list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Rush Hour 3 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/Rush_Hour_3/293335/default.aspx Title: Rush Hour 3
Year: 2007
Director: Brett Ratner
Plot: In this third installment of the popular action comedy franchise, LAPD Detective James Carter (Chris Tucker) and Chinese Chief Inspector Lee (Jackie Chan) discover that Chinese Triads have extended their criminal influence to the City of Lights. They book a flight for Europe and prepare to clean up the Paris streets. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 6
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 6
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:05:38 GMTRush Hour 32007Brett RatnerIn this third installment of the popular action comedy franchise, LAPD Detective James Carter (<a href="/players/P___114685/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Chris Tucker</a>) and Chinese Chief Inspector Lee (<a href="/players/P____84650/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jackie Chan</a>) discover that Chinese Triads have extended their criminal influence to the City of Lights. They book a flight for Europe and prepare to clean up the Paris streets. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide6Taggedy Taggged (6-10)1262http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s293335.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Rush_Hour_3/293335/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/8/11/33870.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 8/11/2008 6:01:07 PM
Body: Elizabeth Wurtzel (yes, that Elizabeth Wurtzel) recently published a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled The Internet is Killing American Movies and Music, the point of which seems to be –– an emphasis on the seems –– wrapped up in its final couple of sentences. After boldly making the case that Pete Yorn should be more famous than he is, Wurtzel bitches for a bit about how downloading has decreased not just the profitability but the intrinsic value of music and movies as compared to the fine, object-oriented arts like painting and sculpture. Implying the falsehood that movies and pop music are more inherently American than these mediums because “We’ll never overwhelm the planet with brushes and clay and pencils the way we did with celluloid and vinyl and acetate,” Wurtzel ultimately directly connects the health of America’s cultural exports to our national identity and international standing: Our movies and music are America. And the day the music dies, the party’s over. Scary stuff, huh? I won’t reiterate the arguments made by Idolator in regards to the dated nature of Wurtzel’s references and statistics, but from my perspective, the piece reads like it was written by someone who hasn’t even seen a movie since long before Pete Yorn had his career peak of just barely cracking the Billboard Top 20 (for the record: that happened in 2003). The only recent film reference in the story is a jab at “crazy Harry Potter fans” for showing the kind of enthusiasm that Wurtzel laments is found in short supply since “the days when lines formed around the block at New York’s Ziegfeld Theater because the latest installment of Star Wars had opened.” Though Wurtzel laments a de-emphasis on “talent” in pop music, she has not a single qualitative statement to make about a single contemporary film––she’s simply concerned that studios are making more money off their back catalogs than new releases, and that foreign territories “have found they favor the locally produced fare over yet another sequel to Rush Hour.” Which is maybe not the best example, considering that Rush Hour 3 made $114 million internationally––just $6 million less than its predecessor-–while the third film’s domestic gross was a full $86 million short (!) of Rush Hour 2’s $226 million. In terms of sustaining “favor” through serialization, this is one franchise with exponentially greater staying power overseas. Also: neither of those points about the film industry, even if backed up with examples that were true, would have much to do with downloading. Also: there’s no mention of how legal downloading and streaming of media––although she does bash iPhone owners for their love of the gadget, without noting that one of its big plusses is its ability to carry legally acquired movies and music. Also: Has she heard of The Dark Knight? There are valid arguments that could be made regarding the relationship between the export of American popular culture and our political status as a superpower. It’s just that Wurtzel makes none of them. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:01:07 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog8/11/2008 6:01:07 PMElizabeth Wurtzel (yes, that Elizabeth Wurtzel) recently published a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled The Internet is Killing American Movies and Music, the point of which seems to be –– an emphasis on the seems –– wrapped up in its final couple of sentences. After boldly making the case that Pete Yorn should be more famous than he is, Wurtzel bitches for a bit about how downloading has decreased not just the profitability but the intrinsic value of music and movies as compared to the fine, object-oriented arts like painting and sculpture. Implying the falsehood that movies and pop music are more inherently American than these mediums because “We’ll never overwhelm the planet with brushes and clay and pencils the way we did with celluloid and vinyl and acetate,” Wurtzel ultimately directly connects the health of America’s cultural exports to our national identity and international standing: Our movies and music are America. And the day the music dies, the party’s over. Scary stuff, huh? I won’t reiterate the arguments made by Idolator in regards to the dated nature of Wurtzel’s references and statistics, but from my perspective, the piece reads like it was written by someone who hasn’t even seen a movie since long before Pete Yorn had his career peak of just barely cracking the Billboard Top 20 (for the record: that happened in 2003). The only recent film reference in the story is a jab at “crazy Harry Potter fans” for showing the kind of enthusiasm that Wurtzel laments is found in short supply since “the days when lines formed around the block at New York’s Ziegfeld Theater because the latest installment of Star Wars had opened.” Though Wurtzel laments a de-emphasis on “talent” in pop music, she has not a single qualitative statement to make about a single contemporary film––she’s simply concerned that studios are making more money off their back catalogs than new releases, and that foreign territories “have found they favor the locally produced fare over yet another sequel to Rush Hour.” Which is maybe not the best example, considering that Rush Hour 3 made $114 million internationally––just $6 million less than its predecessor-–while the third film’s domestic gross was a full $86 million short (!) of Rush Hour 2’s $226 million. In terms of sustaining “favor” through serialization, this is one franchise with exponentially greater staying power overseas. Also: neither of those points about the film industry, even if backed up with examples that were true, would have much to do with downloading. Also: there’s no mention of how legal downloading and streaming of media––although she does bash iPhone owners for their love of the gadget, without noting that one of its big plusses is its ability to carry legally acquired movies and music. Also: Has she heard of The Dark Knight? There are valid arguments that could be made regarding the relationship between the export of American popular culture and our political status as a superpower. It’s just that Wurtzel makes none of them. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/11/33869.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/11/2008 6:00:52 PM
Body: Elizabeth Wurtzel (yes, that Elizabeth Wurtzel) recently published a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled The Internet is Killing American Movies and Music, the point of which seems to be –– an emphasis on the seems –– wrapped up in its final couple of sentences. After boldly making the case that Pete Yorn should be more famous than he is, Wurtzel bitches for a bit about how downloading has decreased not just the profitability but the intrinsic value of music and movies as compared to the fine, object-oriented arts like painting and sculpture. Implying the falsehood that movies and pop music are more inherently American than these mediums because “We’ll never overwhelm the planet with brushes and clay and pencils the way we did with celluloid and vinyl and acetate,” Wurtzel ultimately directly connects the health of America’s cultural exports to our national identity and international standing: Our movies and music are America. And the day the music dies, the party’s over. Scary stuff, huh? I won’t reiterate the arguments made by Idolator in regards to the dated nature of Wurtzel’s references and statistics, but from my perspective, the piece reads like it was written by someone who hasn’t even seen a movie since long before Pete Yorn had his career peak of just barely cracking the Billboard Top 20 (for the record: that happened in 2003). The only recent film reference in the story is a jab at “crazy Harry Potter fans” for showing the kind of enthusiasm that Wurtzel laments is found in short supply since “the days when lines formed around the block at New York’s Ziegfeld Theater because the latest installment of Star Wars had opened.” Though Wurtzel laments a de-emphasis on “talent” in pop music, she has not a single qualitative statement to make about a single contemporary film––she’s simply concerned that studios are making more money off their back catalogs than new releases, and that foreign territories “have found they favor the locally produced fare over yet another sequel to Rush Hour.” Which is maybe not the best example, considering that Rush Hour 3 made $114 million internationally––just $6 million less than its predecessor-–while the third film’s domestic gross was a full $86 million short (!) of Rush Hour 2’s $226 million. In terms of sustaining “favor” through serialization, this is one franchise with exponentially greater staying power overseas. Also: neither of those points about the film industry, even if backed up with examples that were true, would have much to do with downloading. Also: there’s no mention of how legal downloading and streaming of media––although she does bash iPhone owners for their love of the gadget, without noting that one of its big plusses is its ability to carry legally acquired movies and music. Also: Has she heard of The Dark Knight? There are valid arguments that could be made regarding the relationship between the export of American popular culture and our political status as a superpower. It’s just that Wurtzel makes none of them. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:00:52 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/11/2008 6:00:52 PMElizabeth Wurtzel (yes, that Elizabeth Wurtzel) recently published a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled The Internet is Killing American Movies and Music, the point of which seems to be –– an emphasis on the seems –– wrapped up in its final couple of sentences. After boldly making the case that Pete Yorn should be more famous than he is, Wurtzel bitches for a bit about how downloading has decreased not just the profitability but the intrinsic value of music and movies as compared to the fine, object-oriented arts like painting and sculpture. Implying the falsehood that movies and pop music are more inherently American than these mediums because “We’ll never overwhelm the planet with brushes and clay and pencils the way we did with celluloid and vinyl and acetate,” Wurtzel ultimately directly connects the health of America’s cultural exports to our national identity and international standing: Our movies and music are America. And the day the music dies, the party’s over. Scary stuff, huh? I won’t reiterate the arguments made by Idolator in regards to the dated nature of Wurtzel’s references and statistics, but from my perspective, the piece reads like it was written by someone who hasn’t even seen a movie since long before Pete Yorn had his career peak of just barely cracking the Billboard Top 20 (for the record: that happened in 2003). The only recent film reference in the story is a jab at “crazy Harry Potter fans” for showing the kind of enthusiasm that Wurtzel laments is found in short supply since “the days when lines formed around the block at New York’s Ziegfeld Theater because the latest installment of Star Wars had opened.” Though Wurtzel laments a de-emphasis on “talent” in pop music, she has not a single qualitative statement to make about a single contemporary film––she’s simply concerned that studios are making more money off their back catalogs than new releases, and that foreign territories “have found they favor the locally produced fare over yet another sequel to Rush Hour.” Which is maybe not the best example, considering that Rush Hour 3 made $114 million internationally––just $6 million less than its predecessor-–while the third film’s domestic gross was a full $86 million short (!) of Rush Hour 2’s $226 million. In terms of sustaining “favor” through serialization, this is one franchise with exponentially greater staying power overseas. Also: neither of those points about the film industry, even if backed up with examples that were true, would have much to do with downloading. Also: there’s no mention of how legal downloading and streaming of media––although she does bash iPhone owners for their love of the gadget, without noting that one of its big plusses is its ability to carry legally acquired movies and music. Also: Has she heard of The Dark Knight? There are valid arguments that could be made regarding the relationship between the export of American popular culture and our political status as a superpower. It’s just that Wurtzel makes none of them. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30778.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 4:37:21 PM
Body: The summer of 2007 will forever go down in history as the summer of the "three-quel." "Spider-Man," "Shrek," "Pirates of the Caribbean," "The Bourne Ultimatum," "Ocean´s Thirteen" and now "Rush Hour." There seems to be no end in sight. The singular trait all these films have in common is repetition: the same talent, the same types of stories, bigger spectacles…and storylines which barely make a lick of sense. After his boss is shot at the World Criminal Court, Chief Inspector Lee (Jackie Chan) and Detective James Carter (Chris Tucker) reunite to track down the Triad gang. They must find a list detailing the leaders of the organization in order to bring Triad to justice. Their search brings them to Paris, where the bulk of the story takes place. As they draw closer and closer to the mysterious list, they uncover a conspiracy with political and familial connections. It is said "Rush Hour 3" took so long to get to the screen because everyone involved wanted to get the script exactly right. Maybe they should have taken another five or ten years to add a bit of depth to a story which is little more than one action sequence after another with mildly funny jokes breaking up the scenes. I guess that´s all this series is ever going to amount to and we should all be happy it still has a modicum of self-respect. There are plenty of jokes revolving around hairy French women, jabs at America because of everything from Iraq to the Dream Team and all manner of national origin potshots. The script, though, never reverts to toilet humor or makes the audience cringe from embarrassment. Those afore-mentioned action sequences compliment the humor rather nicely in not being overly flashy or obviously computer generated. In fact, the film excels when Chan is given something kinetic to do, such as dodging knives or fighting a top the Eifel Tower. And really, isn´t that the reason we go to see the "Rush Hour" films anyway? Not for the political humor or the brilliant acting, but to give Jackie Chan the opportunity to swing, kick, punch, chop and jump his way to the end of the picture. On that count, no one can ever criticize the film. However, action on its own doesn´t make a good movie. This installment more than either of the first two relies on Carter and Lee literally stumbling onto new facts in the case. It´s terribly convenient a hurtful aspect of Lee´s childhood plays a major role in the plot. Likewise is an encounter Carter has with a beautiful woman (Noemie Lenoir) at the baccarat table. It shouldn´t come as any surprise she´s integral to the plot, should it? That´s the major problem in the film: any audience member with half a brain is at least 10 minutes ahead of the actual picture. Case in point: the identity of the eventual bad guy the duo is confronted with at the end of the film. In fact, the moment this character walks on screen, we know at some point he´s going to be revealed. It´s not a shock; it´s more of a relief everyone-audience and characters-is finally on the same page. There´s nothing terribly wrong with the film; it´s an amusing diversion with characters we´ve come to know and appreciate. I can´t help but feel it could have had ambition to be something better instead of a retread of what we´ve already seen. Right from the film´s opening-with Carter again treating the audience to a hideously off pitch concert-to the outtakes over the end titles, there isn´t anything new in the third installment. More action, another caper with a "shocking" villain, more international misunderstandings, slapstick comedy; it´s like there is a formula for films like this and all the screenwriter did was throw names into the generator. Despite all that, "Rush Hour 3" is a fun ride. Clocking in at a lean 90 minutes, the audience is never given the chance to be bored. Because of the running time, the story progresses rather quickly and perhaps that´s part of the reason the story is so simple: there isn´t time to weave an intricate plot. When so many films overstay their welcomes by twisting the story more than it should be, director Brett Ratner gets his story on screen, tells it effectively and then exits stage left. All with a minimum of obvious computer generated effects. Within the franchise, this film is sandwiched between the other two in terms of quality. The first film was fresh when it debuted with a pairing we wouldn´t have expected; and the second regressed to a point which made the characters look like buffoons. With a little luck, this will be the last in the series. How many more times can these participants go to the same well with decent results? It was a stretch to get the cops together for this adventure, within the context of this universe. Stop while we actually want to see more instead of running the franchise into the ground. "Rush Hour 3" rates a decent enough 5.5. It doesn´t have the emotional storyline like this summer´s "Knocked Up" nor does it deliver with WHAM POW action sequences like "Transformers." The film is content enough to be a diversion from the special effects spectacles the summer inevitably provides.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:37:21 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 4:37:21 PMThe summer of 2007 will forever go down in history as the summer of the "three-quel." "Spider-Man," "Shrek," "Pirates of the Caribbean," "The Bourne Ultimatum," "Ocean&acute;s Thirteen" and now "Rush Hour." There seems to be no end in sight. The singular trait all these films have in common is repetition: the same talent, the same types of stories, bigger spectacles&hellip;and storylines which barely make a lick of sense. After his boss is shot at the World Criminal Court, Chief Inspector Lee (Jackie Chan) and Detective James Carter (Chris Tucker) reunite to track down the Triad gang. They must find a list detailing the leaders of the organization in order to bring Triad to justice. Their search brings them to Paris, where the bulk of the story takes place. As they draw closer and closer to the mysterious list, they uncover a conspiracy with political and familial connections. It is said "Rush Hour 3" took so long to get to the screen because everyone involved wanted to get the script exactly right. Maybe they should have taken another five or ten years to add a bit of depth to a story which is little more than one action sequence after another with mildly funny jokes breaking up the scenes. I guess that&acute;s all this series is ever going to amount to and we should all be happy it still has a modicum of self-respect. There are plenty of jokes revolving around hairy French women, jabs at America because of everything from Iraq to the Dream Team and all manner of national origin potshots. The script, though, never reverts to toilet humor or makes the audience cringe from embarrassment. Those afore-mentioned action sequences compliment the humor rather nicely in not being overly flashy or obviously computer generated. In fact, the film excels when Chan is given something kinetic to do, such as dodging knives or fighting a top the Eifel Tower. And really, isn&acute;t that the reason we go to see the "Rush Hour" films anyway? Not for the political humor or the brilliant acting, but to give Jackie Chan the opportunity to swing, kick, punch, chop and jump his way to the end of the picture. On that count, no one can ever criticize the film. However, action on its own doesn&acute;t make a good movie. This installment more than either of the first two relies on Carter and Lee literally stumbling onto new facts in the case. It&acute;s terribly convenient a hurtful aspect of Lee&acute;s childhood plays a major role in the plot. Likewise is an encounter Carter has with a beautiful woman (Noemie Lenoir) at the baccarat table. It shouldn&acute;t come as any surprise she&acute;s integral to the plot, should it? That&acute;s the major problem in the film: any audience member with half a brain is at least 10 minutes ahead of the actual picture. Case in point: the identity of the eventual bad guy the duo is confronted with at the end of the film. In fact, the moment this character walks on screen, we know at some point he&acute;s going to be revealed. It&acute;s not a shock; it&acute;s more of a relief everyone-audience and characters-is finally on the same page. There&acute;s nothing terribly wrong with the film; it&acute;s an amusing diversion with characters we&acute;ve come to know and appreciate. I can&acute;t help but feel it could have had ambition to be something better instead of a retread of what we&acute;ve already seen. Right from the film&acute;s opening-with Carter again treating the audience to a hideously off pitch concert-to the outtakes over the end titles, there isn&acute;t anything new in the third installment. More action, another caper with a "shocking" villain, more international misunderstandings, slapstick comedy; it&acute;s like there is a formula for films like this and all the screenwriter did was throw names into the generator. Despite all that, "Rush Hour 3" is a fun ride. Clocking in at a lean 90 minutes, the audience is never given the chance to be bored. Because of the running time, the story progresses rather quickly and perhaps that&acute;s part of the reason the story is so simple: there isn&acute;t time to weave an intricate plot. When so many films overstay their welcomes by twisting the story more than it should be, director Brett Ratner gets his story on screen, tells it effectively and then exits stage left. All with a minimum of obvious computer generated effects. Within the franchise, this film is sandwiched between the other two in terms of quality. The first film was fresh when it debuted with a pairing we wouldn&acute;t have expected; and the second regressed to a point which made the characters look like buffoons. With a little luck, this will be the last in the series. How many more times can these participants go to the same well with decent results? It was a stretch to get the cops together for this adventure, within the context of this universe. Stop while we actually want to see more instead of running the franchise into the ground. "Rush Hour 3" rates a decent enough 5.5. It doesn&acute;t have the emotional storyline like this summer&acute;s "Knocked Up" nor does it deliver with WHAM POW action sequences like "Transformers." The film is content enough to be a diversion from the special effects spectacles the summer inevitably provides. http://www.spout.com/blogs/dibot/archive/2007/8/10/17793.aspx Post By: dibot
Post To: dibot Blog
Post Date: 8/10/2007 3:22:00 PM
Body: In Transformers, I found the perfect summer blockbuster. It's Michael Bay ("The Island"), so that means lots of action, not much plot. The robot transformations were really well done. The comedy was fairly entertaining. And Shia LaBeouf ("Disturbia") once again rules. It's not going to change your world, but it's fun fluff.Equilibrium is a more style over substance sci-fi Matrixesque movie. Set in a future Earth ravaged by war, the rulers have decided to eradicate all human emotion. I had quite a bit of trouble accepting the premise, but the action was good. Christian Bale ("Rescue Dawn") stars as a cleric whose job is to find and destroy "sense" offenders. But her hears some poetry and stops taking his meds, and there you go. Instant drama. Good production, good action.Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is my first foray into blacksploitation and I'm not sure I want to go back. The movie follows Sweetback as he has to defend another black man against some cops. Then the rest of the film is him running, having sex, beating and/or killing more cops, running, sex, cops, more running with weird music. I think if it had been about 30 minutes long, it could have been a better film.We've waited six years for Rush Hour 3 and I am glad to have Chris Tucker ("Rush Hour 2") back. The jokes are good and the action fair. I'm just worried that Jackie Chan ("The Myth") is getting too old to some of the amazing stunts he usually pulls. The story is secondary to the chemistry between Tucker and Chan. Not as good as the first, but if you liked the other films, you'll like this one too.
]]>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:22:00 GMTdibotdibot Blog8/10/2007 3:22:00 PMIn Transformers, I found the perfect summer blockbuster. It&#39;s Michael Bay ("The Island"), so that means lots of action, not much plot. The robot transformations were really well done. The comedy was fairly entertaining. And Shia LaBeouf ("Disturbia") once again rules. It&#39;s not going to change your world, but it&#39;s fun fluff.Equilibrium is a more style over substance sci-fi Matrixesque movie. Set in a future Earth ravaged by war, the rulers have decided to eradicate all human emotion. I had quite a bit of trouble accepting the premise, but the action was good. Christian Bale ("Rescue Dawn") stars as a cleric whose job is to find and destroy "sense" offenders. But her hears some poetry and stops taking his meds, and there you go. Instant drama. Good production, good action.Sweet Sweetback&#39;s Baadasssss Song is my first foray into blacksploitation and I&#39;m not sure I want to go back. The movie follows Sweetback as he has to defend another black man against some cops. Then the rest of the film is him running, having sex, beating and/or killing more cops, running, sex, cops, more running with weird music. I think if it had been about 30 minutes long, it could have been a better film.We&#39;ve waited six years for Rush Hour 3 and I am glad to have Chris Tucker ("Rush Hour 2") back. The jokes are good and the action fair. I&#39;m just worried that Jackie Chan ("The Myth") is getting too old to some of the amazing stunts he usually pulls. The story is secondary to the chemistry between Tucker and Chan. Not as good as the first, but if you liked the other films, you&#39;ll like this one too. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/8/7/17498.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/7/2007 9:01:03 AM
Body: Movie theater chains in India refused to screen The Simpsons Movie over the weekend — and, surprisingly, it had nothing to do with outrage over Apu. Warner Brothers India, which is distributing the Fox film in that country, apparently demanded that Indian multiplexes book Simpsons on multiple screens, which would have squeezed out homegrown content.  In response, seven leading theater chains declined to run the Fox film at all, and even upped the ante by pulling WB’s latest Harry Potter pic from screens. Facing a projected loss of nearly $100,000 for the weekend, WB workd out a compromise, and Simpsons should open on some Indian screens today. After staying on in order to see through a number of “very personal projects” including Rush Hour 3 (yes, seriously), long-time New Line marketing exec Russell Schwartz has confirmed that he’s leaving the company. The Weinstein Company has raised $285 million to launch Asian Film Fund, through which they expect to produce roughly 30 “Asian-themed” theatrical and direct-to-DVD features. Projects already in the pipeline that are expected to receive some of those funds include a live-action version of Mulan, and “a modern-day remake” of Kurosawa’s The Seven Samurai. Dade Hayes explains why it’s a big deal for Todd Haynes’ I’m Not There to open in New York at both Film Forum AND Lincoln Plaza. Among other reasons: “The Gotham arrangement reps a rare violation of the “clearance” that typically prevents any pic playing at the Film Forum from also unspooling at another Manhattan site. The opportunity for the dual play, plus access to the Film Forum’s membership-driven mailing list of 25,000 avid film buffs, made the release a viable proposition for TWC.” Originally posted on:Spoutblog
]]>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:01:03 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/7/2007 9:01:03 AM Movie theater chains in India refused to screen The Simpsons Movie over the weekend — and, surprisingly, it had nothing to do with outrage over Apu. Warner Brothers India, which is distributing the Fox film in that country, apparently demanded that Indian multiplexes book Simpsons on multiple screens, which would have squeezed out homegrown content.  In response, seven leading theater chains declined to run the Fox film at all, and even upped the ante by pulling WB’s latest Harry Potter pic from screens. Facing a projected loss of nearly $100,000 for the weekend, WB workd out a compromise, and Simpsons should open on some Indian screens today. After staying on in order to see through a number of “very personal projects” including Rush Hour 3 (yes, seriously), long-time New Line marketing exec Russell Schwartz has confirmed that he’s leaving the company. The Weinstein Company has raised $285 million to launch Asian Film Fund, through which they expect to produce roughly 30 “Asian-themed” theatrical and direct-to-DVD features. Projects already in the pipeline that are expected to receive some of those funds include a live-action version of Mulan, and “a modern-day remake” of Kurosawa’s The Seven Samurai. Dade Hayes explains why it’s a big deal for Todd Haynes’ I’m Not There to open in New York at both Film Forum AND Lincoln Plaza. Among other reasons: “The Gotham arrangement reps a rare violation of the “clearance” that typically prevents any pic playing at the Film Forum from also unspooling at another Manhattan site. The opportunity for the dual play, plus access to the Film Forum’s membership-driven mailing list of 25,000 avid film buffs, made the release a viable proposition for TWC.” Originally posted on:Spoutblog http://www.spout.com/blogs/bigbuff27/archive/2007/7/24/15714.aspx Post By: bigbuff27
Post To: bigbuff27 Blog
Post Date: 7/24/2007 2:39:06 PM
Body: THIS MOVIE LOOKS FUNNY!!!!
]]>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:39:06 GMTbigbuff27bigbuff27 Blog7/24/2007 2:39:06 PMTHIS MOVIE LOOKS FUNNY!!!! http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 319

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 460

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:02 GMT319111460Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gangster/MemberTagFilms.aspxgangster
Number of films tagged: 4065

Number of people who tagged: 60

Number of times used: 145

]]>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:37:08 GMT406560145Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:25:18 GMT7553101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/police/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolice
Number of films tagged: 3104

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 172

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:56:49 GMT310437172Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tattoo/MemberTagFilms.aspxtattoo
Number of films tagged: 92

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 23

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT921823Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/racist/MemberTagFilms.aspxracist
Number of films tagged: 19

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 22

]]>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:01:24 GMT191322Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/jokes/MemberTagFilms.aspxjokes
Number of films tagged: 192

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 9

]]>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:11:56 GMT19289Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/partner/MemberTagFilms.aspxpartner
Number of films tagged: 788

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 19

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:27:29 GMT788619Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/parisian/MemberTagFilms.aspxparisian
Number of films tagged: 107

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:01:24 GMT10744Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tucker/MemberTagFilms.aspxtucker
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:39:57 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/chinese-nationality/MemberTagFilms.aspxchinese-nationality
Number of films tagged: 119

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:04:22 GMT11900Tag