list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Dark Knight 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_Dark_Knight/288704/default.aspx Title: The Dark Knight
Year: 2008
Director: Christopher Nolan
Plot: Christopher Nolan steps back into the director's chair for this sequel to Batman Begins, which finds the titular superhero coming face to face with his greatest nemesis -- the dreaded Joker. Christian Bale returns to the role of Batman, Maggie Gyllenhaal takes over the role of Rachel Dawes (played by Katie Holmes in Batman Begins), and Brokeback Mountain star Heath Ledger dons the ghoulishly gleeful Joker makeup previously worn by Jack Nicholson and Cesar Romero. Just as it begins to appear as if Batman, Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman), and District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) are making headway in their tireless battle against the criminal element, a maniacal, wisecracking fiend plunges the streets of Gotham City into complete chaos. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 149
Number of Lists: 98
Number of blog posts: 156
Number of discussion threads: 55
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:13:34 GMTThe Dark Knight2008Christopher Nolan<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___240025/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christopher Nolan</a> steps back into the director's chair for this sequel to <a href="http://www.spout.com/films/229480/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Batman Begins</a>, which finds the titular superhero coming face to face with his greatest nemesis -- the dreaded Joker. <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P_____3538/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christian Bale</a> returns to the role of Batman, <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____29409/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Maggie Gyllenhaal</a> takes over the role of Rachel Dawes (played by <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___225994/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Katie Holmes</a> in <a href="http://www.spout.com/films/229480/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Batman Begins</a>), and <a href="http://www.spout.com/films/240509/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brokeback Mountain</a> star <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___268296/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Heath Ledger</a> dons the ghoulishly gleeful Joker makeup previously worn by <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___104455/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Nicholson</a> and <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____61318/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cesar Romero</a>. Just as it begins to appear as if Batman, Lt. James Gordon (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____53946/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gary Oldman</a>), and District Attorney Harvey Dent (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___223098/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Aaron Eckhart</a>) are making headway in their tireless battle against the criminal element, a maniacal, wisecracking fiend plunges the streets of Gotham City into complete chaos. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide149Tag Target (>10)98156554http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s288704.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Dark_Knight/288704/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/mbsgirl/archive/2009/11/12/44351.aspx Post By: mbsgirl
Post To: mbsgirl Blog
Post Date: 11/12/2009 1:06:39 AM
Body: I think is easily one of the best Batman movies i watched this last night at www.watchfreelinks.com the site seems kinda sketchy cuz the survey thing but dont let it fool you i use it almost everyday.
]]>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:06:39 GMTmbsgirlmbsgirl Blog11/12/2009 1:06:39 AMI think is easily one of the best Batman movies i watched this last night at www.watchfreelinks.com the site seems kinda sketchy cuz the survey thing but dont let it fool you i use it almost everyday. http://www.spout.com/blogs/klim/archive/2009/10/5/44117.aspx Post By: Klim
Post To: Rated Art
Post Date: 10/5/2009 8:27:52 AM
Body: We are not finished in '09 yet, but this movie has the potential to become truly the best thing released this year; certainly one of the best films of all time. This film does to sports what The Dark Knight did to comic movies. I am not a sports fan but loved every minute of it. There is NOTHING not to love about it.
]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:27:52 GMTKlimRated Art10/5/2009 8:27:52 AMWe are not finished in '09 yet, but this movie has the potential to become truly the best thing released this year; certainly one of the best films of all time. This film does to sports what The Dark Knight did to comic movies. I am not a sports fan but loved every minute of it. There is NOTHING not to love about it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/laurenbailey63/archive/2009/9/25/44029.aspx Post By: laurenbailey63
Post To: laurenbailey63 Blog
Post Date: 9/25/2009 8:23:09 PM
Body: loved it the best one of the lot. it realy showes different sides of him
]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:23:09 GMTlaurenbailey63laurenbailey63 Blog9/25/2009 8:23:09 PMloved it the best one of the lot. it realy showes different sides of him http://www.spout.com/blogs/filmfreek2007/archive/2009/9/6/43803.aspx Post By: FilmFreek2007
Post To: FilmFreek2007 Blog
Post Date: 9/6/2009 3:49:09 PM
Body: "The Dark Knight" makes "Batman Begins" look like a long walk in the park. The movie truly delivers both a visual & emotional rollercoaster, looping from action to dark humor, suspense to human drama, incredible dialogue & performances to spectacular action. Just like many comic book movies, there is one villian that's bound to steal the show. Like Pacino (as Big Boy Caprice in "Dick Tracy") & Nicholson (as the original Joker in "Batman") before him, the gone-but-not-forgotten Heath Ledger just doesn't run away with the movie, he completely holds it hostage. Every scene he's appears in as the Joker, Ledger makes one simple scene look like a sports highlight that will be replayed over & over again. "The Dark Knight" is more than just a superhero movie, it's a 2 1/2 hour powder keg of excitement & thrills that's just waiting to go off. Highly recommended.
]]>Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:49:09 GMTFilmFreek2007FilmFreek2007 Blog9/6/2009 3:49:09 PM"The Dark Knight" makes "Batman Begins" look like a long walk in the park. The movie truly delivers both a visual &amp; emotional rollercoaster, looping from action to dark humor, suspense to human drama, incredible dialogue &amp; performances to spectacular action. Just like many comic book movies, there is one villian that's bound to steal the show. Like Pacino (as Big Boy Caprice in "Dick Tracy") &amp; Nicholson (as the original Joker in "Batman") before him, the gone-but-not-forgotten Heath Ledger just doesn't run away with the movie, he completely holds it hostage. Every scene he's appears in as the Joker, Ledger makes one simple scene look like a sports highlight that will be replayed over &amp; over again. "The Dark Knight" is more than just a superhero movie, it's a 2 1/2 hour powder keg of excitement &amp; thrills that's just waiting to go off. Highly recommended. http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/8/30/43760.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 8/30/2009 7:13:34 PM
Body: A madman has brought his wrath to "Gotham City" (Chicago, Illinois) which is finally cleaning out the criminal element. That man is known to authorities as "The Joker" (Heath Ledger). And there is only one man who can stop him -- a masked vigilante known as "The Batman" (Christian Bale).However, another man is trying to do, legally, what the "Caped Crusader" has been doing. That man is the District Attorney "Harvey Dent" (Aaron Eckhart), who eventually becomes what "Bruce Wayne" (Bale) fights to become in his dark alter-ego.The two men who are trying to get "The Clown Prince of Crime" each have the same partner -- "Lt. James Gordon" (Gary Oldman), who is one of the only uncorrupt cops on the force. But, "Batman" has two more partners in his battle against evil -- "Alfred" (Sir Michael Caine), the "Wayne" family butler and "Bruce's" life-long confidant. "Batman's" other partner is the CEO of "Wayne Enterprises", "Lucius Fox" (Morgan Freeman), who is the man behind all of "Batman's" weaponry.First of all, let me say that this movie is, in my opinion, as close to perfect as you can come. Especially compared to movies I've seen recently. There are way more pros than cons if you ask me.First of all, most of the movie is just a little too bright for the world of "Batman." The scenes set during sunlight were just not dark enough to set the right mood for this world originally created in DC Comics. Personally, I would have liked to have seen dimmer lighting in many day scenes where the lighting could be controlled.Like in the last film, I really had a problem with the "Batmobile." It looked more like a military vehicle, and not something "Batman" should be behind the wheel of. Yes, it's painted black, but every version of the famed vehicle always reminded you of a bat in some way.I also had a problem with how some of the characters were used. First of all, this movie, like all in the genre, expects the audience to know the background of the main characters for the most part. I still have a problem with Caine, an Academy Award winner, as "Alfred." I just can't picture him as a butler, and he was barely used in this film. Personally, I wish he and Morgan were in the film a little bit more -- especially Caine since Morgan was in the film a bit more often.Despite the weak writing of the characters, I found the performances pretty strong. Heath Ledger, who died shortly after filming this movie, is almost perfect as "Joker". He captures the insane tone of the character very well, and completely brings you into the performance. Bale is really good as "Batman," although I thought his voice for the character was a bit much. He really did a good job as "Wayne" though.Caine and Morgan, though under used in my opinion, did a great job with what they were given. You really felt that "Fox" knew why "Wayne" wanted the equipment, but knew not to ask. I also thought Caine made "Alfred" more a father-figure than a butler. In fact, I can't even remember one time when he acted more like a butler.I was almost impressed with Eckhart until he became his evil alter-ego, "Two-Face." It wasn't until his change that he really picked up his performance.If you ask me, Maggie Gyllenhaal had no chance at making "Rachel Dawes" her own. She had to fill the role created by Katie Holmes in "Batman Begins", and really didn't do anything that made you forget Holmes in the first movie. In fact, she just didn't make me feel for her when she met her fate in the film that was used as part of "Dent's" dive into madness. They tried to make her look like Holmes, but only made her look like a younger sister to her.Of course, there is a lot of action in this film. These scenes are fast-paced, and done perfectly. These scenes are edited very well, and get the job done. Another special effect which stands out is the "Two-Face" make-up, which is actually CGI edited over Eckhart's face in post-production. It wasn't until I saw some production stills online that I thought it was some very elaborate makeup.The music was done really well in this movie. Although I couldn't tell you any pieces of music used if I heard it again, the music really enhanced scenes. Like the soundtrack should, the music was used perfectly.I wouldn't put this in the top five of your "Must See" list, but I would suggest that you check this one out the next time you find it on HBO, or even the next time you visit your local rental store or Netflix.
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:13:34 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog8/30/2009 7:13:34 PMA madman has brought his wrath to "Gotham City" (Chicago, Illinois) which is finally cleaning out the criminal element. That man is known to authorities as "The Joker" (Heath Ledger). And there is only one man who can stop him -- a masked vigilante known as "The Batman" (Christian Bale).However, another man is trying to do, legally, what the "Caped Crusader" has been doing. That man is the District Attorney "Harvey Dent" (Aaron Eckhart), who eventually becomes what "Bruce Wayne" (Bale) fights to become in his dark alter-ego.The two men who are trying to get "The Clown Prince of Crime" each have the same partner -- "Lt. James Gordon" (Gary Oldman), who is one of the only uncorrupt cops on the force. But, "Batman" has two more partners in his battle against evil -- "Alfred" (Sir Michael Caine), the "Wayne" family butler and "Bruce's" life-long confidant. "Batman's" other partner is the CEO of "Wayne Enterprises", "Lucius Fox" (Morgan Freeman), who is the man behind all of "Batman's" weaponry.First of all, let me say that this movie is, in my opinion, as close to perfect as you can come. Especially compared to movies I've seen recently. There are way more pros than cons if you ask me.First of all, most of the movie is just a little too bright for the world of "Batman." The scenes set during sunlight were just not dark enough to set the right mood for this world originally created in DC Comics. Personally, I would have liked to have seen dimmer lighting in many day scenes where the lighting could be controlled.Like in the last film, I really had a problem with the "Batmobile." It looked more like a military vehicle, and not something "Batman" should be behind the wheel of. Yes, it's painted black, but every version of the famed vehicle always reminded you of a bat in some way.I also had a problem with how some of the characters were used. First of all, this movie, like all in the genre, expects the audience to know the background of the main characters for the most part. I still have a problem with Caine, an Academy Award winner, as "Alfred." I just can't picture him as a butler, and he was barely used in this film. Personally, I wish he and Morgan were in the film a little bit more -- especially Caine since Morgan was in the film a bit more often.Despite the weak writing of the characters, I found the performances pretty strong. Heath Ledger, who died shortly after filming this movie, is almost perfect as "Joker". He captures the insane tone of the character very well, and completely brings you into the performance. Bale is really good as "Batman," although I thought his voice for the character was a bit much. He really did a good job as "Wayne" though.Caine and Morgan, though under used in my opinion, did a great job with what they were given. You really felt that "Fox" knew why "Wayne" wanted the equipment, but knew not to ask. I also thought Caine made "Alfred" more a father-figure than a butler. In fact, I can't even remember one time when he acted more like a butler.I was almost impressed with Eckhart until he became his evil alter-ego, "Two-Face." It wasn't until his change that he really picked up his performance.If you ask me, Maggie Gyllenhaal had no chance at making "Rachel Dawes" her own. She had to fill the role created by Katie Holmes in "Batman Begins", and really didn't do anything that made you forget Holmes in the first movie. In fact, she just didn't make me feel for her when she met her fate in the film that was used as part of "Dent's" dive into madness. They tried to make her look like Holmes, but only made her look like a younger sister to her.Of course, there is a lot of action in this film. These scenes are fast-paced, and done perfectly. These scenes are edited very well, and get the job done. Another special effect which stands out is the "Two-Face" make-up, which is actually CGI edited over Eckhart's face in post-production. It wasn't until I saw some production stills online that I thought it was some very elaborate makeup.The music was done really well in this movie. Although I couldn't tell you any pieces of music used if I heard it again, the music really enhanced scenes. Like the soundtrack should, the music was used perfectly.I wouldn't put this in the top five of your "Must See" list, but I would suggest that you check this one out the next time you find it on HBO, or even the next time you visit your local rental store or Netflix. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/27/41289.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2009 9:00:44 AM
Body: Though the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/27/2009 9:00:44 AMThough the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/5/40839.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/5/2009 10:00:20 AM
Body: Many smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/5/2009 10:00:20 AMMany smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_films_based_on_graphic_novels_is/657/40630/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 2/24/2009 9:39:28 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="joem18b"] Probably another essential entry for the poll would be The Dark Knight Returns. [/quote] Was The Dark Knight based on that graphic novel? I didn't realize it was a strict adaptation of any previous source. Why was anyone so afraid of the plot being leaked then? [/quote] urk! what was i thinking? somehow i was connecting Batman Begins with The Dark Knight Returns. never mind...
]]>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:39:28 GMTjoem18bMovie Polls2/24/2009 9:39:28 PM[quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="joem18b"] Probably another essential entry for the poll would be The Dark Knight Returns. [/quote] Was The Dark Knight based on that graphic novel? I didn't realize it was a strict adaptation of any previous source. Why was anyone so afraid of the plot being leaked then? [/quote] urk! what was i thinking? somehow i was connecting Batman Begins with The Dark Knight Returns. never mind... http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_films_based_on_graphic_novels_is/657/40624/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 2/24/2009 4:52:01 PM
Body: [quote user="joem18b"] Hi. Why didn't you put Watchmen in the poll? [/quote] It's not being released until next week.... Have you seen it already somehow?? [quote user="joem18b"] Probably another essential entry for the poll would be The Dark Knight Returns. [/quote] Was The Dark Knight based on that graphic novel? I didn't realize it was a strict adaptation of any previous source. Why was anyone so afraid of the plot being leaked then?
]]>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:52:01 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls2/24/2009 4:52:01 PM[quote user="joem18b"] Hi. Why didn't you put Watchmen in the poll? [/quote] It's not being released until next week.... Have you seen it already somehow?? [quote user="joem18b"] Probably another essential entry for the poll would be The Dark Knight Returns. [/quote] Was The Dark Knight based on that graphic novel? I didn't realize it was a strict adaptation of any previous source. Why was anyone so afraid of the plot being leaked then? http://www.spout.com/blogs/scswngr/archive/2009/2/22/40589.aspx Post By: scswngr
Post To: Film Obsessed
Post Date: 2/22/2009 6:39:44 PM
Body: As I scramble to catch the last couple of films that will complete my Oscar Watch List, I am prematurely making my picks for the statuettes tomorrow night. I will save judgement on the Foreign Language and Documentary Short categories, neither of which I have had the opportunity to get into since I live in a town where you can see 4 screens of Rambo, but you're lucky to get to see an independent or foreign film only months after it comes out on DVD at the local film club. That being said, I have also not had the chance to see 3 of the Documentary Features, but am confident in my decision in that category nonetheless. Otherwise, by tomorrow night's Academy Awards ceremony I will have seen every single movie nominated in every other category.So, onto my picks: Screenplay, OriginalShould Win: MilkWill Win: MilkMissing: The WrestlerScreenplay, AdaptedShould Win: Doubt or The ReaderWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireVisual EffectsShould Win: Iron ManWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonMissing: Speed RacerSound MixingShould Win: WALL-EWill Win: The Dark KnightSound EditingShould Win: The Dark KnightWill Win: The Dark KnightShort Film, Live ActionShould Win: Grisen (The Pig)Will Win: Spielzeugland (Toyland)Short Film, AnimatedShould Win: PrestoWill Win: PrestoOriginal SongShould Win: "Jai Ho" from Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: "Jai Ho" from Slumdog MillionaireMissing: "The Wrestler" by Bruce Springsteen from The WrestlerOriginal ScoreShould Win: Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMakeupShould Win: Hellboy IIWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonFilm EditingShould Win: Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireDocumentary FeatureShould Win: Man on WireWill Win: Man on WireCostume DesignShould Win: The DuchessWill Win: The DuchessCinematographyShould Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMissing: Brideshead RevisitedArt DirectionShould Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonAnimated FeatureShould Win: WALL-EWill Win: WALL-EDirectingShould Win: David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: Danny Boyle for Slumdog MillionaireMissing: Darren Aronofsky for The Wrestler Actress, SupportingShould Win: Penelope Cruz in Vicky Cristina BarcelonaWill Win: Viola Davis in DoubtActor, SupportingShould Win: Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightWill Win: Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightActor, LeadingShould Win: Mickey Rourke in The WrestlerWill Win: Sean Penn in MilkMissing: Leonardo Dicaprio in Revolutionary RoadActress, LeadingShould Win: Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married or Meryl Streep in DoubtWill Win: Kate Winslet in The ReaderMissing: Kate Winslet in Revolutionary RoadBest PictureShould Win: MilkWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMissing: The Wrestler, Doubt, and The Dark Knight
]]>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:39:44 GMTscswngrFilm Obsessed2/22/2009 6:39:44 PMAs I scramble to catch the last couple of films that will complete my Oscar Watch List, I am prematurely making my picks for the statuettes tomorrow night. I will save judgement on the Foreign Language and Documentary Short categories, neither of which I have had the opportunity to get into since I live in a town where you can see 4 screens of Rambo, but you're lucky to get to see an independent or foreign film only months after it comes out on DVD at the local film club. That being said, I have also not had the chance to see 3 of the Documentary Features, but am confident in my decision in that category nonetheless. Otherwise, by tomorrow night's Academy Awards ceremony I will have seen every single movie nominated in every other category.So, onto my picks: Screenplay, OriginalShould Win: MilkWill Win: MilkMissing: The WrestlerScreenplay, AdaptedShould Win: Doubt or The ReaderWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireVisual EffectsShould Win: Iron ManWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonMissing: Speed RacerSound MixingShould Win: WALL-EWill Win: The Dark KnightSound EditingShould Win: The Dark KnightWill Win: The Dark KnightShort Film, Live ActionShould Win: Grisen (The Pig)Will Win: Spielzeugland (Toyland)Short Film, AnimatedShould Win: PrestoWill Win: PrestoOriginal SongShould Win: "Jai Ho" from Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: "Jai Ho" from Slumdog MillionaireMissing: "The Wrestler" by Bruce Springsteen from The WrestlerOriginal ScoreShould Win: Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMakeupShould Win: Hellboy IIWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonFilm EditingShould Win: Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireDocumentary FeatureShould Win: Man on WireWill Win: Man on WireCostume DesignShould Win: The DuchessWill Win: The DuchessCinematographyShould Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMissing: Brideshead RevisitedArt DirectionShould Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonAnimated FeatureShould Win: WALL-EWill Win: WALL-EDirectingShould Win: David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: Danny Boyle for Slumdog MillionaireMissing: Darren Aronofsky for The Wrestler Actress, SupportingShould Win: Penelope Cruz in Vicky Cristina BarcelonaWill Win: Viola Davis in DoubtActor, SupportingShould Win: Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightWill Win: Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightActor, LeadingShould Win: Mickey Rourke in The WrestlerWill Win: Sean Penn in MilkMissing: Leonardo Dicaprio in Revolutionary RoadActress, LeadingShould Win: Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married or Meryl Streep in DoubtWill Win: Kate Winslet in The ReaderMissing: Kate Winslet in Revolutionary RoadBest PictureShould Win: MilkWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMissing: The Wrestler, Doubt, and The Dark Knight http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12477

Number of people who tagged: 336

Number of times used: 1476

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:17 GMT124773361476Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7160

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1002

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:40 GMT71601691002Tag 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/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/amazing/MemberTagFilms.aspxamazing
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 156

Number of times used: 253

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:49:13 GMT179156253Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brilliant/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT179137285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 317

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 458

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:42:37 GMT317111458Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 91

Number of times used: 122

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT7891122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/thriller/MemberTagFilms.aspxthriller
Number of films tagged: 199

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 244

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT19974244Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crime/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrime
Number of films tagged: 401

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 303

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:32 GMT40170303Tag