list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Right Stuff 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_Right_Stuff/28961/default.aspx Title: The Right Stuff
Year: 1983
Director: Philip Kaufman
Plot: Covering some 15 years, The Right Stuff recounts the formation of America's space program, concentrating on the original Mercury astronauts. Scott Glenn plays Alan Shepard, the first American in space; Fred Ward is Gus Grissom, the benighted astronaut for whom nothing works out as planned; and Ed Harris is John Glenn, the straight-arrow "boy scout" of the bunch who was the first American to orbit the earth. The remaining four Mercury boys are Deke Slayton (Scott Paulin), Scott Carpenter (Charles Frank), Wally Schirra (Lance Henriksen) and Gordon Cooper (Dennis Quaid). Wolfe's original book related in straightforward fashion the dangers and frustrations facing the astronauts (including Glenn's oft-repeated complaint that it's hard to be confident when you know that the missile you're sitting on has been built by the lowest bidder), the various personal crises involving their families (Glenn's wife Annie, a stutterer, dreads being interviewed on television, while Grissom's wife Betty, angered that her husband is not regarded as a hero because his mission was a failure, bitterly declares "I want my parade!"), and the schism between the squeaky-clean public image of the Mercury pilots and their sometimes raunchy earthbound shenanigans. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 27
Number of Lists: 17
Number of blog posts: 2
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:19:39 GMTThe Right Stuff1983Philip KaufmanCovering some 15 years, The Right Stuff recounts the formation of America's space program, concentrating on the original Mercury astronauts. <a href="/players/P____27245/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Scott Glenn</a> plays Alan Shepard, the first American in space; <a href="/players/P____74620/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Fred Ward</a> is Gus Grissom, the benighted astronaut for whom nothing works out as planned; and <a href="/players/P____30614/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ed Harris</a> is John Glenn, the straight-arrow "boy scout" of the bunch who was the first American to orbit the earth. The remaining four Mercury boys are Deke Slayton (<a href="/players/P____55518/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Scott Paulin</a>), Scott Carpenter (<a href="/players/P____90352/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Charles Frank</a>), Wally Schirra (<a href="/players/P____31804/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lance Henriksen</a>) and Gordon Cooper (<a href="/players/P____58161/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dennis Quaid</a>). Wolfe's original book related in straightforward fashion the dangers and frustrations facing the astronauts (including Glenn's oft-repeated complaint that it's hard to be confident when you know that the missile you're sitting on has been built by the lowest bidder), the various personal crises involving their families (Glenn's wife Annie, a stutterer, dreads being interviewed on television, while Grissom's wife Betty, angered that her husband is not regarded as a hero because his mission was a failure, bitterly declares "I want my parade!"), and the schism between the squeaky-clean public image of the Mercury pilots and their sometimes raunchy earthbound shenanigans. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide27Tag Target (>10)17213http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t30317sitmo.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Right_Stuff/28961/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28625.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 11:58:20 AM
Body: For me, it was the wrong stuff. Yeah, this is another hate mail movie that everyone claims is a masterpiece or classic, but I found to be extremely overrated. A critic's darling but box office failure on its initial release, The Right Stuff is considered by many critics to be one of the best of the 80's, but for me the movie was mostly a wasted effort, taking an interesting subject and treating it in an overly flippant manner. I was reminded of another overrated movie that tried to do that and failed: M*A*S*H. The interesting subject is the early days of the American space program, when the United States was running far behind the Soviet Union in the space race, and it looked as if the Commies might inherit the Earth. That didn't happen, of course, and in a way the space race proved to be a bit overhyped- we never got that moonbase we were promised by 2001. Kaufman's movie begin in 1947, as Chuck Yeager (Sam Shepard) breaks the sound barrier, and ends in 1962, shortly after the saintly John Glenn (Ed Harris) becomes the first American to orbit the Earth. Most the rest the long (three hours and thirteen minuets) film concerns the personal relationships between the astronauts and their wives as they try to deal with fame and in the words of Allen Shepard (Fred Ward) "not screw up". Now, the space program is fairly interesting material, and the geo-political overtones of were, to use an understatement, really really important. The critical error of Kaufman's film is its tone- this seems like a holdover from the anti-establishment, stick-it-to-the man cinema of '70's. He throws away most chances at building real political suspense on cloying attempts at comedy. The NASA bigwigs and leaders of the American government are treated in such a knee jerk way that it's sometimes breathtaking. The movie is at its absolute worst when it comes to the portrayal of Lyndon Johnson (Donald Moffat), who is a cartoon-like buffoon. Yeah, the guy was from Texas, and might have come off as a redneck, but he wasn't an idiot, and was too good a politician to be as annoying as he is in this movie. Where the movie does succeed is and its portrayal of space flight. I gained a new level of respect for the real astronauts. The early test pilots from the Mercury program had to perform a complex series of technical maneuvers while being strapped to what was essentially a bed, in a capsule that could fit into my bathroom. The claustrophobia must have been overwhelming, and every pilot new that they Grim Reaper was always close by on every flight. So when Kaufman plays the material for real, the movie works. But this is about forty five minuets of a three hour movie. The film ends as Yeager tests another super dangerous aircraft, and Kaufman chooses to intercut this with a fan dance from a stripper at a party thrown by Johnson. What is the point? That Johnson's a rube? That Yeager is the "real thing" in comparison with the government's phoniness? That the Mercury program is nothing but a striptease of the power of the US government? That's not really true, and even if it is, it's a stupid metaphor. The Right Stuff (1983)
]]>Mon, 12 May 2008 15:58:20 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 11:58:20 AMFor me, it was the wrong stuff. Yeah, this is another hate mail movie that everyone claims is a masterpiece or classic, but I found to be extremely overrated. A critic's darling but box office failure on its initial release, The Right Stuff is considered by many critics to be one of the best of the 80's, but for me the movie was mostly a wasted effort, taking an interesting subject and treating it in an overly flippant manner. I was reminded of another overrated movie that tried to do that and failed: M*A*S*H. The interesting subject is the early days of the American space program, when the United States was running far behind the Soviet Union in the space race, and it looked as if the Commies might inherit the Earth. That didn't happen, of course, and in a way the space race proved to be a bit overhyped- we never got that moonbase we were promised by 2001. Kaufman's movie begin in 1947, as Chuck Yeager (Sam Shepard) breaks the sound barrier, and ends in 1962, shortly after the saintly John Glenn (Ed Harris) becomes the first American to orbit the Earth. Most the rest the long (three hours and thirteen minuets) film concerns the personal relationships between the astronauts and their wives as they try to deal with fame and in the words of Allen Shepard (Fred Ward) "not screw up". Now, the space program is fairly interesting material, and the geo-political overtones of were, to use an understatement, really really important. The critical error of Kaufman's film is its tone- this seems like a holdover from the anti-establishment, stick-it-to-the man cinema of '70's. He throws away most chances at building real political suspense on cloying attempts at comedy. The NASA bigwigs and leaders of the American government are treated in such a knee jerk way that it's sometimes breathtaking. The movie is at its absolute worst when it comes to the portrayal of Lyndon Johnson (Donald Moffat), who is a cartoon-like buffoon. Yeah, the guy was from Texas, and might have come off as a redneck, but he wasn't an idiot, and was too good a politician to be as annoying as he is in this movie. Where the movie does succeed is and its portrayal of space flight. I gained a new level of respect for the real astronauts. The early test pilots from the Mercury program had to perform a complex series of technical maneuvers while being strapped to what was essentially a bed, in a capsule that could fit into my bathroom. The claustrophobia must have been overwhelming, and every pilot new that they Grim Reaper was always close by on every flight. So when Kaufman plays the material for real, the movie works. But this is about forty five minuets of a three hour movie. The film ends as Yeager tests another super dangerous aircraft, and Kaufman chooses to intercut this with a fan dance from a stripper at a party thrown by Johnson. What is the point? That Johnson's a rube? That Yeager is the "real thing" in comparison with the government's phoniness? That the Mercury program is nothing but a striptease of the power of the US government? That's not really true, and even if it is, it's a stupid metaphor. The Right Stuff (1983) http://www.spout.com/groups/Movies_101/Re_Leading_Men_Dennis_Quaid/513/25266/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: solafekxela
Post To: Movies 101
Post Date: 2/18/2008 12:51:03 PM
Body: http://www.spout.com/blogs/solafekxela/archive/2008/2/18/25265.aspx I compiled my reviews of all four interviews into 1 post. Hope that's alright! The last interview on the disc is with Dennis Quaid, a largely overlooked but very talented actor. The film discussed in the most depth during the interview is The Right Stuff, undoubtedly one of Quaid’s greatest roles. His comments are candid, genuine, and informative, though he’s not naturally as engaging a speaker as the other interviewees. Some of the stories Quaid shares aren’t as relevant to the discussion as he may think, but they aren’t necessarily uninteresting. Since I’m naturally fascinated with Quaid, his work, and the decisions he has made, I really enjoyed hearing his thoughts as well as Brown’s perspective on his career. This interview is decidedly more focused on Quaid’s life than his specific acting methodology, and it is all the better for it. However, there is a fair amount of talk on Quaid’s early movie experiences, and it is so nostalgia-infused that it proves the most exciting part of the interview.
]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:51:03 GMTsolafekxelaMovies 1012/18/2008 12:51:03 PMhttp://www.spout.com/blogs/solafekxela/archive/2008/2/18/25265.aspx I compiled my reviews of all four interviews into 1 post. Hope that&#39;s alright! The last interview on the disc is with Dennis Quaid, a largely overlooked but very talented actor. The film discussed in the most depth during the interview is The Right Stuff, undoubtedly one of Quaid&rsquo;s greatest roles. His comments are candid, genuine, and informative, though he&rsquo;s not naturally as engaging a speaker as the other interviewees. Some of the stories Quaid shares aren&rsquo;t as relevant to the discussion as he may think, but they aren&rsquo;t necessarily uninteresting. Since I&rsquo;m naturally fascinated with Quaid, his work, and the decisions he has made, I really enjoyed hearing his thoughts as well as Brown&rsquo;s perspective on his career. This interview is decidedly more focused on Quaid&rsquo;s life than his specific acting methodology, and it is all the better for it. However, there is a fair amount of talk on Quaid&rsquo;s early movie experiences, and it is so nostalgia-infused that it proves the most exciting part of the interview. http://www.spout.com/blogs/solafekxela/archive/2008/2/18/25265.aspx Post By: solafekxela
Post To: solafekxela Blog
Post Date: 2/18/2008 12:48:41 PM
Body: Movies 101 is the NYU Film Course long moderated by Professor Richard Brown. The “Leading Men” series includes some of the finest working actors, as well as Josh Lucas. Each interview covers nearly every aspect of the actors’ respective careers, from the good, to the bad, to the ugly. This, of course, excludes Lucas, whose interview can only go so far in trying to make the man seem bearably competent. George Clooney’s hour-long interview is first on the disc, and it is by far one of the most engaging. Clooney is, redundant as this sounds, naturally charming and charismatic. His great sense of humor is often overlooked, but Brown lets him run free, often chuckling at his subject’s one-liners. With this interview in particular, Brown’s knowledge about film really allows him to discuss in-depth the thought process that went into each film of Clooney’s. Now having directed his own films and having started a production company with good friend Steven Soderbergh, Clooney provides profound insight into the way Hollywood works. However, this does, to some degree, prevent him from really diving into the way he works as an actor. Much more time is spent discussing his work as a director, screenwriter, and producer. Perhaps this interview would fit better on a different disc. Still, the new information about Clooney’s childhood as well as his humility in discussing his work and aspirations make this well worth watching.Next is Josh Lucas, who can aptly be described as a poor man’s McConaughey. Comparing him to Clooney in terms of acting skills and personality is like comparing Martin Scorsese to Michael Bay. One is very personal and involved in his projects; the other is a complete sell-out. Thankfully, the interview is salvaged by Lucas’ own admission that he is by no means one of the greatest working actors. The discussion of his work in films like Poseidon and Glory Road just doesn’t have the same weight as that of the other actors on the disc. Though he is able to discuss with some intelligence his own philosophy on films and the meaning of those in which he has acted, the interview only highlights his own pomposity, since all the discussion is more about him than his acting. The line that best summarizes his incompetence is the following, “I don’t know how method-y I am.” I’m not sure Lucas knows what method acting is. Following Lucas is heavyweight Daniel Day-Lewis, whose recent performance in There Will Be Blood proved him the greatest, most daring actor working today. Day-Lewis is quite private, so just the privilege to interview him is an honor and undoubtedly a momentous occasion. The discussion mostly follows his limited but much acclaimed resume, and the talk of his early work is particularly fascinating. He exhibits a personality not often seen in his few available interviews, and their conversation about his experience with the Royal Shakespeare Company is quite engaging. I was most curious to hear about Day-Lewis’ recent work, largely because I am more familiar with it, and the interview provides decent insight. The focus on his relationship with Martin Scorsese is well-covered, as is his rationale for working so infrequently.The last interview on the disc is with Dennis Quaid, a largely overlooked but very talented actor. The film discussed in the most depth during the interview is The Right Stuff, undoubtedly one of Quaid’s greatest roles. His comments are candid, genuine, and informative, though he’s not naturally as engaging a speaker as the other interviewees. Some of the stories Quaid shares aren’t as relevant to the discussion as he may think, but they aren’t necessarily uninteresting. Since I’m naturally fascinated with Quaid, his work, and the decisions he has made, I really enjoyed hearing his thoughts as well as Brown’s perspective on his career. This interview is decidedly more focused on Quaid’s life than his specific acting methodology, and it is all the better for it. However, there is a fair amount of talk on Quaid’s early movie experiences, and it is so nostalgia-infused that it proves the most exciting part of the interview.
]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:48:41 GMTsolafekxelasolafekxela Blog2/18/2008 12:48:41 PMMovies 101 is the NYU Film Course long moderated by Professor Richard Brown. The &ldquo;Leading Men&rdquo; series includes some of the finest working actors, as well as Josh Lucas. Each interview covers nearly every aspect of the actors&rsquo; respective careers, from the good, to the bad, to the ugly. This, of course, excludes Lucas, whose interview can only go so far in trying to make the man seem bearably competent. George Clooney&rsquo;s hour-long interview is first on the disc, and it is by far one of the most engaging. Clooney is, redundant as this sounds, naturally charming and charismatic. His great sense of humor is often overlooked, but Brown lets him run free, often chuckling at his subject&rsquo;s one-liners. With this interview in particular, Brown&rsquo;s knowledge about film really allows him to discuss in-depth the thought process that went into each film of Clooney&rsquo;s. Now having directed his own films and having started a production company with good friend Steven Soderbergh, Clooney provides profound insight into the way Hollywood works. However, this does, to some degree, prevent him from really diving into the way he works as an actor. Much more time is spent discussing his work as a director, screenwriter, and producer. Perhaps this interview would fit better on a different disc. Still, the new information about Clooney&rsquo;s childhood as well as his humility in discussing his work and aspirations make this well worth watching.Next is Josh Lucas, who can aptly be described as a poor man&rsquo;s McConaughey. Comparing him to Clooney in terms of acting skills and personality is like comparing Martin Scorsese to Michael Bay. One is very personal and involved in his projects; the other is a complete sell-out. Thankfully, the interview is salvaged by Lucas&rsquo; own admission that he is by no means one of the greatest working actors. The discussion of his work in films like Poseidon and Glory Road just doesn&rsquo;t have the same weight as that of the other actors on the disc. Though he is able to discuss with some intelligence his own philosophy on films and the meaning of those in which he has acted, the interview only highlights his own pomposity, since all the discussion is more about him than his acting. The line that best summarizes his incompetence is the following, &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t know how method-y I am.&rdquo; I&rsquo;m not sure Lucas knows what method acting is. Following Lucas is heavyweight Daniel Day-Lewis, whose recent performance in There Will Be Blood proved him the greatest, most daring actor working today. Day-Lewis is quite private, so just the privilege to interview him is an honor and undoubtedly a momentous occasion. The discussion mostly follows his limited but much acclaimed resume, and the talk of his early work is particularly fascinating. He exhibits a personality not often seen in his few available interviews, and their conversation about his experience with the Royal Shakespeare Company is quite engaging. I was most curious to hear about Day-Lewis&rsquo; recent work, largely because I am more familiar with it, and the interview provides decent insight. The focus on his relationship with Martin Scorsese is well-covered, as is his rationale for working so infrequently.The last interview on the disc is with Dennis Quaid, a largely overlooked but very talented actor. The film discussed in the most depth during the interview is The Right Stuff, undoubtedly one of Quaid&rsquo;s greatest roles. His comments are candid, genuine, and informative, though he&rsquo;s not naturally as engaging a speaker as the other interviewees. Some of the stories Quaid shares aren&rsquo;t as relevant to the discussion as he may think, but they aren&rsquo;t necessarily uninteresting. Since I&rsquo;m naturally fascinated with Quaid, his work, and the decisions he has made, I really enjoyed hearing his thoughts as well as Brown&rsquo;s perspective on his career. This interview is decidedly more focused on Quaid&rsquo;s life than his specific acting methodology, and it is all the better for it. However, there is a fair amount of talk on Quaid&rsquo;s early movie experiences, and it is so nostalgia-infused that it proves the most exciting part of the interview. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1139

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:00:49 GMT62892271139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 150

Number of times used: 417

]]>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:43:48 GMT260150417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/space/MemberTagFilms.aspxspace
Number of films tagged: 495

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 140

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:33 GMT49554140Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/journey/MemberTagFilms.aspxjourney
Number of films tagged: 1175

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 124

]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:02:52 GMT117550124Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/history/MemberTagFilms.aspxhistory
Number of films tagged: 999

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:15:22 GMT99948156Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/competition/MemberTagFilms.aspxcompetition
Number of films tagged: 1282

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 95

]]>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:49:19 GMT12824295Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/courage/MemberTagFilms.aspxcourage
Number of films tagged: 1054

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 80

]]>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:24:48 GMT10542880Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/visual/MemberTagFilms.aspxvisual
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 161

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT14028161Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/america/MemberTagFilms.aspxamerica
Number of films tagged: 1215

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:08:42 GMT12152687Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/quest/MemberTagFilms.aspxquest
Number of films tagged: 316

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 48

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:42:51 GMT3162348Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/wife/MemberTagFilms.aspxwife
Number of films tagged: 2588

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 70

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:57 GMT25882070Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/media/MemberTagFilms.aspxmedia
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 28

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:08:40 GMT2121828Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pilot/MemberTagFilms.aspxpilot
Number of films tagged: 410

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 30

]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:02:27 GMT4101530Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politician/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitician
Number of films tagged: 1569

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 25

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT15691425Tag