list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Kingdom on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Kingdom/280969/default.aspx Title: The Kingdom
Year: 2007
Director: Peter Berg
Plot: In the aftermath of a deadly attack on American forces in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, diplomats are slow to act, but meanwhile, FBI special agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) assembles a secret team of U.S. counter-terrorism investigators to enter the city and find the criminal behind what has quickly become an international incident. The crew, however, finds their attempt to capture the perpetrators stalled by bureaucracy and their presence unwelcome. Desperate to gain the trust they need to accomplish their mission in just five days, the team enlists the aid of a Saudi Arabian police officer (Ashraf Barhoum), but as the agents infiltrate the dark and complex world of the Saudi crime scene, they find that the perpetrator's next target may be them. Directed by Peter Berg, The Kingdom also stars Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper, and Jason Bateman. ~ Cammila Albertson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 8
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 9
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:00:24 GMTThe Kingdom2007Peter BergIn the aftermath of a deadly attack on American forces in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, diplomats are slow to act, but meanwhile, FBI special agent Ronald Fleury (<a href="/players/P____24604/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jamie Foxx</a>) assembles a secret team of U.S. counter-terrorism investigators to enter the city and find the criminal behind what has quickly become an international incident. The crew, however, finds their attempt to capture the perpetrators stalled by bureaucracy and their presence unwelcome. Desperate to gain the trust they need to accomplish their mission in just five days, the team enlists the aid of a Saudi Arabian police officer (<a href="/players/P___410954/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ashraf Barhoum</a>), but as the agents infiltrate the dark and complex world of the Saudi crime scene, they find that the perpetrator's next target may be them. Directed by <a href="/players/P_____5586/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Peter Berg</a>, The Kingdom also stars <a href="/players/P___230436/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jennifer Garner</a>, <a href="/players/P____14803/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Chris Cooper</a>, and <a href="/players/P_____4511/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jason Bateman</a>. ~ Cammila Albertson, All Movie Guide8Taggedy Taggged (6-10)1293http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s280969.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Kingdom/280969/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/9/39323.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/9/2009 3:00:24 PM
Body: Back in September, Kathryn Bigelow told SpoutBlog that there’s a misconception regarding the failure of movies dealing with the Iraq War because so far we’d really only seen dramatic films about soldiers coming home. We hadn’t exactly seen any war movies about the ongoing conflict. “I mean, war is inherently dramatic, look at Black Hawk Down,” she explained, picking a film released a year prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Now it should make more sense that she referenced that specific title, as a new international trailer for Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker almost makes this film appear to be Black Hawk Down reset in Iraq. There seems to be a lot of similarly chaotic action involving an ensemble of talented actors running around a war-torn metropolis. The main difference is all the stuff with Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), which actually makes it potentially even more appealing to the action movie crowd, they who never tire of the “which wire do I cut?” cliches. So why are we only seeing an international trailer, with no domestic release date for The Hurt Locker in sight (Summit Entertainment’s 2009 preview only mentions a Spring opening)? Over at Vulture, they joke that Summit is too busy with the Twilight sequel to pay attention to the acclaimed and awarded The Hurt Locker, yet they also speculate that this movie could leap over the supposed Iraq War film hurdle due to its action-heavy plot. I think it could do more than be a breakthrough for the subject matter; it should appropriately blow away the hurdle. Then again, The Kingdom, which didn’t even mention or take place in Iraq, should have done the same thing. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:00:24 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/9/2009 3:00:24 PMBack in September, Kathryn Bigelow told SpoutBlog that there’s a misconception regarding the failure of movies dealing with the Iraq War because so far we’d really only seen dramatic films about soldiers coming home. We hadn’t exactly seen any war movies about the ongoing conflict. “I mean, war is inherently dramatic, look at Black Hawk Down,” she explained, picking a film released a year prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Now it should make more sense that she referenced that specific title, as a new international trailer for Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker almost makes this film appear to be Black Hawk Down reset in Iraq. There seems to be a lot of similarly chaotic action involving an ensemble of talented actors running around a war-torn metropolis. The main difference is all the stuff with Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), which actually makes it potentially even more appealing to the action movie crowd, they who never tire of the “which wire do I cut?” cliches. So why are we only seeing an international trailer, with no domestic release date for The Hurt Locker in sight (Summit Entertainment’s 2009 preview only mentions a Spring opening)? Over at Vulture, they joke that Summit is too busy with the Twilight sequel to pay attention to the acclaimed and awarded The Hurt Locker, yet they also speculate that this movie could leap over the supposed Iraq War film hurdle due to its action-heavy plot. I think it could do more than be a breakthrough for the subject matter; it should appropriately blow away the hurdle. Then again, The Kingdom, which didn’t even mention or take place in Iraq, should have done the same thing. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/7/3/32102.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 7/3/2008 10:49:03 PM
Body: It is all too fitting that the lead in “Hancock” is an amnesiac, for the film in which he is featured can't seem to comprehend just what the hell it is. About halfway through, it suffers a cinematic concussion from which it never regains its former personality. Both portions of this picture might have made an interesting feature given the chance to develop more thoroughly. As it stands, “Hancock” plays out like the most recent dark, brooding film incarnation of “Batman,” but starring Adam West in the form-fitting spandex suit from the TV version. In a world where every summer superhero film is accompanied by Wal-Mart-ready action figure tie-ins, it's rather difficult to envision the kiddies clamoring to buy the “Hancock with Scotch-Swigging Action” in which you can push the button and hear one of eight colorful expletives! Yes, Hancock is the most reluctant of heroes, approaching his duties like a list of household chores rather than an inherent responsibility. His attempts at rescue wind up wrecking more real estate than leaving well enough alone and now he faces the scorn of a public fed up with his slovenly approach to fighting crime. That is, until one day he rescues an altruistic PR man (yeah, that's about the funniest thing in the picture) played by Jason Bateman. Bateman's Ray Embry wants to repay the super-pariah by working with him on an image makeover, helping him transform from his hobo-chic aesthetic to Fantastic Four fabulousness. And this is the world in which “Hancock” should have remained. Pointed social commentary on celebrity life under today's TMZ- and You Tube-controlled microscopic conditions, rejecting and denouncing any and all sorts of behavior or past transgression, and promises to reform and adhere to more “model” behavior are all hinted in a too-brief montage sequence. Witnessing Hancock stage a half-hearted press conference, admitting himself to a local prison and undergoing anger management and substance abuse classes are awkwardly amusing commentaries of today's lifestyles of the rich and infamous (not to mention the issue race plays in the whole affair). The only thing missing is his finding Jesus in the process. It's not until Ray brings Hancock home to meet the family-- wife Mary (played by Charlize Theron) and son Aaron (played by Jae Head) – in which the tonal shifts of the film are stitched together like some thematic Frankenstein's monster. It is during this portion in which we get a glimpse into Hancock's dark, mysterious origins which are a marked contrast to the promise of joviality and satire of the first half. Smith seems to run out of steam for this part, too. Gamely playing against his squeaky-clean image, he relishes in ticking off the general public with foul language and laws of physics-defying bodily harm. Yet when things get dark, he barely registers, coasting on tired mannerisms and feigned interest. Theron, who plays Bateman's adoring wife is also left with little. It's easy to see from her first encounter with Hancock that there was some sort of past connection between the two, but when it's revealed just what that is, the actress is swept up in the noisy chaos that marks the film's conclusion. The only actor who leave an impression is Theron's one-time co-star Bateman (the two shared a storyline in the beloved, departed television show “Arrested Development”), whose deft comic abilities elicited some of the only laughs to be heard during my opening-day screening. But even he is hindered by the questionable judgement of director Peter Berg (“The Kingdom,” “Friday Night Lights,” “Very Bad Things”). Berg obviously has potential, but has squandered it time and time again, as he does here with “Hancock.” It's an unwritten blockbuster law that superhero films, even if they dabble in the emotional complexities of its leads, must widen their lens and give the film and expansive, almost global, perspective that shows a city in crises or a world in peril. Not so with Berg. He instead chooses to zoom in on his subjects close enough that you can almost smell the stale scotch on Hancock's breath. When it finally comes to the epic confrontation at the finale, it's edited with such a slapdash manner that there is no sense of jeopardy, or wonderment, or even much of a pulse. Contributing to this menace-free environment is the film's villain, whose comic book bad guy name would be “Dr. Minor Inconvenience” or perhaps “The Irritable Rash,” as little a threat as he poses. And finally, lest you think that you are safely in the hands of audience-friendly Will Smith, not that the director was the same guy who based an entire film of a group of bachelor party participants trying to dispose of a dead hooker. In other words, bring the earmuffs and have hands ready to shield the eyes of the little ones brought into the theater to watch Mr. Man In Black battle baddies. “Hancock” is a film that would have benefited from being either an all-out satire of the genre, or an intimate introspective drama of the isolation accompanying the job title of World Saver. By combining the two, “Hancock” suffers from its own cinematic kryptonite, crippling it just when it should have soared into the stratosphere.
]]>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:49:03 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog7/3/2008 10:49:03 PMIt is all too fitting that the lead in &ldquo;Hancock&rdquo; is an amnesiac, for the film in which he is featured can't seem to comprehend just what the hell it is. About halfway through, it suffers a cinematic concussion from which it never regains its former personality. Both portions of this picture might have made an interesting feature given the chance to develop more thoroughly. As it stands, &ldquo;Hancock&rdquo; plays out like the most recent dark, brooding film incarnation of &ldquo;Batman,&rdquo; but starring Adam West in the form-fitting spandex suit from the TV version. In a world where every summer superhero film is accompanied by Wal-Mart-ready action figure tie-ins, it's rather difficult to envision the kiddies clamoring to buy the &ldquo;Hancock with Scotch-Swigging Action&rdquo; in which you can push the button and hear one of eight colorful expletives! Yes, Hancock is the most reluctant of heroes, approaching his duties like a list of household chores rather than an inherent responsibility. His attempts at rescue wind up wrecking more real estate than leaving well enough alone and now he faces the scorn of a public fed up with his slovenly approach to fighting crime. That is, until one day he rescues an altruistic PR man (yeah, that's about the funniest thing in the picture) played by Jason Bateman. Bateman's Ray Embry wants to repay the super-pariah by working with him on an image makeover, helping him transform from his hobo-chic aesthetic to Fantastic Four fabulousness. And this is the world in which &ldquo;Hancock&rdquo; should have remained. Pointed social commentary on celebrity life under today's TMZ- and You Tube-controlled microscopic conditions, rejecting and denouncing any and all sorts of behavior or past transgression, and promises to reform and adhere to more &ldquo;model&rdquo; behavior are all hinted in a too-brief montage sequence. Witnessing Hancock stage a half-hearted press conference, admitting himself to a local prison and undergoing anger management and substance abuse classes are awkwardly amusing commentaries of today's lifestyles of the rich and infamous (not to mention the issue race plays in the whole affair). The only thing missing is his finding Jesus in the process. It's not until Ray brings Hancock home to meet the family-- wife Mary (played by Charlize Theron) and son Aaron (played by Jae Head) &ndash; in which the tonal shifts of the film are stitched together like some thematic Frankenstein's monster. It is during this portion in which we get a glimpse into Hancock's dark, mysterious origins which are a marked contrast to the promise of joviality and satire of the first half. Smith seems to run out of steam for this part, too. Gamely playing against his squeaky-clean image, he relishes in ticking off the general public with foul language and laws of physics-defying bodily harm. Yet when things get dark, he barely registers, coasting on tired mannerisms and feigned interest. Theron, who plays Bateman's adoring wife is also left with little. It's easy to see from her first encounter with Hancock that there was some sort of past connection between the two, but when it's revealed just what that is, the actress is swept up in the noisy chaos that marks the film's conclusion. The only actor who leave an impression is Theron's one-time co-star Bateman (the two shared a storyline in the beloved, departed television show &ldquo;Arrested Development&rdquo;), whose deft comic abilities elicited some of the only laughs to be heard during my opening-day screening. But even he is hindered by the questionable judgement of director Peter Berg (&ldquo;The Kingdom,&rdquo; &ldquo;Friday Night Lights,&rdquo; &ldquo;Very Bad Things&rdquo;). Berg obviously has potential, but has squandered it time and time again, as he does here with &ldquo;Hancock.&rdquo; It's an unwritten blockbuster law that superhero films, even if they dabble in the emotional complexities of its leads, must widen their lens and give the film and expansive, almost global, perspective that shows a city in crises or a world in peril. Not so with Berg. He instead chooses to zoom in on his subjects close enough that you can almost smell the stale scotch on Hancock's breath. When it finally comes to the epic confrontation at the finale, it's edited with such a slapdash manner that there is no sense of jeopardy, or wonderment, or even much of a pulse. Contributing to this menace-free environment is the film's villain, whose comic book bad guy name would be &ldquo;Dr. Minor Inconvenience&rdquo; or perhaps &ldquo;The Irritable Rash,&rdquo; as little a threat as he poses. And finally, lest you think that you are safely in the hands of audience-friendly Will Smith, not that the director was the same guy who based an entire film of a group of bachelor party participants trying to dispose of a dead hooker. In other words, bring the earmuffs and have hands ready to shield the eyes of the little ones brought into the theater to watch Mr. Man In Black battle baddies. &ldquo;Hancock&rdquo; is a film that would have benefited from being either an all-out satire of the genre, or an intimate introspective drama of the isolation accompanying the job title of World Saver. By combining the two, &ldquo;Hancock&rdquo; suffers from its own cinematic kryptonite, crippling it just when it should have soared into the stratosphere. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/20/29577.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/20/2008 3:01:01 PM
Body: By now I’m sure you’ve heard that former ’80s teen-movie star John Cusack will star in Roland Emmerich’s apocalypse spectacular 2012. Considering the blockbuster filmmaker has previously directed the likes of James Spader (in Stargate) and Matthew Broderick (in Godzilla), I figure it’s only a matter of time before he’s worked with all our favorite ’80s teen-movie actors. So, here’s a list of the next ten actors most appropriate for Emmerich to cast: Kirk Cameron - The former star of TV’s Growing Pains and the ’80s flick Like Father, Like Son has more recently starred in the Christian-targeted Left Behind movies, which, in dealing with the Rapture, fit in with Emmerich’s usual penchant for end-of-the-world scenarios. Considering his pro-creationist stance, he probably wasn’t a fan of Emmerich’s recent caveman epic and his Evangelical status means he probably disagrees with the climate change message of The Day After Tomorrow. Too bad, because seeing Mike Seaver in a big-budget action extravaganza would be awesome. Jason Bateman - He’s already in the midst of a comeback and has even played support in action movies such as The Kingdom and this summer’s Hancock (co-starring with former Emmerich-movie star Will Smith, who unfortunately just missed the cutoff to be considered an ’80s teen star). He’d make for a great lead in a silly sci-fi epic, though. He’s funny, would pass as an adventuring scientist or something and he’d give some extra cred to the typically ridiculous plots that Emmerich deals with. Rick Shroder - Bateman’s old Silver Spoons co-star is in need of another comeback, and after his upcoming performance in the TV-miniseries remake of The Andromeda Strain, he should be ripe for similar sci-fi fare. Alfonso Ribeiro - As long as we’re talking about Silver Spoons. Scott Grimes - He may be happy on E.R., but I miss the little Crite-killing redhead of Critters and Critters 2: The Main Course. Perhaps one day Emmerich can do the long-talked-about follow-up to Independence Day and hire Grimes to kick some more alien ass. Wil Wheaton - Emmerich’s Stargate has slowly evolved into a cult franchise, but it’s nothing compared to Star Trek (though really what is?). After the disappointing box office of 10,000 B.C., Emmerich could do well by casting Wil Wheaton, who will bring his sci-fi cred and fanbase, still strong from his TNG years. Anthony Michael Hall - He’s got a small part in The Dark Knight. Could it be his first step into blockbuster movies now that The Dead Zone is off the air? Let’s hope so … Andrew McCarthy - Just in case Lipstick Jungle doesn’t pan out. But even if it does, I’m still hoping for his substantial movie comeback. Corey Haim - Who wasn’t saddened by the thought that Haim was possibly left out of the new Lost Boys sequel? The guy isn’t nearly as cute as he was twenty years ago, but what’s the harm in casting him at least in a minor role? Corey Feldman - Like you’d want to watch a movie with only the lamer of the two Coreys. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 20 May 2008 19:01:01 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/20/2008 3:01:01 PMBy now I’m sure you’ve heard that former ’80s teen-movie star John Cusack will star in Roland Emmerich’s apocalypse spectacular 2012. Considering the blockbuster filmmaker has previously directed the likes of James Spader (in Stargate) and Matthew Broderick (in Godzilla), I figure it’s only a matter of time before he’s worked with all our favorite ’80s teen-movie actors. So, here’s a list of the next ten actors most appropriate for Emmerich to cast: Kirk Cameron - The former star of TV’s Growing Pains and the ’80s flick Like Father, Like Son has more recently starred in the Christian-targeted Left Behind movies, which, in dealing with the Rapture, fit in with Emmerich’s usual penchant for end-of-the-world scenarios. Considering his pro-creationist stance, he probably wasn’t a fan of Emmerich’s recent caveman epic and his Evangelical status means he probably disagrees with the climate change message of The Day After Tomorrow. Too bad, because seeing Mike Seaver in a big-budget action extravaganza would be awesome. Jason Bateman - He’s already in the midst of a comeback and has even played support in action movies such as The Kingdom and this summer’s Hancock (co-starring with former Emmerich-movie star Will Smith, who unfortunately just missed the cutoff to be considered an ’80s teen star). He’d make for a great lead in a silly sci-fi epic, though. He’s funny, would pass as an adventuring scientist or something and he’d give some extra cred to the typically ridiculous plots that Emmerich deals with. Rick Shroder - Bateman’s old Silver Spoons co-star is in need of another comeback, and after his upcoming performance in the TV-miniseries remake of The Andromeda Strain, he should be ripe for similar sci-fi fare. Alfonso Ribeiro - As long as we’re talking about Silver Spoons. Scott Grimes - He may be happy on E.R., but I miss the little Crite-killing redhead of Critters and Critters 2: The Main Course. Perhaps one day Emmerich can do the long-talked-about follow-up to Independence Day and hire Grimes to kick some more alien ass. Wil Wheaton - Emmerich’s Stargate has slowly evolved into a cult franchise, but it’s nothing compared to Star Trek (though really what is?). After the disappointing box office of 10,000 B.C., Emmerich could do well by casting Wil Wheaton, who will bring his sci-fi cred and fanbase, still strong from his TNG years. Anthony Michael Hall - He’s got a small part in The Dark Knight. Could it be his first step into blockbuster movies now that The Dead Zone is off the air? Let’s hope so … Andrew McCarthy - Just in case Lipstick Jungle doesn’t pan out. But even if it does, I’m still hoping for his substantial movie comeback. Corey Haim - Who wasn’t saddened by the thought that Haim was possibly left out of the new Lost Boys sequel? The guy isn’t nearly as cute as he was twenty years ago, but what’s the harm in casting him at least in a minor role? Corey Feldman - Like you’d want to watch a movie with only the lamer of the two Coreys. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/2/23433.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/2/2008 1:00:46 PM
Body: Here is my follow-up to last month’s question of what mainstream movie will feature on the most top ten movie lists. And the winner is … Ratatouille. Oh wait, didn’t I disqualify that one for being too obvious? No? Well, I should have. Yes, according to Movie City News’ Big Ass Chart (aka Scorecard) of critics’ top tens, the Pixar movie made it on to 51 best-of lists, making it the best-grossing best movie of the year. But maybe it wasn’t the most mainstream, if you define mainstream as studio-produced fare. Under that qualification Zodiac was the best mainstream movie of 2007, having been made jointly by Warner Bros. and Paramount and showing up on 70 best-of lists. Other Warner successes include Michael Clayton, which featured on 54 lists, Sweeney Todd, which received 44 mentions, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which showed up on one list, and Letters From Iwo Jima, which showed up a little late on one list. As far as those mainstream movies I predicted would feature heavily, Knocked Up (34 lists) ended up defeating Superbad (25 lists) — meanwhile, the third Judd Apatow movie of the year, Walk Hard, managed to get on one critic’s list — though both were actually behind The Bourne Ultimatum (28 lists), when it came to “average vote” (average numerical placement on the list). If we’re going by mainstream appeal (and if Karina is correct in her view of the film), then Juno was the best mainstream comedy of the year with 63 lists. Hairspray (13 lists) beat out its crappy musical siblings Across the Universe (7 lists) and Enchanted (8 lists). In addition to showing up on Richard Corliss’ list, Beowulf managed 3 other mentions. And Transformers not only showed up on a top ten list, it featured on 3! Of course, it’s more surprising that Spider-Man 3 made it on 4 lists. The greatest thing to happen, of course, was Manohla Dargis listing The Kingdom as one of her favorites. Joining her is Don Payne. If I had made a top ten list (instead of this thing), the film could very well have beaten Transformers. Oh well, at least nobody put the shocking blockbuster Alvin and the Chipmunks on their list … yet. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:00:46 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/2/2008 1:00:46 PMHere is my follow-up to last month’s question of what mainstream movie will feature on the most top ten movie lists. And the winner is … Ratatouille. Oh wait, didn’t I disqualify that one for being too obvious? No? Well, I should have. Yes, according to Movie City News’ Big Ass Chart (aka Scorecard) of critics’ top tens, the Pixar movie made it on to 51 best-of lists, making it the best-grossing best movie of the year. But maybe it wasn’t the most mainstream, if you define mainstream as studio-produced fare. Under that qualification Zodiac was the best mainstream movie of 2007, having been made jointly by Warner Bros. and Paramount and showing up on 70 best-of lists. Other Warner successes include Michael Clayton, which featured on 54 lists, Sweeney Todd, which received 44 mentions, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which showed up on one list, and Letters From Iwo Jima, which showed up a little late on one list. As far as those mainstream movies I predicted would feature heavily, Knocked Up (34 lists) ended up defeating Superbad (25 lists) — meanwhile, the third Judd Apatow movie of the year, Walk Hard, managed to get on one critic’s list — though both were actually behind The Bourne Ultimatum (28 lists), when it came to “average vote” (average numerical placement on the list). If we’re going by mainstream appeal (and if Karina is correct in her view of the film), then Juno was the best mainstream comedy of the year with 63 lists. Hairspray (13 lists) beat out its crappy musical siblings Across the Universe (7 lists) and Enchanted (8 lists). In addition to showing up on Richard Corliss’ list, Beowulf managed 3 other mentions. And Transformers not only showed up on a top ten list, it featured on 3! Of course, it’s more surprising that Spider-Man 3 made it on 4 lists. The greatest thing to happen, of course, was Manohla Dargis listing The Kingdom as one of her favorites. Joining her is Don Payne. If I had made a top ten list (instead of this thing), the film could very well have beaten Transformers. Oh well, at least nobody put the shocking blockbuster Alvin and the Chipmunks on their list … yet. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/fb2/archive/2007/12/22/23142.aspx Post By: fb2
Post To: FB2 Movie Blog
Post Date: 12/22/2007 2:22:28 PM
Body: I loved this movie. It worked well as a straight action movie, but it wasn't overly stupid or one-sided at all. It's just difficult to say anything that's not sad and hopeless about the situation.
]]>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:22:28 GMTfb2FB2 Movie Blog12/22/2007 2:22:28 PMI loved this movie. It worked well as a straight action movie, but it wasn&#39;t overly stupid or one-sided at all. It&#39;s just difficult to say anything that&#39;s not sad and hopeless about the situation. http://www.spout.com/blogs/mrfecteau/archive/2007/10/24/21142.aspx Post By: mrfecteau
Post To: mrfecteau Blog
Post Date: 10/24/2007 4:00:52 PM
Body: thought I should also add that I get to watch a lot of special screeners through Spout. got free passes to The Kingdom but I missed the showing so I went last week with my girlfriend Caitlin and it was an amazing film that sparked a lot of internal dialogue. Click here to see the description and read reviews. Originally posted on:pressmybuttons
]]>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:00:52 GMTmrfecteaumrfecteau Blog10/24/2007 4:00:52 PMthought I should also add that I get to watch a lot of special screeners through Spout. got free passes to The Kingdom but I missed the showing so I went last week with my girlfriend Caitlin and it was an amazing film that sparked a lot of internal dialogue. Click here to see the description and read reviews. Originally posted on:pressmybuttons http://www.spout.com/blogs/liz838/archive/2007/9/30/20251.aspx Post By: liz838
Post To: liz838 Blog
Post Date: 9/30/2007 9:48:37 AM
Body: Jamie Fox was outstanding, and the plot was on point.  Thank you very much.  I'll have to see this one again, and again.  It's so much to take in, and to understand, that on one showing you can't get it all.  WOW
]]>Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:48:37 GMTliz838liz838 Blog9/30/2007 9:48:37 AMJamie Fox was outstanding, and the plot was on point.  Thank you very much.  I&#39;ll have to see this one again, and again.  It&#39;s so much to take in, and to understand, that on one showing you can&#39;t get it all.  WOW http://www.spout.com/blogs/erico_77375/archive/2007/9/28/20197.aspx Post By: erico_77375
Post To: erico_77375 Blog
Post Date: 9/28/2007 3:05:33 AM
Body: In our fourth year in Iraq, almost six years after 9/11, we have learned more about the Middle East than ever before, and yet we’ve only scratched the surface. The movies that have come out about these predominately Islamic states have painted a harsh look on these countries, from their rugged climates to their strict religious codes that make most Christian groups look like hippies. In a time where our two cultures are colliding in what most people want to think is a winner-take-all scenario; a movie like the Kingdom seems almost naive. And for the most part, I would agree, but not for the reasons most would use. And yet I find myself comforted by this movie in ways that might baffle most people.The Kingdom in question is Saudi Arabia. The best part of the film is the opening credits where we are told the history of this country from the 30’s to September 11, 2001. This sets us up with an understanding of how the relationship between the US and the Saudis is one of a love-hate variety. We watch a terrorist double-whammy take place where American workers live while working for oil companies. A single bomber starts off what would be a much bigger attack during the confusion of ambulances and military. This attack makes the news and an FBI team lead by Ronald Fleury (Jaime Foxx) wants to get involved in the investigation. Big problem: The Saudi government doesn’t like American intervention in their affairs. But that doesn’t stop Fleury from blackmailing the Saudi ambassador to getting the approval to go. This, of course is behind the Attorney General’s (Danny Huston in a decent cameo) back. But getting to go was the easy part, the hard part begins when they get there only to find that the Saudi Military have placed them with Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom). He’s that one good cop who believes that detective work is much more effective than torture (which is why he’s babysitting this FBI team).The movie ultimately has three acts; the first act deals with how the team (with also stars Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper, and Jason Bateman) gets to work around the bureaucracy to be allowed to investigate. The second act is the actual investigation, where they find out who did it and how. And then, after a red herring (that anyone who has seen Silence of the Lambs can tell is a herring), the last 25 minutes is entirely action-packed. I would have been offended by the final act if it weren’t so well done. To be honest, it relegates everything we’ve experienced earlier to merely a filler to get to this point. What was a movie about two different cultures and how they solve a crime immediately becomes just another action movie. And with that said, this is one of the best gunfights this year. But let’s talk about the first two acts. Yes, it’s your basic police procedural, but it also has some great moments when we get to know Al Ghazi as a character. He’s not really happy about the FBI coming involved, but his government won’t allow him to do his job (which we somewhat suspect they might be intentionally trying to blunder). He’s that character that believes in right and wrong, and isn’t afraid of standing up for those values. We find ourselves rooting for him most of the time because he’s the one character that we really get to know. The FBI team is seen as cogs in the machine of justice with only a couple of scenes where Fleury is talking to his son (and that feels forced just a little). The screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan seems to express more than what is seen, which leads me to think that a good chunk of his story was altered or taken out of the final product. Director Peter Berg has made a movie that is entertaining, but seems to be insisting that it’s more than it really is; an action thriller. It seems that he was wanting to blend the good times of The Rundown with the more humble and thought-provoking Friday Night Lights into a movie that really shouldn’t have it both ways. And yet the movie does work and more effectively than it should have. But is that a credit to Berg as a director, or was he an obstacle to his own film’s success?All in all, most people are going to enjoy this film’s action. And why not, since one of the film’s producer is Michael Mann (of Heat and Miami Vice for those who don’t know). And yet those who are looking for more might be disappointed. And why not, since terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism are very topical without the Hollywood shootout. But either way you want this movie to be, you will be holding on tight to the very end.
]]>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:05:33 GMTerico_77375erico_77375 Blog9/28/2007 3:05:33 AMIn our fourth year in Iraq, almost six years after 9/11, we have learned more about the Middle East than ever before, and yet we&rsquo;ve only scratched the surface. The movies that have come out about these predominately Islamic states have painted a harsh look on these countries, from their rugged climates to their strict religious codes that make most Christian groups look like hippies. In a time where our two cultures are colliding in what most people want to think is a winner-take-all scenario; a movie like the Kingdom seems almost naive. And for the most part, I would agree, but not for the reasons most would use. And yet I find myself comforted by this movie in ways that might baffle most people.The Kingdom in question is Saudi Arabia. The best part of the film is the opening credits where we are told the history of this country from the 30&rsquo;s to September 11, 2001. This sets us up with an understanding of how the relationship between the US and the Saudis is one of a love-hate variety. We watch a terrorist double-whammy take place where American workers live while working for oil companies. A single bomber starts off what would be a much bigger attack during the confusion of ambulances and military. This attack makes the news and an FBI team lead by Ronald Fleury (Jaime Foxx) wants to get involved in the investigation. Big problem: The Saudi government doesn&rsquo;t like American intervention in their affairs. But that doesn&rsquo;t stop Fleury from blackmailing the Saudi ambassador to getting the approval to go. This, of course is behind the Attorney General&rsquo;s (Danny Huston in a decent cameo) back. But getting to go was the easy part, the hard part begins when they get there only to find that the Saudi Military have placed them with Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom). He&rsquo;s that one good cop who believes that detective work is much more effective than torture (which is why he&rsquo;s babysitting this FBI team).The movie ultimately has three acts; the first act deals with how the team (with also stars Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper, and Jason Bateman) gets to work around the bureaucracy to be allowed to investigate. The second act is the actual investigation, where they find out who did it and how. And then, after a red herring (that anyone who has seen Silence of the Lambs can tell is a herring), the last 25 minutes is entirely action-packed. I would have been offended by the final act if it weren&rsquo;t so well done. To be honest, it relegates everything we&rsquo;ve experienced earlier to merely a filler to get to this point. What was a movie about two different cultures and how they solve a crime immediately becomes just another action movie. And with that said, this is one of the best gunfights this year. But let&rsquo;s talk about the first two acts. Yes, it&rsquo;s your basic police procedural, but it also has some great moments when we get to know Al Ghazi as a character. He&rsquo;s not really happy about the FBI coming involved, but his government won&rsquo;t allow him to do his job (which we somewhat suspect they might be intentionally trying to blunder). He&rsquo;s that character that believes in right and wrong, and isn&rsquo;t afraid of standing up for those values. We find ourselves rooting for him most of the time because he&rsquo;s the one character that we really get to know. The FBI team is seen as cogs in the machine of justice with only a couple of scenes where Fleury is talking to his son (and that feels forced just a little). The screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan seems to express more than what is seen, which leads me to think that a good chunk of his story was altered or taken out of the final product. Director Peter Berg has made a movie that is entertaining, but seems to be insisting that it&rsquo;s more than it really is; an action thriller. It seems that he was wanting to blend the good times of The Rundown with the more humble and thought-provoking Friday Night Lights into a movie that really shouldn&rsquo;t have it both ways. And yet the movie does work and more effectively than it should have. But is that a credit to Berg as a director, or was he an obstacle to his own film&rsquo;s success?All in all, most people are going to enjoy this film&rsquo;s action. And why not, since one of the film&rsquo;s producer is Michael Mann (of Heat and Miami Vice for those who don&rsquo;t know). And yet those who are looking for more might be disappointed. And why not, since terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism are very topical without the Hollywood shootout. But either way you want this movie to be, you will be holding on tight to the very end. http://www.spout.com/blogs/theworkingdead/archive/2007/9/26/20156.aspx Post By: TheWorkingDead
Post To: TheWorkingDead Blog
Post Date: 9/26/2007 10:42:28 AM
Body: A curious incident happened right before the start of The Kingdom, the new Iraq-war themed movie starring Jamie Foxx & Jennifer Garner. The theatre was packed, and while I normally get to a movie 30-60 minutes early(depending on how busy I think it will be), I had carpooled with a friend who wouldn't leave until 15 minutes before the film was scheduled to start. So it was no surprise that there were no seats left, and when an employee came in telling people to scoot towards the middle, I jumped at an opening of two seats. As I walked into the aisle, a very large man and his girlfriend bounded up the stairs, pushed me aside, and jumped into the seats. A muttered 'asshole' on my part prompted this very large man to jump up and ask me if I wanted to say something to his face. Now, normally I'm a very passive guy, not prone to violence at all, but occasionally I'll just decide I don't want to put up with it anymore. This was a very large man, and perhaps I should pick my battles a little better. He went to the standard 'you wanna take this outside?' line, and I just said 'yeah, come on.' I mean, who actually gets into a fistfight over a theatre seat? But, he took me up on it, much to my chagrin. So I led him out into the lobby, and straight to the first theatre employee I could find. This prompted more blustery anger, and a promise to find me after the movie(he never did, of course). Probably I could have handled that a bit better, and certainly I knowingly egged him on a bit, but this sudden tendency to violence was a bit surprising to me, and actually speaks to the problems with this film in general. The Kingdom, directed with endless shaky handycams by former Chicago Hope actor Peter Berg, opens with a striking credits sequence in which a timeline is set for the nation of Saudi Arabia. Starting in 1932(a year before oil was discovered), and tracking America's involvement with the nation through drawings with thick black lines that the 'camera' is constantly moving around and through as they, and the dates, move forward. Over this we get occasional audio culled from documentaries and talking head news reports. A graph showing America's oil consumption compared to the rest of the world becomes a silhouette of the Twin Towers, and as a plane flies towards them the screen goes black, coming back on more scattered images of a post 9/11 world. One speaker laments that Osama, through his use of Saudi extremists in these attacks, has made the nation of Saudi Arabia as a whole an enemy in the eyes of most Americans, when we have been allies for so long. This sequence sets up a movie that will be rife with political subtext, a message movie if ever there was one. Unfortunately that movie is not The Kingdom.After setting up in the opening sequence how Saudi Arabia is not the enemy, the movie seems to lose that faith, and in fact every Saudi is a potential, and likely, killer. The uniformed Saudis are seen as strict, prone to torture(all except for our hero, Faris, played by Ashraf Barhom), and basically either inept or uncaring about a suicide bombing that kills several hundred American men, women and children. They aren't monsters, but they are apathetic about what they see as a corrupting influence on their soil, and not inclined to hunt too seriously for the perpetrators of this heinous act. On the other side of the coin are the civilians, who all seem to be gunmen waiting for the opportunity to strike out at Americans(and, in one scene, that's just what they are). Surprisingly, especially after that credits sequence, the movie loses all interest in politics, or message. Making a movie purely for entertainment, not for political reasons, is nothing to be ashamed of, and anyone looking to a movie for insightful, informed opinions on the 'war on terror' are looking in the wrong place. Still, it's a bit jarring that the movie seems to have no political point of view. To take something this current, where people are dieing every day, and just the merest mention of the subject is enough to draw even the quietest person into a heated debate, and then to completely ignore politics or higher meaning seems a bit... opportunistic.Instead of politics the movie aims for compassion, trying to show the human side of this war by teaming four FBI agents with a Saudi military man, Colonel Faris Al Ghazi, who appears to be the only Saudi in the film who has misgivings about the violence in his country. This movie tugs at the hearts strings, with scenes where American agents, fresh from killing family members in front of children, win back the hearts of the people by giving those same children a lollipop. 'Sorry I just shot your brother and grandfather to death, but here, have some hard candy. We cool?' This is also a film where action sequences and killings end with a joke and a hearty laugh from the audience. The film features a musical montage of understanding, where the daily life of Saudis is shown cross-cut between images of the American agents going about their investigation. The problem is, this film doesn't have the conviction to reach what it's aiming for. No attempt is made to explain, explore or understand the Saudi Arabian culture. We see endless shots of people stopping to pray at various times of the day, but no effort to support the central idea that 'we are actually all the same creature.' There is one successful, tense sequence near the end of the film where our heroes, en route to the airport, are ambushed by terrorists, and Agent Leavitt(Jason Bateman) is drawn from the car and thrown into the back of a black SUV. This begins a lengthy chase scene, where the group must race through mazes of streets, and then mazes of dilapidated apartments, hunting for Leavitt before he is beheaded on video for a terrorist website. The tension is undercut slightly by the repeated use of handheld cameras. Normally, I love handheld video. I like the way it looks and think it can be quite an effective style, but this movie continually overdoes it. I didn't get nauseous, but I did get a slight headache when the film would always cut away just before the camera came into focus. Trying to make out whats going on onscreen is sometimes an impossible feat.In the end, the point of this film, the 'message', if you will, seems to be that we CAN all get along. Americans and Saudis CAN overcome their differences and coexist in harmony, so long as we can just get together and kill a bunch of people. Actually, this may be true, and certainly it's worked in the past. It worked at Salem, when all those people came together to burn witches, it worked for the Aztecs with their ritual sacrifices, and hell, it worked for Hitler when he united Germany against the Jews. The problem is that now we understand that our enemy are humans too, with families and jobs, hopes and dreams. The enemy may hate us, but they've been given a tainted image of America, what with the constant meddling from oil companies, and the propaganda news reports. Some of us may hate Saudis, but we have a tainted image formed from propaganda news reports and faulty 9/11 connections. The average man on the street these days is aware of this problem, and we find it hard to categorically condemn an entire people. This idea, instead of uniting us, actually divides us further.The movie is probably not as insidious as all that, and certainly the audience I was with enjoyed it quite a bit more than I did. Chances are most people will enjoy this more than I did, but I was just confused. What was the point of this film? Why set up a political hot button issue and then ignore politics all together? The movie attempts to gain focus at the end with a coda that implies the violence will never end because both sides jump to bloodthirsty anger faster than they turn to discourse and discussion. Just like that man in the theatre. So maybe this movie is more prescient than I thought, but it's still a muddled, unlikable message.
]]>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:42:28 GMTTheWorkingDeadTheWorkingDead Blog9/26/2007 10:42:28 AMA curious incident happened right before the start of The Kingdom, the new Iraq-war themed movie starring Jamie Foxx &amp; Jennifer Garner. The theatre was packed, and while I normally get to a movie 30-60 minutes early(depending on how busy I think it will be), I had carpooled with a friend who wouldn&#39;t leave until 15 minutes before the film was scheduled to start. So it was no surprise that there were no seats left, and when an employee came in telling people to scoot towards the middle, I jumped at an opening of two seats. As I walked into the aisle, a very large man and his girlfriend bounded up the stairs, pushed me aside, and jumped into the seats. A muttered &#39;asshole&#39; on my part prompted this very large man to jump up and ask me if I wanted to say something to his face. Now, normally I&#39;m a very passive guy, not prone to violence at all, but occasionally I&#39;ll just decide I don&#39;t want to put up with it anymore. This was a very large man, and perhaps I should pick my battles a little better. He went to the standard &#39;you wanna take this outside?&#39; line, and I just said &#39;yeah, come on.&#39; I mean, who actually gets into a fistfight over a theatre seat? But, he took me up on it, much to my chagrin. So I led him out into the lobby, and straight to the first theatre employee I could find. This prompted more blustery anger, and a promise to find me after the movie(he never did, of course). Probably I could have handled that a bit better, and certainly I knowingly egged him on a bit, but this sudden tendency to violence was a bit surprising to me, and actually speaks to the problems with this film in general. The Kingdom, directed with endless shaky handycams by former Chicago Hope actor Peter Berg, opens with a striking credits sequence in which a timeline is set for the nation of Saudi Arabia. Starting in 1932(a year before oil was discovered), and tracking America&#39;s involvement with the nation through drawings with thick black lines that the &#39;camera&#39; is constantly moving around and through as they, and the dates, move forward. Over this we get occasional audio culled from documentaries and talking head news reports. A graph showing America&#39;s oil consumption compared to the rest of the world becomes a silhouette of the Twin Towers, and as a plane flies towards them the screen goes black, coming back on more scattered images of a post 9/11 world. One speaker laments that Osama, through his use of Saudi extremists in these attacks, has made the nation of Saudi Arabia as a whole an enemy in the eyes of most Americans, when we have been allies for so long. This sequence sets up a movie that will be rife with political subtext, a message movie if ever there was one. Unfortunately that movie is not The Kingdom.After setting up in the opening sequence how Saudi Arabia is not the enemy, the movie seems to lose that faith, and in fact every Saudi is a potential, and likely, killer. The uniformed Saudis are seen as strict, prone to torture(all except for our hero, Faris, played by Ashraf Barhom), and basically either inept or uncaring about a suicide bombing that kills several hundred American men, women and children. They aren&#39;t monsters, but they are apathetic about what they see as a corrupting influence on their soil, and not inclined to hunt too seriously for the perpetrators of this heinous act. On the other side of the coin are the civilians, who all seem to be gunmen waiting for the opportunity to strike out at Americans(and, in one scene, that&#39;s just what they are). Surprisingly, especially after that credits sequence, the movie loses all interest in politics, or message. Making a movie purely for entertainment, not for political reasons, is nothing to be ashamed of, and anyone looking to a movie for insightful, informed opinions on the &#39;war on terror&#39; are looking in the wrong place. Still, it&#39;s a bit jarring that the movie seems to have no political point of view. To take something this current, where people are dieing every day, and just the merest mention of the subject is enough to draw even the quietest person into a heated debate, and then to completely ignore politics or higher meaning seems a bit... opportunistic.Instead of politics the movie aims for compassion, trying to show the human side of this war by teaming four FBI agents with a Saudi military man, Colonel Faris Al Ghazi, who appears to be the only Saudi in the film who has misgivings about the violence in his country. This movie tugs at the hearts strings, with scenes where American agents, fresh from killing family members in front of children, win back the hearts of the people by giving those same children a lollipop. &#39;Sorry I just shot your brother and grandfather to death, but here, have some hard candy. We cool?&#39; This is also a film where action sequences and killings end with a joke and a hearty laugh from the audience. The film features a musical montage of understanding, where the daily life of Saudis is shown cross-cut between images of the American agents going about their investigation. The problem is, this film doesn&#39;t have the conviction to reach what it&#39;s aiming for. No attempt is made to explain, explore or understand the Saudi Arabian culture. We see endless shots of people stopping to pray at various times of the day, but no effort to support the central idea that &#39;we are actually all the same creature.&#39; There is one successful, tense sequence near the end of the film where our heroes, en route to the airport, are ambushed by terrorists, and Agent Leavitt(Jason Bateman) is drawn from the car and thrown into the back of a black SUV. This begins a lengthy chase scene, where the group must race through mazes of streets, and then mazes of dilapidated apartments, hunting for Leavitt before he is beheaded on video for a terrorist website. The tension is undercut slightly by the repeated use of handheld cameras. Normally, I love handheld video. I like the way it looks and think it can be quite an effective style, but this movie continually overdoes it. I didn&#39;t get nauseous, but I did get a slight headache when the film would always cut away just before the camera came into focus. Trying to make out whats going on onscreen is sometimes an impossible feat.In the end, the point of this film, the &#39;message&#39;, if you will, seems to be that we CAN all get along. Americans and Saudis CAN overcome their differences and coexist in harmony, so long as we can just get together and kill a bunch of people. Actually, this may be true, and certainly it&#39;s worked in the past. It worked at Salem, when all those people came together to burn witches, it worked for the Aztecs with their ritual sacrifices, and hell, it worked for Hitler when he united Germany against the Jews. The problem is that now we understand that our enemy are humans too, with families and jobs, hopes and dreams. The enemy may hate us, but they&#39;ve been given a tainted image of America, what with the constant meddling from oil companies, and the propaganda news reports. Some of us may hate Saudis, but we have a tainted image formed from propaganda news reports and faulty 9/11 connections. The average man on the street these days is aware of this problem, and we find it hard to categorically condemn an entire people. This idea, instead of uniting us, actually divides us further.The movie is probably not as insidious as all that, and certainly the audience I was with enjoyed it quite a bit more than I did. Chances are most people will enjoy this more than I did, but I was just confused. What was the point of this film? Why set up a political hot button issue and then ignore politics all together? The movie attempts to gain focus at the end with a coda that implies the violence will never end because both sides jump to bloodthirsty anger faster than they turn to discourse and discussion. Just like that man in the theatre. So maybe this movie is more prescient than I thought, but it&#39;s still a muddled, unlikable message. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bomb/MemberTagFilms.aspxbomb
Number of films tagged: 455

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 45

]]>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:27:51 GMT4553245Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/oil/MemberTagFilms.aspxoil
Number of films tagged: 230

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 40

]]>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:53:12 GMT2303040Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/investigation/MemberTagFilms.aspxinvestigation
Number of films tagged: 5883

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 124

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:28 GMT588329124Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fbi/MemberTagFilms.aspxfbi
Number of films tagged: 49

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 54

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:51:04 GMT492054Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/investigator/MemberTagFilms.aspxinvestigator
Number of films tagged: 1805

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 22

]]>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:02:56 GMT18051122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/agent-representative/MemberTagFilms.aspxagent-representative
Number of films tagged: 1461

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 7

]]>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:02:33 GMT146177Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/policeofficer/MemberTagFilms.aspxpoliceofficer
Number of films tagged: 453

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

]]>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:02:37 GMT453710Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bureaucracy/MemberTagFilms.aspxbureaucracy
Number of films tagged: 242

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 6

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT24256Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/middleeast/MemberTagFilms.aspxmiddleeast
Number of films tagged: 146

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 5

]]>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:02:54 GMT14655Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fbi-federal-bureau-of-in/MemberTagFilms.aspxfbi-federal-bureau-of-in
Number of films tagged: 385

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 5

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT38535Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/foreign-policy/MemberTagFilms.aspxforeign-policy
Number of films tagged: 33

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 33

]]>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 04:05:56 GMT33133Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intelligence-community/MemberTagFilms.aspxintelligence-community
Number of films tagged: 54

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 54

]]>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:54:26 GMT54154Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/international-relations/MemberTagFilms.aspxinternational-relations
Number of films tagged: 58

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 58

]]>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 04:05:56 GMT58158Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/saudiarabia/MemberTagFilms.aspxsaudiarabia
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:02:42 GMT1411Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/terroristattack/MemberTagFilms.aspxterroristattack
Number of films tagged: 132

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT13211Tag