pretty gorey scenes. [quote user="Dr_Gor"] Here are some interesting and/or surprising titles listed in John McCarty's "Official Splatter Movie Guide, vol. 1" (1989) ... (I apologize that my 'link a movie' function isn't working but, if you are unfamiliar with any of these titles you can easily find them on SPOUT or IMDb) ... Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls (1970) ; Caligula (1980) ; Conan The Barbarian (1982) ; Death Wish II - IV ('82 - '87) ; Gremlins (1984) ; The Hunting Party (1971) ; Indiana Jones and The Temple Of Doom (1984) ; The Long Riders (1980) ; Monty Python and The Holy Grail (1975) ; Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life (1983) ; Outland (1981) ; Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981) ; Sharkey's Machine (1981) ; Southern Comfort (1981) ; 10 to Midnight (1983) ; The Terminator (1984) ; They Live (1988) ; The Wall (1982) ....[/quote]
]]>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:16:12 GMTdivinemsjunebugHORROR MOVIES 1016/24/2008 1:16:12 AMThat is really interesting, Gor. It is really amazing how desensatized (spelling) I am anymore, half of these movies I kept thinking - there isn't any gorey scenes in that movie, but when I started thinking about it, yes there are some pretty gorey scenes. [quote user="Dr_Gor"] Here are some interesting and/or surprising titles listed in John McCarty's "Official Splatter Movie Guide, vol. 1" (1989) ... (I apologize that my 'link a movie' function isn't working but, if you are unfamiliar with any of these titles you can easily find them on SPOUT or IMDb) ... Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls (1970) ; Caligula (1980) ; Conan The Barbarian (1982) ; Death Wish II - IV ('82 - '87) ; Gremlins (1984) ; The Hunting Party (1971) ; Indiana Jones and The Temple Of Doom (1984) ; The Long Riders (1980) ; Monty Python and The Holy Grail (1975) ; Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life (1983) ; Outland (1981) ; Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981) ; Sharkey's Machine (1981) ; Southern Comfort (1981) ; 10 to Midnight (1983) ; The Terminator (1984) ; They Live (1988) ; The Wall (1982) ....[/quote] http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/9/31014.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/9/2008 5:01:53 PM
Body: It took me awhile, but last week I finally saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And to agree with many others, I think it features a few too many ludicrous moments. Yet the most outlandish, in my opinion, is the scene in which Indy and Marion seem to reenact His Girl Friday in about four seconds while riding in the back of a truck. I know it’d been awhile, both for them and for us, but I prefer a little more bickering, a little more holding back in comedy of remarriage plots. Anyway, we knew a long time ago, thanks to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, that Indy and Marion didn’t last long together after the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. So, I didn’t really care if they ended up together at the end of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either. It’s probable they still wouldn’t last. And I think the same often with other unlikely movie couples at the end of their respective films. Fortunately, a number of sequels tell us outright that the romance of the first film failed (see The Karate Kid, Part II and Jurassic Park III). Unfortunately, most of the following films didn’t have follow-ups. But if they had, I bet we’d have discovered the romances didn’t last much longer than the closing credits. Bringing Up Baby: Dr. David Huxley (Cary Grant) and Susan Vance (Katherine Hepburn) - As is the case with most screwball comedies, the leads here just don’t seem that compatible. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Susan was quickly shipped off to a mental hospital for being such a daffy loon. Then there’s the matter of her destroying Huxley’s work at the end. No man would really put up with that, even if there were some attraction. And I never actually bought that there is any attraction from his end. Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II: - Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) and Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) - This franchise utilizes the device of having the couple split up between the first and second films only to get back together at the finish of the sequel. I understand that audiences prefer a happy ending, but when you know they didn’t work out the first time, why would you believe they could work a second time? Because Dana’s baby seems to like Venkman? Apparently so. But those of us who watched the cartoon series The Real Ghostbusters know that had they remained a couple, Dana would have been animated along with the rest of the characters. Amelie - Amelie Poulain (Audrey Tautou) and Nino Quincampoix (Matthieu Kassovitz) - Despite what Hong Kong audiences who saw Happenstance might think, Amelie has not been given a sequel. So we are just to assume that Amelie and Nino live happily ever after, despite the fact that they’ve only just met right before the end of the film. And we never really get to see them have a conversation, either. We just know that Amelie is kind of a creepy, albeit adorable, stalker and that Nino works in a porn shop. Hopefully he kicked her off his motorcycle as soon as the Yann Tiersen score was over (because then she can come stalk me — see, I’m just bitter with this one). Chungking Express: Cop 663 (Tony Leung) and Faye (Faye Wong) - Faye is kind of like the precursor to Amelie, as she’s something of a stalker — but it’s OK, because she’s so darn cute. While the ending of Wong Kar-wai’s film is ambiguous, we’re kind of expected to believe these two end up together. But what happens when Cop 663 realizes how often Faye broke into his apartment? And how often she plays “California Dreaming” over and over and over again? And how capricious girls are tolerable for only so long? The Muppets Take Manhattan: Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy - When I was a kid, I thought it made sense for the frog and the pig to be married at the end of this film. Their relationship had been like a Sam & Diane sort of thing for so many years, it seemed inevitable. But when I got older, I realized that Kermit really has no feelings for Piggy, and it’s even evident by his expression during the wedding scene. And I became angry that Jim Henson and Co. would allow kids to applaud the beginnings of what would be a loveless marriage. While writing this, though, I found out from the Muppet Wiki that in “real life” Kermit denies they were really married and that it was just part of the movie. Apparently Piggy claims otherwise. Meanwhile, for people who are actually fans of the relationship, you can see what their offspring would look like in The Muppet Christmas Carol. Some Like It Hot: Joe (Tony Curis) and Sugar Kane Kowalczyk (Marilyn Monroe) - I’ve never been accepting of characters who woo women with deception such as costume and false identities, and there have been countless examples in both movies and TV throughout the years. Some Like It Hot probably isn’t the first film to feature such fraudulence, but because Joe fools Sugar Kane by being both a good girl friend and a rich suitor he’s double guilty. I trust that even the relationship between Jerry/Daphne (Jack Lemmon) and Osgood Fielding III (Joe E. Brown) lasted longer. Tootsie: Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman) and Julie Nichols (Jessica Lange) - This one is pretty much the same as the relationship in Some Like It Hot, only it’s a bit more respectable because Michael is less aggressive in his falling for Julie. Sure, there’s one scene where he’s not in drag and he attempts a kinda sleazy maneuver, but at least he never takes on a yachting outfit and Cary Grant voice. Thankfully, there is no kiss at the end of Tootsie, just forgiveness, and we’re left to think Michael and Julie will only become acquaintances at best. I have doubts that even that relationship lasted very long. Juno: Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) and Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera) - High school movie romances should never be believed to last (especially the couples formed at the end of The Breakfast Club). I know, there are a number of high school sweethearts that do get married and live happily ever after. But most of us are not with the boy or girl we dated in high school. Even if there is a baby involved. Personally, I think Paulie Bleeker is too good for Juno, and I think he probably goes on to college and moves on with his life, while doing his part to contribute to the baby, of course. Two Weeks Notice: Lucy Kelson (Sandra Bullock) and George Wade (Hugh Grant) - I’ve witnessed first-hand that opposites can attract. And if I hadn’t, I could always use James Carville and Mary Matalin as a prime example of a couple who shouldn’t work but do. Nonetheless, I don’t buy the union of her environmental lawyer and his billionaire real estate tycoon. Nor do I buy the union of Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks in the similar pair-up of You’ve Got Mail. If relationships like that were believable, we wouldn’t have so much enjoyed the affair between Jack and C.C. on 30 Rock. The Graduate: Ben Braddock (Dustin Hoffman, again) and Elaine Robinson (Katherine Ross) - I always assumed it would ultimately bother Elaine too much that Ben had an affair with her mother. I guess if we’re to believe Buck Henry’s cameo in The Player, though, they live quite happily ever after … with Mrs. Robinson. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:01:53 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/9/2008 5:01:53 PMIt took me awhile, but last week I finally saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And to agree with many others, I think it features a few too many ludicrous moments. Yet the most outlandish, in my opinion, is the scene in which Indy and Marion seem to reenact His Girl Friday in about four seconds while riding in the back of a truck. I know it’d been awhile, both for them and for us, but I prefer a little more bickering, a little more holding back in comedy of remarriage plots. Anyway, we knew a long time ago, thanks to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, that Indy and Marion didn’t last long together after the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. So, I didn’t really care if they ended up together at the end of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either. It’s probable they still wouldn’t last. And I think the same often with other unlikely movie couples at the end of their respective films. Fortunately, a number of sequels tell us outright that the romance of the first film failed (see The Karate Kid, Part II and Jurassic Park III). Unfortunately, most of the following films didn’t have follow-ups. But if they had, I bet we’d have discovered the romances didn’t last much longer than the closing credits. Bringing Up Baby: Dr. David Huxley (Cary Grant) and Susan Vance (Katherine Hepburn) - As is the case with most screwball comedies, the leads here just don’t seem that compatible. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Susan was quickly shipped off to a mental hospital for being such a daffy loon. Then there’s the matter of her destroying Huxley’s work at the end. No man would really put up with that, even if there were some attraction. And I never actually bought that there is any attraction from his end. Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II: - Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) and Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) - This franchise utilizes the device of having the couple split up between the first and second films only to get back together at the finish of the sequel. I understand that audiences prefer a happy ending, but when you know they didn’t work out the first time, why would you believe they could work a second time? Because Dana’s baby seems to like Venkman? Apparently so. But those of us who watched the cartoon series The Real Ghostbusters know that had they remained a couple, Dana would have been animated along with the rest of the characters. Amelie - Amelie Poulain (Audrey Tautou) and Nino Quincampoix (Matthieu Kassovitz) - Despite what Hong Kong audiences who saw Happenstance might think, Amelie has not been given a sequel. So we are just to assume that Amelie and Nino live happily ever after, despite the fact that they’ve only just met right before the end of the film. And we never really get to see them have a conversation, either. We just know that Amelie is kind of a creepy, albeit adorable, stalker and that Nino works in a porn shop. Hopefully he kicked her off his motorcycle as soon as the Yann Tiersen score was over (because then she can come stalk me — see, I’m just bitter with this one). Chungking Express: Cop 663 (Tony Leung) and Faye (Faye Wong) - Faye is kind of like the precursor to Amelie, as she’s something of a stalker — but it’s OK, because she’s so darn cute. While the ending of Wong Kar-wai’s film is ambiguous, we’re kind of expected to believe these two end up together. But what happens when Cop 663 realizes how often Faye broke into his apartment? And how often she plays “California Dreaming” over and over and over again? And how capricious girls are tolerable for only so long? The Muppets Take Manhattan: Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy - When I was a kid, I thought it made sense for the frog and the pig to be married at the end of this film. Their relationship had been like a Sam & Diane sort of thing for so many years, it seemed inevitable. But when I got older, I realized that Kermit really has no feelings for Piggy, and it’s even evident by his expression during the wedding scene. And I became angry that Jim Henson and Co. would allow kids to applaud the beginnings of what would be a loveless marriage. While writing this, though, I found out from the Muppet Wiki that in “real life” Kermit denies they were really married and that it was just part of the movie. Apparently Piggy claims otherwise. Meanwhile, for people who are actually fans of the relationship, you can see what their offspring would look like in The Muppet Christmas Carol. Some Like It Hot: Joe (Tony Curis) and Sugar Kane Kowalczyk (Marilyn Monroe) - I’ve never been accepting of characters who woo women with deception such as costume and false identities, and there have been countless examples in both movies and TV throughout the years. Some Like It Hot probably isn’t the first film to feature such fraudulence, but because Joe fools Sugar Kane by being both a good girl friend and a rich suitor he’s double guilty. I trust that even the relationship between Jerry/Daphne (Jack Lemmon) and Osgood Fielding III (Joe E. Brown) lasted longer. Tootsie: Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman) and Julie Nichols (Jessica Lange) - This one is pretty much the same as the relationship in Some Like It Hot, only it’s a bit more respectable because Michael is less aggressive in his falling for Julie. Sure, there’s one scene where he’s not in drag and he attempts a kinda sleazy maneuver, but at least he never takes on a yachting outfit and Cary Grant voice. Thankfully, there is no kiss at the end of Tootsie, just forgiveness, and we’re left to think Michael and Julie will only become acquaintances at best. I have doubts that even that relationship lasted very long. Juno: Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) and Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera) - High school movie romances should never be believed to last (especially the couples formed at the end of The Breakfast Club). I know, there are a number of high school sweethearts that do get married and live happily ever after. But most of us are not with the boy or girl we dated in high school. Even if there is a baby involved. Personally, I think Paulie Bleeker is too good for Juno, and I think he probably goes on to college and moves on with his life, while doing his part to contribute to the baby, of course. Two Weeks Notice: Lucy Kelson (Sandra Bullock) and George Wade (Hugh Grant) - I’ve witnessed first-hand that opposites can attract. And if I hadn’t, I could always use James Carville and Mary Matalin as a prime example of a couple who shouldn’t work but do. Nonetheless, I don’t buy the union of her environmental lawyer and his billionaire real estate tycoon. Nor do I buy the union of Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks in the similar pair-up of You’ve Got Mail. If relationships like that were believable, we wouldn’t have so much enjoyed the affair between Jack and C.C. on 30 Rock. The Graduate: Ben Braddock (Dustin Hoffman, again) and Elaine Robinson (Katherine Ross) - I always assumed it would ultimately bother Elaine too much that Ben had an affair with her mother. I guess if we’re to believe Buck Henry’s cameo in The Player, though, they live quite happily ever after … with Mrs. Robinson. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7162

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1004

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT71621691004Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awesome/MemberTagFilms.aspxawesome
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 158

Number of times used: 291

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:23:33 GMT187158291Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226101215Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 228

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 368

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:03 GMT22895368Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/escape/MemberTagFilms.aspxescape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 279

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT286876279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suspense/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuspense
Number of films tagged: 129

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 189

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT12966189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/betrayal/MemberTagFilms.aspxbetrayal
Number of films tagged: 1035

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 154

]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:28:04 GMT103562154Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/favorite/MemberTagFilms.aspxfavorite
Number of films tagged: 85

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:22:58 GMT8562127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/epic/MemberTagFilms.aspxepic
Number of films tagged: 63

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 104

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:37 GMT6358104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/journey/MemberTagFilms.aspxjourney
Number of films tagged: 1175

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 124

]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:02:52 GMT117550124Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/college/MemberTagFilms.aspxcollege
Number of films tagged: 854

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 187

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:40:05 GMT85448187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/chase/MemberTagFilms.aspxchase
Number of films tagged: 880

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 109

]]>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:13:34 GMT88044109Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hero/MemberTagFilms.aspxhero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT63843141Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/evil/MemberTagFilms.aspxevil
Number of films tagged: 885

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 79

]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:19:10 GMT8854279Tag