list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Wall-E 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/Wall_E/298165/default.aspx Title: Wall-E
Year: 2008
Director: Andrew Stanton
Plot: Disney and Pixar join forces for this computer-animated tale about a wide-eyed robot that travels to the deepest-reaches of outer space in search of a newfound friend. The year is 2700, and planet Earth has long been inhabitable. For hundreds of years, WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) has been taking out the trash, and collecting precious knick-knacks in order to stave off the boredom of his dreary routine. Little does Wall-E realize that he has recently stumbled onto a secret that could save planet Earth, and once again make the ravaged planet safe for all mankind. When highly advanced search robot EVE makes friends with Wall-E and realizes the value of his remarkable discovery, she excitedly races back to let the humans know that there's hope for their home planet after all. But after centuries alone in space Wall-E can't stand the thought of losing the only friend he's ever known, and eagerly follows her into the deepest reaches of space on the adventure of a lifetime. Along the way, the friendly trash-collecting robot that has always known what he was made for gradually begins to understand what he was meant for. Finding Nemo director Andrew Stanton returns to the helm for this family-friendly sci-fi adventure featuring the voices of Fred Willard, Jeff Garlin, and Ben Burtt. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 47
Number of Lists: 75
Number of blog posts: 51
Number of discussion threads: 27
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMTWall-E2008Andrew StantonDisney and Pixar join forces for this computer-animated tale about a wide-eyed robot that travels to the deepest-reaches of outer space in search of a newfound friend. The year is 2700, and planet Earth has long been inhabitable. For hundreds of years, WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) has been taking out the trash, and collecting precious knick-knacks in order to stave off the boredom of his dreary routine. Little does Wall-E realize that he has recently stumbled onto a secret that could save planet Earth, and once again make the ravaged planet safe for all mankind. When highly advanced search robot EVE makes friends with Wall-E and realizes the value of his remarkable discovery, she excitedly races back to let the humans know that there's hope for their home planet after all. But after centuries alone in space Wall-E can't stand the thought of losing the only friend he's ever known, and eagerly follows her into the deepest reaches of space on the adventure of a lifetime. Along the way, the friendly trash-collecting robot that has always known what he was made for gradually begins to understand what he was meant for. <a href="http://www.spout.com/films/219949/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Finding Nemo</a> director <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___203257/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Andrew Stanton</a> returns to the helm for this family-friendly sci-fi adventure featuring the voices of <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____76341/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Fred Willard</a>, <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____25971/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jeff Garlin</a>, and <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____83647/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ben Burtt</a>. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide47Tag Target (>10)7551274http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s298165.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Wall_E/298165/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/10/40940.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/10/2009 3:00:28 PM
Body: Last Friday, Hollywood Reporter broke the news that Fox will bring the comic strip Marmaduke to the big screen. One the one hand, this is baffling. The comic, a series of crudely rendered half-jokes, makes very little sense, and has no story whatsoever. The fact that Marmaduke is a mischievous great dane barely even qualifies as a premise. On the other hand, studios have sunk massive amounts of money into comic strip movies like Garfield and Dennis the Menace, and money-making dog movies like Marley & Me, which has earned $166 million worldwide since its Christmas ‘08 release. So Marmaduke might make economic sense, but it makes little sense otherwise. The green-lighting of this project is a peek into the bizarre minds of studio executives. If movies like Wall-E and the Harry Potter series bring home the bacon and earn critical acclaim, why empty the coffers for family tent-pole movies based on the crappiest of source material available? I have a theory. Just as Zack Snyder was goaded on by the allegedly “unfilmable” quality of the Watchmen graphic novel, the executives at Fox must see the production of a Marmaduke film as an act of artistic defiance. Let’s turn and unreadable comic into an unwatchable movie, they say, and laugh all the way to the bank when it destroys the competition at the box office! In that vein, I challenge the major studios to make the following comic strips into movies, just to see if people will pay to see the resulting crap. If they should choose to accept this challenge, may God help us all. Family Circus Bil Keane’s gentile tales of misspoken children and familial bliss have graced the funny pages for decades. They are never funny. At best, the panels hint at a vague Kids Say The Darndest Things kind of cuteness. At worst, they are astoundingly bland statements about how families are generally a good thing. In some ways, a Family Circus movie would be a safer bet than Marmaduke, due to better brand recognition. On second thought, the lack of a slobbering, CGI dog would be a strike against its box office chances. How it could actually work: Family Circus’s dopey simplicity and complete lack of self-awareness has made it the ideal fodder for parody. So far this has mostly existed on the internet, a few examples being Dysfunctional Family Circus, Scott Meets Family Circus, and the hilariously overwrought fake reviews that appeared on Amazon a few years ago. Of course Keane would never allow a vulgar distortion of his work to be made into a movie. If a straight-laced movie were made, however, I’m sure we could look forward to hilarious home-brew commentary tracks and endless trailer mash-ups. Cathy Cathy is a long-running strip about a woman dealing with “the four basic guilt groups,” defined by the strip’s creator, Cathy Guisewite, as Food, Love, Mom, and Work. For most of the comic’s runtime, it chronicled the foibles of being a single woman in the modern world. GoComics.com sums up the strip by saying, “She personifies the young career woman and her typical daily obstacles. Ice cream, panic attacks, stress and love are all in a day’s work.” But alas, Cathy and longtime boyfriend Irving were married in 2004. The wacky hi-jinks continue, however, now with biting commentary on modern relationships, i.e., “AAAACK! Men like iPods!” How it could actually work: While there would be something incredible about watching a frizzy-haried Renée Zellweger arguing with her mom and trying to resist the temptation of fudge for ninety minutes, there’s really only one way a Cathy movie could succeed. Two words: Andy Samberg. Hagar the Horrible A comic about a viking would seem to be ripe for a big-screen, action-packed film adaptation, except for the fact that the comic is mostly about Hagar bickering with his wife Helga and his hapless lieutenant, Lucky Eddie. The movie would be the perfect chance for Brendan Gleeson to squander his first leading role in a big-budget picture. How it could actually work: The world is hungry for a good viking movie, and Hagar the Horrible could provide the brand recognition needed. If Pirates of the Caribbean was able to build an entertaining and financially successful franchise from an amusement park ride, I don’t see why Haggar couldn’t do the same. A few things would be key: First of all, it has to be pretty violent, a PG-13 rating would be best. Also, the film would have to really delve into Hagar and Helga’s tense gender conflicts, which the comic only hints at. How does Hagar behave on long trips away from his overbearing wife, as his men rape and pillage? The Lockhorns There’s no way around it: a Lockhorns movie would be soul-crushingly depressing. The single panel comic satires marriage, showing the various squabbles of middle-aged couple Leroy and Loretta. While some optimistic fan has injected the Lockhorns‘ Wikipedia page with this ray of sunshine –– “Leroy and Loretta show how foolish it is to be unkind to the people we love” –– I don’t buy it. The comic is clearly about the inevitable misery of long-term relationships, and the futility of trying to find something better. Why don’t they get a divorce? They’ve covered that, it’s too expensive. Ugh. How it could actually work: In order to avoid making millions of children cry, the movie would have to spurn the young audience usually associated with comic strip movies. The Lockhorns could work as a dark comedy, with a heavy dose of gut-punching drama. It would delve into the relationship in the least sexy way possible, exposing layer after calloused layer. While I’d like to say that they learn to truly love one another in the end, that wouldn’t be true to the source material. The film would end with the two slowly drifting off to sleep on opposite ends of the couch after yet another petty argument, utterly resigned to their shared fate. Calvin and Hobbes Calvin and Hobbes is the Watchmen of comic strips, except more people have actually read it. The tales of mischievous young Calvin and his toy tiger Hobbes are the definitive love letter to the imagination for an entire generation. This comic makes the list not because it’s dopey and unfunny like the others, rather, it’s here because it’s so good. A movie of Calvin and Hobbes would almost certainly be a total disaster, bitterly offending millions. Why, you ask? Calvin and Hobbes is one of those comics where the genius is in the details. There’s nothing particularly interesting about a boy who pretends his toy tiger is alive. But Bill Watterson wrote a chemistry between the two that could not be replicated in another medium, or by another artist. How it could actually work: The only way a Calvin and Hobbes movie could possibly work is if they did it in the same way they did the Charlie Brown Specials. They would need to do a traditional hand-drawn animation, replicating the look of comic as much as possible. The voices would be hard to nail, but it would be doable. If the movie had too much of a plot, it would feel forced. Instead, it would follow Calvin and Hobbes through a series of small adventures: sledding, killing time in the back yard on a Saturday, making fun of Susie Derkins, all while making smart observations about life. The most important element of a successful Calvin and Hobbes movie would be this: Bill Watterson gets final cut. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:00:28 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/10/2009 3:00:28 PMLast Friday, Hollywood Reporter broke the news that Fox will bring the comic strip Marmaduke to the big screen. One the one hand, this is baffling. The comic, a series of crudely rendered half-jokes, makes very little sense, and has no story whatsoever. The fact that Marmaduke is a mischievous great dane barely even qualifies as a premise. On the other hand, studios have sunk massive amounts of money into comic strip movies like Garfield and Dennis the Menace, and money-making dog movies like Marley & Me, which has earned $166 million worldwide since its Christmas ‘08 release. So Marmaduke might make economic sense, but it makes little sense otherwise. The green-lighting of this project is a peek into the bizarre minds of studio executives. If movies like Wall-E and the Harry Potter series bring home the bacon and earn critical acclaim, why empty the coffers for family tent-pole movies based on the crappiest of source material available? I have a theory. Just as Zack Snyder was goaded on by the allegedly “unfilmable” quality of the Watchmen graphic novel, the executives at Fox must see the production of a Marmaduke film as an act of artistic defiance. Let’s turn and unreadable comic into an unwatchable movie, they say, and laugh all the way to the bank when it destroys the competition at the box office! In that vein, I challenge the major studios to make the following comic strips into movies, just to see if people will pay to see the resulting crap. If they should choose to accept this challenge, may God help us all. Family Circus Bil Keane’s gentile tales of misspoken children and familial bliss have graced the funny pages for decades. They are never funny. At best, the panels hint at a vague Kids Say The Darndest Things kind of cuteness. At worst, they are astoundingly bland statements about how families are generally a good thing. In some ways, a Family Circus movie would be a safer bet than Marmaduke, due to better brand recognition. On second thought, the lack of a slobbering, CGI dog would be a strike against its box office chances. How it could actually work: Family Circus’s dopey simplicity and complete lack of self-awareness has made it the ideal fodder for parody. So far this has mostly existed on the internet, a few examples being Dysfunctional Family Circus, Scott Meets Family Circus, and the hilariously overwrought fake reviews that appeared on Amazon a few years ago. Of course Keane would never allow a vulgar distortion of his work to be made into a movie. If a straight-laced movie were made, however, I’m sure we could look forward to hilarious home-brew commentary tracks and endless trailer mash-ups. Cathy Cathy is a long-running strip about a woman dealing with “the four basic guilt groups,” defined by the strip’s creator, Cathy Guisewite, as Food, Love, Mom, and Work. For most of the comic’s runtime, it chronicled the foibles of being a single woman in the modern world. GoComics.com sums up the strip by saying, “She personifies the young career woman and her typical daily obstacles. Ice cream, panic attacks, stress and love are all in a day’s work.” But alas, Cathy and longtime boyfriend Irving were married in 2004. The wacky hi-jinks continue, however, now with biting commentary on modern relationships, i.e., “AAAACK! Men like iPods!” How it could actually work: While there would be something incredible about watching a frizzy-haried Renée Zellweger arguing with her mom and trying to resist the temptation of fudge for ninety minutes, there’s really only one way a Cathy movie could succeed. Two words: Andy Samberg. Hagar the Horrible A comic about a viking would seem to be ripe for a big-screen, action-packed film adaptation, except for the fact that the comic is mostly about Hagar bickering with his wife Helga and his hapless lieutenant, Lucky Eddie. The movie would be the perfect chance for Brendan Gleeson to squander his first leading role in a big-budget picture. How it could actually work: The world is hungry for a good viking movie, and Hagar the Horrible could provide the brand recognition needed. If Pirates of the Caribbean was able to build an entertaining and financially successful franchise from an amusement park ride, I don’t see why Haggar couldn’t do the same. A few things would be key: First of all, it has to be pretty violent, a PG-13 rating would be best. Also, the film would have to really delve into Hagar and Helga’s tense gender conflicts, which the comic only hints at. How does Hagar behave on long trips away from his overbearing wife, as his men rape and pillage? The Lockhorns There’s no way around it: a Lockhorns movie would be soul-crushingly depressing. The single panel comic satires marriage, showing the various squabbles of middle-aged couple Leroy and Loretta. While some optimistic fan has injected the Lockhorns‘ Wikipedia page with this ray of sunshine –– “Leroy and Loretta show how foolish it is to be unkind to the people we love” –– I don’t buy it. The comic is clearly about the inevitable misery of long-term relationships, and the futility of trying to find something better. Why don’t they get a divorce? They’ve covered that, it’s too expensive. Ugh. How it could actually work: In order to avoid making millions of children cry, the movie would have to spurn the young audience usually associated with comic strip movies. The Lockhorns could work as a dark comedy, with a heavy dose of gut-punching drama. It would delve into the relationship in the least sexy way possible, exposing layer after calloused layer. While I’d like to say that they learn to truly love one another in the end, that wouldn’t be true to the source material. The film would end with the two slowly drifting off to sleep on opposite ends of the couch after yet another petty argument, utterly resigned to their shared fate. Calvin and Hobbes Calvin and Hobbes is the Watchmen of comic strips, except more people have actually read it. The tales of mischievous young Calvin and his toy tiger Hobbes are the definitive love letter to the imagination for an entire generation. This comic makes the list not because it’s dopey and unfunny like the others, rather, it’s here because it’s so good. A movie of Calvin and Hobbes would almost certainly be a total disaster, bitterly offending millions. Why, you ask? Calvin and Hobbes is one of those comics where the genius is in the details. There’s nothing particularly interesting about a boy who pretends his toy tiger is alive. But Bill Watterson wrote a chemistry between the two that could not be replicated in another medium, or by another artist. How it could actually work: The only way a Calvin and Hobbes movie could possibly work is if they did it in the same way they did the Charlie Brown Specials. They would need to do a traditional hand-drawn animation, replicating the look of comic as much as possible. The voices would be hard to nail, but it would be doable. If the movie had too much of a plot, it would feel forced. Instead, it would follow Calvin and Hobbes through a series of small adventures: sledding, killing time in the back yard on a Saturday, making fun of Susie Derkins, all while making smart observations about life. The most important element of a successful Calvin and Hobbes movie would be this: Bill Watterson gets final cut. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog 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/blogs/dibot/archive/2009/1/29/40063.aspx Post By: dibot
Post To: dibot Blog
Post Date: 1/29/2009 12:54:01 PM
Body: I don't know how I got so behind on my reviews!Fingerprints follows a girl just out of rehab who returns home and becomes involved in a town mystery. And starts seeing ghosts. And people start dying. And everyone suspects the girl because she used do drugs. It' s so obvious that she would jump from that to killing people! Anyway, the story with the ghost kids is pretty good, but the film wasn't executed very well. Poor dialogue and acting are the main things holding it back.I actually enjoyed Yes Man. And sure, it's alot like Liar, Liar, but I liked that movie too. Jim Carrey ("Horton Hears a Who") is on his A-game. The jokes are good. The plot is nothing new and you can see where it's headed from the first scene, but the journey was very entertaining.I finally caught up with WALL-E and it was amazing just like everyone said. I didn't even notice that the first half doesn't have any dialogue. The animation is awesome. The story is so sweet between the two robots. I cried. And the state of the planet Earth is something to think about. Kids and adults both will love it. So watch it if you haven't already!I'm so in love with the little boy from Son of Rambow. I think his name is Bill Milner ("Popart"). IMDB doesn't have a picture by his name so I can't be sure. But I also adored this movie. A quiet, sheltered boy who has lost his father falls in with a trouble maker and they set out to make a Rambo movie. It's funny and heartbreaking. And I cried, again. Rent it.And then there was Highlander: The Source. I love Highlander. I'm not afraid to admit it. The movies and the TV show. But this TV movie was abysmal. Even my love of sweet, sweet Adrian Paul ("The Heavy") could not make me like the film any more. Set in the future, a group of immortals are searching for The Source, a mystical thing that will finally decide who the "only one" is. Some of the regulars from the show are here, but they are in poor form. And the dialogue made me cringe. And the editing. And everything. Maybe it really is over now.
]]>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:54:01 GMTdibotdibot Blog1/29/2009 12:54:01 PMI don't know how I got so behind on my reviews!Fingerprints follows a girl just out of rehab who returns home and becomes involved in a town mystery. And starts seeing ghosts. And people start dying. And everyone suspects the girl because she used do drugs. It' s so obvious that she would jump from that to killing people! Anyway, the story with the ghost kids is pretty good, but the film wasn't executed very well. Poor dialogue and acting are the main things holding it back.I actually enjoyed Yes Man. And sure, it's alot like Liar, Liar, but I liked that movie too. Jim Carrey ("Horton Hears a Who") is on his A-game. The jokes are good. The plot is nothing new and you can see where it's headed from the first scene, but the journey was very entertaining.I finally caught up with WALL-E and it was amazing just like everyone said. I didn't even notice that the first half doesn't have any dialogue. The animation is awesome. The story is so sweet between the two robots. I cried. And the state of the planet Earth is something to think about. Kids and adults both will love it. So watch it if you haven't already!I'm so in love with the little boy from Son of Rambow. I think his name is Bill Milner ("Popart"). IMDB doesn't have a picture by his name so I can't be sure. But I also adored this movie. A quiet, sheltered boy who has lost his father falls in with a trouble maker and they set out to make a Rambo movie. It's funny and heartbreaking. And I cried, again. Rent it.And then there was Highlander: The Source. I love Highlander. I'm not afraid to admit it. The movies and the TV show. But this TV movie was abysmal. Even my love of sweet, sweet Adrian Paul ("The Heavy") could not make me like the film any more. Set in the future, a group of immortals are searching for The Source, a mystical thing that will finally decide who the "only one" is. Some of the regulars from the show are here, but they are in poor form. And the dialogue made me cringe. And the editing. And everything. Maybe it really is over now. http://www.spout.com/groups/It_s_a_Wonderful_Night_for_Oscar/Re_Predictions_and_Commentary_2009/46/39820/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 1/23/2009 10:02:38 AM
Body: [quote user="JimBell"] Dark Knight--I thought it was powerful, overwhelming. Wall-E--the most over-rated movie of the year. Hackneyed plots, hackneyed themes, etc. It will win. This should not concern us. Rather, look to Bolt, a superb aninmation with a profound theme and lots of engrossing characters. The Visitor--love and hate this film; great acting adn I love the Diredctor's work, but a subtle thme that does not withstand much scrutiny Get Smart--hilarious; also an astute update of the old Get Smart; but who pays attention to comedy when there is a holocaust? I thank the Academy for their nominations. I have added all films to my list. I do not care when I see them. I do not care who wins. Thanks. [/quote] I completely agree on Wall-E... I saw it, enjoyed it, but did not think it was the profound ground-breaking landmark everyone seemed to think it was. The plot was good, and one I resonate with, but all the same it was used and tired. I honestly think the public confused "cute film" with "landmark film" and were amazed at their own ability to enjoy a film with a nearly mute main character. I also think the enamoration had something to do with the robot lead--something that was heavily en vogue in the mid-eighties into the early nineties, but hasn't been seen much since. However, I need to disagree on The Dark Knight. I posted about it over in Top 5 Most Overrated Films but I think I need to say it again. Its a comic-book movie, and a good one at that, but still a comic book movie. The dialogue through out the film was nothing short of pallid and predicatble, Christian Bale was entirely forgettable, Maggie Gyllenhaal is neither attractive or a capable actress, and Heath Ledger's outstand performance and interpretation of the maniacal Joker completely stole the show--however, one good performance does not make an award-winning film. Give Ledger the Best Supporting Actor award, but let's stop the Dark Knight at that. Get Smart I also found a bit tedious. I watched the original series religiously after school as a kid and can to this day recall some of the funnier bits. I was very disappointed with Carrell's performance, which I am going to attribute to the director as Carrell is capable of no wrong in my eyes. The movie started out pretty good and reasonably funny, but became more and more tedious and too serious for a slapstick spy comedy. Carrell didn't 'bungle' enough. Thankfully, I got to look at Anne Hathaway for an hour and a half.
]]>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:02:38 GMTseelyIt's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!1/23/2009 10:02:38 AM[quote user="JimBell"] Dark Knight--I thought it was powerful, overwhelming. Wall-E--the most over-rated movie of the year. Hackneyed plots, hackneyed themes, etc. It will win. This should not concern us. Rather, look to Bolt, a superb aninmation with a profound theme and lots of engrossing characters. The Visitor--love and hate this film; great acting adn I love the Diredctor's work, but a subtle thme that does not withstand much scrutiny Get Smart--hilarious; also an astute update of the old Get Smart; but who pays attention to comedy when there is a holocaust? I thank the Academy for their nominations. I have added all films to my list. I do not care when I see them. I do not care who wins. Thanks. [/quote] I completely agree on Wall-E... I saw it, enjoyed it, but did not think it was the profound ground-breaking landmark everyone seemed to think it was. The plot was good, and one I resonate with, but all the same it was used and tired. I honestly think the public confused "cute film" with "landmark film" and were amazed at their own ability to enjoy a film with a nearly mute main character. I also think the enamoration had something to do with the robot lead--something that was heavily en vogue in the mid-eighties into the early nineties, but hasn't been seen much since. However, I need to disagree on The Dark Knight. I posted about it over in Top 5 Most Overrated Films but I think I need to say it again. Its a comic-book movie, and a good one at that, but still a comic book movie. The dialogue through out the film was nothing short of pallid and predicatble, Christian Bale was entirely forgettable, Maggie Gyllenhaal is neither attractive or a capable actress, and Heath Ledger's outstand performance and interpretation of the maniacal Joker completely stole the show--however, one good performance does not make an award-winning film. Give Ledger the Best Supporting Actor award, but let's stop the Dark Knight at that. Get Smart I also found a bit tedious. I watched the original series religiously after school as a kid and can to this day recall some of the funnier bits. I was very disappointed with Carrell's performance, which I am going to attribute to the director as Carrell is capable of no wrong in my eyes. The movie started out pretty good and reasonably funny, but became more and more tedious and too serious for a slapstick spy comedy. Carrell didn't 'bungle' enough. Thankfully, I got to look at Anne Hathaway for an hour and a half. http://www.spout.com/groups/It_s_a_Wonderful_Night_for_Oscar/Re_Predictions_and_Commentary_2009/46/39815/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 1/23/2009 8:55:42 AM
Body: [quote user="JimBell"] Great idea to host an oxcars converstaion. I'd like to set my parameters by asking three things: First, why are we focusing on 2008? Well, because we have seen all the movies that went before and we wait anxiously for what is new. (Not true of me.) Second, I have seen all the Oscar contenders, but how do I make up my mind? (Not true for me. This year for the first time, I actually tried to se all the oscr nomination, but our local cinema has carried maybe half.) Third, who wins is crucial, n'est-ce pas? Actually, who wins is a pile of -- poliitic -- but who is nominted is a reasonable representation of outstanding movies last year. So once the nominations are announced, we say thankyou, and pay no more attention. Actually , we debate the nominees, but we don't care who actually "wins" as far as the academy is concerned, but only as far as we are concerned. Dark Knight--I thought it was powerful, overwhelming. Wall-E--the most over-rated movie of the year. Hackneyed plots, hackneyed themes, etc. It will win. This should not concern us. Rather, look to Bolt, a superb aninmation with a profound theme and lots of engrossing characters. The Visitor--love and hate this film; great acting adn I love the Diredctor's work, but a subtle thme that does not withstand much scrutiny Get Smart--hilarious; also an astute update of the old Get Smart; but who pays attention to comedy when there is a holocaust? I thank the Academy for their nominations. I have added all films to my list. I do not care when I see them. I do not care who wins. Thanks. [/quote] I know probably much of this is rhetorical, but I can' t stop myself! That's what this thread is here for, after all :-). Some people like the Oscars, as in the actual Oscars. And some people like to predict who wins because of the politics. This group has two purposes: to discuss the Oscars themselves (if you enjoy that sort of thing, which I do) and to discuss what is actually the Best, usually based on what you've seen, best of lists, etc. Either one is fair, even if you prefer one to the other because you find the other distasteful. So! Let's revisit this one, eh: who likes the Oscars hoopla and who doesn't? First, this thread is devoted to 2008 because it is an annual thread. I've started a new one each year since I started the group, way back when in Spout's beta test. They focus on the broadcast of the year listed. Simple as that. Second, you can make up your own mind on what you want. The Oscars are a load of tripe or a fun distraction. The movies they nominate are quality or not. The process they use is legitimate or seriously rigged. Whether you see all the movies or not... it depends on how you look at it, and all opinions are valid here. Some group members don't really care a whole whit for the Oscars themselves but are still game to discuss the films. All are welcome to this, the Oscar-lovers group. Third, some people like to debate what will be nominated. I (and others, I hope) like to dissect the choices that eventually get chosen because, to me, the nominees will always be foregone conclusions. That's why I started to list other awards show nominees and winners, like the Critics' Choice and Golden Globes, which get the first stab at nominating films and pretty much form how Oscar's going to nominate, with the notable difference that the former two nominate a wider berth of films for more awards. Some people like to guess at what will be nominated and then react violently when their guesses are wrong. That's ok too. It's all open here. Some people just want to know what would be a good sampling of films to watch. Some people do actually care who wins, so they can react violently if they thought something else should win. That's why Oscar hoopla is so fertile for conversation. So, taking the films Jim highlighted because he liked or disliked them vis-a-vis what was nominated or not (and here's some of my commentary; more to follow later). --Everyone's up in arms that The Dark Knight got snubbed. I'm here to tell you, devotees, that it never had a chance at being nominated for Best Picture. I like-loved The Dark Knight myself, but when was the last time you saw a comic-book movie or action-adventure movie get nominated for the top category? I mean, it happens, like, every 25 years, and the last time we saw something close was Lord of the Rings. The critics and the Hollywood Foreign Press nominate more films, but the film didn't win their top honors, and if they were restricted to five films for any category, combining comedy and drama, I would venture to guess that Batman wouldn't have been up for them either. Now, if Heath Ledger wasn't nominated, that would have been the true snub. But he was nominated. None of the five nominated Best Pictures were surprises. And they are all dramas with various degrees of edgyness or progressiveness, which is what Oscar has always nominated and will continue to nominate until they revise the rules. That's why some people don't like Oscar. They're predictable - though not always when it comes to the winners. Hence the predictions thread. Feel free to start making any for those who like to do it. Now, who wants to lambast the Academy for this decision because The Dark Knight was the.best.film.ever. Come on, you know you want to :-). --Wall-E: Jim thinks it's overrated because it's generally "hackneyed" in the story department. I think it's a masterpiece of technical achievement (and revisited plot themes/devices or no, they work in this film). So, too, does Oscar. It's a shooin for the Animated Feature award, which focuses on the combination of story and visual presentation; there was an outsider's chance that it would have been nominated for Best Picture, but, again, not a drama, and it's a fancy cartoon. Not every film is going to please everyone, but I haven't met many who've disliked this one, and the Academy doesn't exactly pull for the minority. Just sayin'. --I haven't seen Get Smart. I want to. But, since I've heard widely mixed reviews from just people I know, since I haven't seen it on any "best of the year" lists, and since it's at 53% on Rotten Tomatoes (which is considered rotten, by the way), I'm going to propose that maybe you should cut the Academy a break on this one, Jim. It's not everyone's cup of tea, comedy or no. Now, for me personally, because of my undying love for Steve Carell, I'm still going to see it. Who wants to talk about this one? It's way down on my Netflix queue; anyone want to talk me out of seeing it? Anyone else care to comment? This is the place to do it!
]]>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:55:42 GMTpippin06It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!1/23/2009 8:55:42 AM[quote user="JimBell"] Great idea to host an oxcars converstaion. I'd like to set my parameters by asking three things: First, why are we focusing on 2008? Well, because we have seen all the movies that went before and we wait anxiously for what is new. (Not true of me.) Second, I have seen all the Oscar contenders, but how do I make up my mind? (Not true for me. This year for the first time, I actually tried to se all the oscr nomination, but our local cinema has carried maybe half.) Third, who wins is crucial, n'est-ce pas? Actually, who wins is a pile of -- poliitic -- but who is nominted is a reasonable representation of outstanding movies last year. So once the nominations are announced, we say thankyou, and pay no more attention. Actually , we debate the nominees, but we don't care who actually "wins" as far as the academy is concerned, but only as far as we are concerned. Dark Knight--I thought it was powerful, overwhelming. Wall-E--the most over-rated movie of the year. Hackneyed plots, hackneyed themes, etc. It will win. This should not concern us. Rather, look to Bolt, a superb aninmation with a profound theme and lots of engrossing characters. The Visitor--love and hate this film; great acting adn I love the Diredctor's work, but a subtle thme that does not withstand much scrutiny Get Smart--hilarious; also an astute update of the old Get Smart; but who pays attention to comedy when there is a holocaust? I thank the Academy for their nominations. I have added all films to my list. I do not care when I see them. I do not care who wins. Thanks. [/quote] I know probably much of this is rhetorical, but I can' t stop myself! That's what this thread is here for, after all :-). Some people like the Oscars, as in the actual Oscars. And some people like to predict who wins because of the politics. This group has two purposes: to discuss the Oscars themselves (if you enjoy that sort of thing, which I do) and to discuss what is actually the Best, usually based on what you've seen, best of lists, etc. Either one is fair, even if you prefer one to the other because you find the other distasteful. So! Let's revisit this one, eh: who likes the Oscars hoopla and who doesn't? First, this thread is devoted to 2008 because it is an annual thread. I've started a new one each year since I started the group, way back when in Spout's beta test. They focus on the broadcast of the year listed. Simple as that. Second, you can make up your own mind on what you want. The Oscars are a load of tripe or a fun distraction. The movies they nominate are quality or not. The process they use is legitimate or seriously rigged. Whether you see all the movies or not... it depends on how you look at it, and all opinions are valid here. Some group members don't really care a whole whit for the Oscars themselves but are still game to discuss the films. All are welcome to this, the Oscar-lovers group. Third, some people like to debate what will be nominated. I (and others, I hope) like to dissect the choices that eventually get chosen because, to me, the nominees will always be foregone conclusions. That's why I started to list other awards show nominees and winners, like the Critics' Choice and Golden Globes, which get the first stab at nominating films and pretty much form how Oscar's going to nominate, with the notable difference that the former two nominate a wider berth of films for more awards. Some people like to guess at what will be nominated and then react violently when their guesses are wrong. That's ok too. It's all open here. Some people just want to know what would be a good sampling of films to watch. Some people do actually care who wins, so they can react violently if they thought something else should win. That's why Oscar hoopla is so fertile for conversation. So, taking the films Jim highlighted because he liked or disliked them vis-a-vis what was nominated or not (and here's some of my commentary; more to follow later). --Everyone's up in arms that The Dark Knight got snubbed. I'm here to tell you, devotees, that it never had a chance at being nominated for Best Picture. I like-loved The Dark Knight myself, but when was the last time you saw a comic-book movie or action-adventure movie get nominated for the top category? I mean, it happens, like, every 25 years, and the last time we saw something close was Lord of the Rings. The critics and the Hollywood Foreign Press nominate more films, but the film didn't win their top honors, and if they were restricted to five films for any category, combining comedy and drama, I would venture to guess that Batman wouldn't have been up for them either. Now, if Heath Ledger wasn't nominated, that would have been the true snub. But he was nominated. None of the five nominated Best Pictures were surprises. And they are all dramas with various degrees of edgyness or progressiveness, which is what Oscar has always nominated and will continue to nominate until they revise the rules. That's why some people don't like Oscar. They're predictable - though not always when it comes to the winners. Hence the predictions thread. Feel free to start making any for those who like to do it. Now, who wants to lambast the Academy for this decision because The Dark Knight was the.best.film.ever. Come on, you know you want to :-). --Wall-E: Jim thinks it's overrated because it's generally "hackneyed" in the story department. I think it's a masterpiece of technical achievement (and revisited plot themes/devices or no, they work in this film). So, too, does Oscar. It's a shooin for the Animated Feature award, which focuses on the combination of story and visual presentation; there was an outsider's chance that it would have been nominated for Best Picture, but, again, not a drama, and it's a fancy cartoon. Not every film is going to please everyone, but I haven't met many who've disliked this one, and the Academy doesn't exactly pull for the minority. Just sayin'. --I haven't seen Get Smart. I want to. But, since I've heard widely mixed reviews from just people I know, since I haven't seen it on any "best of the year" lists, and since it's at 53% on Rotten Tomatoes (which is considered rotten, by the way), I'm going to propose that maybe you should cut the Academy a break on this one, Jim. It's not everyone's cup of tea, comedy or no. Now, for me personally, because of my undying love for Steve Carell, I'm still going to see it. Who wants to talk about this one? It's way down on my Netflix queue; anyone want to talk me out of seeing it? Anyone else care to comment? This is the place to do it! http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/12/39409.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/12/2009 2:01:21 PM
Body: The Golden Globes have been handed out, and the last of Oscar ballots are to be postmarked by today. So, that’s it, the nominations for the 81st Academy Awards are being figured out as we speak, and campaigning is over until the official contenders are announced on January 22. Hopefully a few Academy members took notice of our unlikely last-minute suggestions, but it’s more probable that we’ll be looking at an unsurprising crop of films represented in the major eight categories. As you’ll see after the jump, we predict that two heavily-buzzed supporting performances will be snubbed. Of course you’re likely to disagree with these foreseen omissions. In fact, we welcome all you readers to make your own predictions in the comments section — what you think will be nominated, not what you want nominated. And on Monday, January 19, SpoutBlog will feature a post highlighting the best of these comments and predictions. Best Picture The Dark Knight Slumdog Millionaire Milk The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Frost/Nixon Possible upsets: Doubt; Revolutionary Road; Wall-E Best Director Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire) Gus Van Sant (Milk) Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon) David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Sam Mendes (Revolutionary Road) Possible upsets: Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight); Jonathan Demme (Rachel Getting Married); Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler) Best Actress Meryl Streep (Doubt) Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) Kate Winslet (Revolutionary Road) Cate Blanchett (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Sally Hawkins (Happy-Go-Lucky) Possible upsets: Kristin Scott Thomas (I’ve Loved You So Long); Angelina Jolie (Changeling); Melissa Leo (Frozen River) Best Actor Sean Penn (Milk) Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler) Clint Eastwood (Gran Torino) Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon) Leonardo DiCaprio (Revolutionary Road) Possible upsets: Brad Pitt (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button); Richard Jenkins (The Visitor) Best Supporting Actress Viola Davis (Doubt) Amy Adams (Doubt) Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona) Kate Winslet (The Reader) Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) Possible upsets: Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button); Rosemarie DeWitt (Rachel Getting Married) Best Supporting Actor Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) Josh Brolin (Milk) Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt) Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road) Possible upsets: Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder); James Franco (Milk) Best Original Screenplay Dustin Lance Black (Milk) Woody Allen (Vicky Cristina Barcelona) Andrew Stanton & Jim Reardon (Wall-E) Robert Siegel (The Wrestler) Tom McCarthy (The Visitor) Possible upsets: Jenny Lumet (Rachel Getting Married); Joel Coen & Ethan Coen (Burn After Reading) Best Adapted Screenplay Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire) Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon) Eric Roth (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) John Patrick Shanley (Doubt) Possible upsets: David Hare (The Reader); Justin Haythe (Revolutionary Road) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:01:21 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/12/2009 2:01:21 PMThe Golden Globes have been handed out, and the last of Oscar ballots are to be postmarked by today. So, that’s it, the nominations for the 81st Academy Awards are being figured out as we speak, and campaigning is over until the official contenders are announced on January 22. Hopefully a few Academy members took notice of our unlikely last-minute suggestions, but it’s more probable that we’ll be looking at an unsurprising crop of films represented in the major eight categories. As you’ll see after the jump, we predict that two heavily-buzzed supporting performances will be snubbed. Of course you’re likely to disagree with these foreseen omissions. In fact, we welcome all you readers to make your own predictions in the comments section — what you think will be nominated, not what you want nominated. And on Monday, January 19, SpoutBlog will feature a post highlighting the best of these comments and predictions. Best Picture The Dark Knight Slumdog Millionaire Milk The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Frost/Nixon Possible upsets: Doubt; Revolutionary Road; Wall-E Best Director Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire) Gus Van Sant (Milk) Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon) David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Sam Mendes (Revolutionary Road) Possible upsets: Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight); Jonathan Demme (Rachel Getting Married); Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler) Best Actress Meryl Streep (Doubt) Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) Kate Winslet (Revolutionary Road) Cate Blanchett (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Sally Hawkins (Happy-Go-Lucky) Possible upsets: Kristin Scott Thomas (I’ve Loved You So Long); Angelina Jolie (Changeling); Melissa Leo (Frozen River) Best Actor Sean Penn (Milk) Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler) Clint Eastwood (Gran Torino) Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon) Leonardo DiCaprio (Revolutionary Road) Possible upsets: Brad Pitt (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button); Richard Jenkins (The Visitor) Best Supporting Actress Viola Davis (Doubt) Amy Adams (Doubt) Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona) Kate Winslet (The Reader) Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) Possible upsets: Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button); Rosemarie DeWitt (Rachel Getting Married) Best Supporting Actor Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) Josh Brolin (Milk) Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt) Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road) Possible upsets: Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder); James Franco (Milk) Best Original Screenplay Dustin Lance Black (Milk) Woody Allen (Vicky Cristina Barcelona) Andrew Stanton & Jim Reardon (Wall-E) Robert Siegel (The Wrestler) Tom McCarthy (The Visitor) Possible upsets: Jenny Lumet (Rachel Getting Married); Joel Coen & Ethan Coen (Burn After Reading) Best Adapted Screenplay Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire) Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon) Eric Roth (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) John Patrick Shanley (Doubt) Possible upsets: David Hare (The Reader); Justin Haythe (Revolutionary Road) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/1/11/39367.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 1/11/2009 9:19:35 PM
Body: Movie awards season is silly season. Tunnel vision is the common perspective—people talk about fewer and fewer movies until the awards seem a foregone conclusion. We all believe that Wall.E is the only animated feature worth considering. We believe it is so good that discussion about the film centers on whether it should also be entered in the Best Picture categories. So with this much tunnel vision behind Wall.E, I’m probably wasting my breath to argue that the movie is not particularly good. Both major themes in Wall.E are hackneyed. Humans so abused Earth that they left it a sterile junk yard and had to live in space. Have you heard anything like that before? But then the trite theme gets worse. Space-dwelling humans, who are obese, ignorant, and lack the bone structure to function in gravity, can find a green plant and re-establish life on earth. One plant does not sustain a population. OK, there’s a few other plants popping up among the garbage. Could they be contaminated? Inedible? And, come to think of it, is that all you need for life on earth? What will these people do for shelter? Clean water? Clean air? It gets ridiculous trying to talk about it. The second element of Wall.E is the hackneyed love story between Wall.E and Eva. Boy sees girl—love at first sight. Girl is not interested, but she is slowly won over by good deeds. But, no, she rejects him, then quickly sees the error of her ways and acknowledges her love. But then the trite theme runs into more trouble. Wall.E, the mobile garbage compactor, is unable to show much romantic emotion. His replaceable metal and glass eyes are not expressive. Emotion is often shown by what is reflected in his glass plates. Not touching. Eva, the sleek white pod of a robot, has eyes which are blue dots on her screen face. She is unable to show romantic emotion, except in the last half of the film, her eyes take on various shapes that indicate emotions somewhat like emoticons on your computer. The film-makers try to counteract this serious shortcoming by building up the hand-holding motif. From a Hollywood musical on a salvaged television derives the idea that hand holding is love, and Wall.E and Eva do their best to interlock metal fingers. This might work for some people, but it seemed awkward to me. Wall-E might be worth watching, but it is not in the league of Finding Nemo or The Incredibles. Actually, it is not as good as the other animation I’ve seen recently: Bolt—a movie with a great theme, wonderful characters, and heart-grabbing scenes.
]]>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:19:35 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog1/11/2009 9:19:35 PMMovie awards season is silly season. Tunnel vision is the common perspective&mdash;people talk about fewer and fewer movies until the awards seem a foregone conclusion. We all believe that Wall.E is the only animated feature worth considering. We believe it is so good that discussion about the film centers on whether it should also be entered in the Best Picture categories. So with this much tunnel vision behind Wall.E, I&rsquo;m probably wasting my breath to argue that the movie is not particularly good. Both major themes in Wall.E are hackneyed. Humans so abused Earth that they left it a sterile junk yard and had to live in space. Have you heard anything like that before? But then the trite theme gets worse. Space-dwelling humans, who are obese, ignorant, and lack the bone structure to function in gravity, can find a green plant and re-establish life on earth. One plant does not sustain a population. OK, there&rsquo;s a few other plants popping up among the garbage. Could they be contaminated? Inedible? And, come to think of it, is that all you need for life on earth? What will these people do for shelter? Clean water? Clean air? It gets ridiculous trying to talk about it. The second element of Wall.E is the hackneyed love story between Wall.E and Eva. Boy sees girl&mdash;love at first sight. Girl is not interested, but she is slowly won over by good deeds. But, no, she rejects him, then quickly sees the error of her ways and acknowledges her love. But then the trite theme runs into more trouble. Wall.E, the mobile garbage compactor, is unable to show much romantic emotion. His replaceable metal and glass eyes are not expressive. Emotion is often shown by what is reflected in his glass plates. Not touching. Eva, the sleek white pod of a robot, has eyes which are blue dots on her screen face. She is unable to show romantic emotion, except in the last half of the film, her eyes take on various shapes that indicate emotions somewhat like emoticons on your computer. The film-makers try to counteract this serious shortcoming by building up the hand-holding motif. From a Hollywood musical on a salvaged television derives the idea that hand holding is love, and Wall.E and Eva do their best to interlock metal fingers. This might work for some people, but it seemed awkward to me. Wall-E might be worth watching, but it is not in the league of Finding Nemo or The Incredibles. Actually, it is not as good as the other animation I&rsquo;ve seen recently: Bolt&mdash;a movie with a great theme, wonderful characters, and heart-grabbing scenes. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/9/39313.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/9/2009 1:00:40 PM
Body: We’re less than two weeks away from receiving this year’s Oscar nominations, and though none of the major categories are completely predictable just yet, each has at least three or four certain favorites. Meanwhile, the final slots for Best Picture, Best Director and the acting and screenwriting categories may be simply a random grab from small handfuls of rotating contenders. As of now, it doesn’t appear we’ll be seeing any huge surprises come the morning of January 22nd, when the Academy announces the nominees. The Dark Knight is sure to become the first comic book film up for Best Picture, and it won’t even be a shocker if animated feature Wall-E is listed alongside it in the same category. But the ballots don’t need to be mailed out until Monday, so I’m taking one last chance to reach out to the procrastinators within the Academy membership. If you still don’t know who and what to write in, and you’re unwilling to go the safe route and nominate the expected bunch of films and talent, then consider some of these underdogs, under-appreciated and pretty much unlikely possibilities: Best Picture: Rachel Getting Married There was a time when Jonathan Demme’s “Altmanesque” family drama was thought a frontrunner for the Academy’s top prize, but now it looks like it may not even garner a much-deserved Original Screenplay nod for Jenny Lumet, let alone Best Picture. Anne Hathaway is still a good bet in the Best Actress category, though she’s perhaps the least worthy element of the film. Demme deserves his first Best Director nomination in 17 years for reinventing and revitalizing his career with such a rich ensemble piece, while editor Tim Squyres needs to be recognized for piecing together the ingredients so perfectly. I could go on and on about more individual achievements that need be honored (I’ve already spotlighted Robyn Hitchcock’s worth), so let’s just sum it all up and say Rachel Getting Married is highly worthy of being nominated for Best Picture. Best Director: Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky Like Jonathan Demme, Mike Leigh is one of the finest living directors in terms of working with actors. They both constantly get Oscar-worthy (if not Academy-recognized) performances from otherwise serviceable thespians, yet Leigh is typically more regarded for his screenwriting, for which he’s received three Oscar nominations against two directorial nominations. With Happy-Go-Lucky, it’s more his directing skill that shines through, and if the Academy can’t find room to honor either Sally Hawkins or Eddie Marsan (respectively for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor) they might want to nominate Leigh, since neither would have been so remarkable without his leadership. Best Actress: Michelle Williams, Wendy and Lucy For the minimalist kind of films that Kelly Reichardt makes, most filmmakers would rather go with an unknown lead than with a familiar, gossip magazine-friendly actress, even one as talented as Michelle Williams. Yet the former Oscar nominee disappears into the role of Wendy in Wendy and Lucy, so much that it’s easy to forget that she’s a famous movie star. She seems as fresh and unknown as any actor in a De Sica or, more currently, a Ramin Bahrani film. The Academy will likely overlook Williams this year, not so much because the film was barely distributed, but because she doesn’t give a particularly flashy performance. Plus, although the actress appears relatively unfamiliar on screen, it isn’t the kind of “unrecognizable” transformation that Oscar prefers with beautiful young starlets. Best Supporting Actress: Bette Midler, Then She Found Me If a performance is great and nobody sees it, is it still Oscar-worthy? Of course, but it’s not likely to be nominated. I don’t foresee any Academy members scrambling to rent Helen Hunt’s terrific directorial debut, Then She Found Me, this weekend, which is too bad. Bette was back this past year and just as good as, if not better than, before. She was lively yet somewhat reserved compared to what we expect from her. The two-time Best Actress nominee will hopefully receive her due win one day, probably in the supporting category and as a career-honoring nod, but it may not be as deserving as this. Best Actor: Josh Brolin, W. I’ve already written a whole column about why Brolin should receive a Best Actor nomination for W., so I needn’t devote too much more space here. Apparently he’s gained more heat for his supporting role in Milk, though, and while that should be plenty recognition for him this year, I continue to hope for a double nomination. His two performances this year are equally amazing, and they couldn’t be more different, despite how they may both be deemed villainous roles. Best Supporting Actor: Mark Walton, Bolt Let me first acknowledge that I got this idea from Bolt’s biggest fan, Kristopher Tapley of In Contention, who called Mark Walton’s voice acting, “the closest I’ve ever come to considering a vocal performance Oscar-worthy since Ellen Degeneres in ‘Finding Nemo.’” I don’t necessarily agree with Tapley’s decision to put Bolt at #2 on his Best of 2008 list, but I would love to see a non-actor like Walton be recognized non-traditionally for vocal work, a form of acting that doesn’t garner enough consideration. Who needs big name casting in an animated film when a storyboard artist gives a more hilarious vocal performance than even Jack Black? Best Original Screenplay: Charlie Kaufman, Synecdoche, New York Kaufman may need some fine-tuning in the directorial department (though he did a pretty good job for a first-timer), but his latest screenplay, for Synecdoche, New York, is every bit as brilliant as his three Oscar-nominated scripts (one of which, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, was a winner). There’s not much originality in the attempt to put everything into a screenplay — in fact, it’s a common mistake for narcissistic novices — but Kaufman is quite original for having been the first to be successful at it. Best Adapted Screenplay: James Marsh and Philippe Petit, Man on Wire There is no screenwriter credited for Man on Wire, but there had to have been some sort of adaptation involved, even if it was simply a single-page treatment and some notes about how to turn Petit’s unexceptional (though fairly enjoyable) book To Reach the Clouds into one of the most riveting documentaries of all time. Unfortunately, the lack of credit means that the Academy will certainly overlook this, the greatest cinematic storytelling of the year. And now, some extra-long shots in two of the non-major categories: Best Cinematography: Jeremy Lasky, Martin Rosenberg, Danielle Feinberg, Roger Deakins, Wall-E I almost chose Wall-E, which I don’t think should be given a Best Picture nod, for the Best Director slot, for Andrew Stanton. But if any animation filmmaker is going to break such ground, I’d rather first see Brad Bird recognized in that category. Besides, much of the innovative camera work in Wall-E is courtesy of new concepts in cinematographic technique for animation. Even if the Academy blew our minds and nominated Wall-E for Best Cinematography, Deakins, whom Pixar hired for some uncredited consultation, wouldn’t be named as one of the nominees. But since the guy is so deserving of an Oscar, why not just name him in some additional slots this year (a repeat of his double duty from 2007, he’s expected to receive two nods, for Doubt and Revolutionary Road)? Best Foreign Language Film: Tony Manero Pablo Larrain’s Tony Manero, which is Chile’s official submission to the foreign language category, is currently without a distributor in the U.S. How might that change? An Oscar nomination. Sure, not every Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language film is guaranteed distribution, but it could help a film as highly praised as this one — recently it placed third on indieWIRE’s Critic’s Poll of the best undistributed films of the year. Currently, it’s a strong contender, though it may be just on the outside of the Academy’s top choices (it’s up against either Sweden’s Everlasting Moments or Germany’s The Baader Meinhof Complex for that last spot). Personally, I haven’t actually seen Tony Manero, but I’d really like to, and that is why I wish for it to be recognized. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:00:40 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/9/2009 1:00:40 PMWe’re less than two weeks away from receiving this year’s Oscar nominations, and though none of the major categories are completely predictable just yet, each has at least three or four certain favorites. Meanwhile, the final slots for Best Picture, Best Director and the acting and screenwriting categories may be simply a random grab from small handfuls of rotating contenders. As of now, it doesn’t appear we’ll be seeing any huge surprises come the morning of January 22nd, when the Academy announces the nominees. The Dark Knight is sure to become the first comic book film up for Best Picture, and it won’t even be a shocker if animated feature Wall-E is listed alongside it in the same category. But the ballots don’t need to be mailed out until Monday, so I’m taking one last chance to reach out to the procrastinators within the Academy membership. If you still don’t know who and what to write in, and you’re unwilling to go the safe route and nominate the expected bunch of films and talent, then consider some of these underdogs, under-appreciated and pretty much unlikely possibilities: Best Picture: Rachel Getting Married There was a time when Jonathan Demme’s “Altmanesque” family drama was thought a frontrunner for the Academy’s top prize, but now it looks like it may not even garner a much-deserved Original Screenplay nod for Jenny Lumet, let alone Best Picture. Anne Hathaway is still a good bet in the Best Actress category, though she’s perhaps the least worthy element of the film. Demme deserves his first Best Director nomination in 17 years for reinventing and revitalizing his career with such a rich ensemble piece, while editor Tim Squyres needs to be recognized for piecing together the ingredients so perfectly. I could go on and on about more individual achievements that need be honored (I’ve already spotlighted Robyn Hitchcock’s worth), so let’s just sum it all up and say Rachel Getting Married is highly worthy of being nominated for Best Picture. Best Director: Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky Like Jonathan Demme, Mike Leigh is one of the finest living directors in terms of working with actors. They both constantly get Oscar-worthy (if not Academy-recognized) performances from otherwise serviceable thespians, yet Leigh is typically more regarded for his screenwriting, for which he’s received three Oscar nominations against two directorial nominations. With Happy-Go-Lucky, it’s more his directing skill that shines through, and if the Academy can’t find room to honor either Sally Hawkins or Eddie Marsan (respectively for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor) they might want to nominate Leigh, since neither would have been so remarkable without his leadership. Best Actress: Michelle Williams, Wendy and Lucy For the minimalist kind of films that Kelly Reichardt makes, most filmmakers would rather go with an unknown lead than with a familiar, gossip magazine-friendly actress, even one as talented as Michelle Williams. Yet the former Oscar nominee disappears into the role of Wendy in Wendy and Lucy, so much that it’s easy to forget that she’s a famous movie star. She seems as fresh and unknown as any actor in a De Sica or, more currently, a Ramin Bahrani film. The Academy will likely overlook Williams this year, not so much because the film was barely distributed, but because she doesn’t give a particularly flashy performance. Plus, although the actress appears relatively unfamiliar on screen, it isn’t the kind of “unrecognizable” transformation that Oscar prefers with beautiful young starlets. Best Supporting Actress: Bette Midler, Then She Found Me If a performance is great and nobody sees it, is it still Oscar-worthy? Of course, but it’s not likely to be nominated. I don’t foresee any Academy members scrambling to rent Helen Hunt’s terrific directorial debut, Then She Found Me, this weekend, which is too bad. Bette was back this past year and just as good as, if not better than, before. She was lively yet somewhat reserved compared to what we expect from her. The two-time Best Actress nominee will hopefully receive her due win one day, probably in the supporting category and as a career-honoring nod, but it may not be as deserving as this. Best Actor: Josh Brolin, W. I’ve already written a whole column about why Brolin should receive a Best Actor nomination for W., so I needn’t devote too much more space here. Apparently he’s gained more heat for his supporting role in Milk, though, and while that should be plenty recognition for him this year, I continue to hope for a double nomination. His two performances this year are equally amazing, and they couldn’t be more different, despite how they may both be deemed villainous roles. Best Supporting Actor: Mark Walton, Bolt Let me first acknowledge that I got this idea from Bolt’s biggest fan, Kristopher Tapley of In Contention, who called Mark Walton’s voice acting, “the closest I’ve ever come to considering a vocal performance Oscar-worthy since Ellen Degeneres in ‘Finding Nemo.’” I don’t necessarily agree with Tapley’s decision to put Bolt at #2 on his Best of 2008 list, but I would love to see a non-actor like Walton be recognized non-traditionally for vocal work, a form of acting that doesn’t garner enough consideration. Who needs big name casting in an animated film when a storyboard artist gives a more hilarious vocal performance than even Jack Black? Best Original Screenplay: Charlie Kaufman, Synecdoche, New York Kaufman may need some fine-tuning in the directorial department (though he did a pretty good job for a first-timer), but his latest screenplay, for Synecdoche, New York, is every bit as brilliant as his three Oscar-nominated scripts (one of which, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, was a winner). There’s not much originality in the attempt to put everything into a screenplay — in fact, it’s a common mistake for narcissistic novices — but Kaufman is quite original for having been the first to be successful at it. Best Adapted Screenplay: James Marsh and Philippe Petit, Man on Wire There is no screenwriter credited for Man on Wire, but there had to have been some sort of adaptation involved, even if it was simply a single-page treatment and some notes about how to turn Petit’s unexceptional (though fairly enjoyable) book To Reach the Clouds into one of the most riveting documentaries of all time. Unfortunately, the lack of credit means that the Academy will certainly overlook this, the greatest cinematic storytelling of the year. And now, some extra-long shots in two of the non-major categories: Best Cinematography: Jeremy Lasky, Martin Rosenberg, Danielle Feinberg, Roger Deakins, Wall-E I almost chose Wall-E, which I don’t think should be given a Best Picture nod, for the Best Director slot, for Andrew Stanton. But if any animation filmmaker is going to break such ground, I’d rather first see Brad Bird recognized in that category. Besides, much of the innovative camera work in Wall-E is courtesy of new concepts in cinematographic technique for animation. Even if the Academy blew our minds and nominated Wall-E for Best Cinematography, Deakins, whom Pixar hired for some uncredited consultation, wouldn’t be named as one of the nominees. But since the guy is so deserving of an Oscar, why not just name him in some additional slots this year (a repeat of his double duty from 2007, he’s expected to receive two nods, for Doubt and Revolutionary Road)? Best Foreign Language Film: Tony Manero Pablo Larrain’s Tony Manero, which is Chile’s official submission to the foreign language category, is currently without a distributor in the U.S. How might that change? An Oscar nomination. Sure, not every Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language film is guaranteed distribution, but it could help a film as highly praised as this one — recently it placed third on indieWIRE’s Critic’s Poll of the best undistributed films of the year. Currently, it’s a strong contender, though it may be just on the outside of the Academy’s top choices (it’s up against either Sweden’s Everlasting Moments or Germany’s The Baader Meinhof Complex for that last spot). Personally, I haven’t actually seen Tony Manero, but I’d really like to, and that is why I wish for it to be recognized. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/7/39219.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/7/2009 5:00:47 PM
Body: It’s only a couple of short weeks before the 2008 Oscar nominees are announced, and the internet is abuzz with prognostications. One hotly debated topic is whether or not Wall-E can pull off a Best Picture nomination, or even a win. It would be the second animated film to be nominated in the category, after Beauty and the Beast, which got the honor before the Animated Feature prize existed. Will the stodgy old Academy seat Wall-E at the kid’s table, giving it an easy win in the animation category, or will it be allowed to play with the big boys? A best pic nomination for Wall-E would be a rare honor for animation in general, but it would also be a long over due rarity for another reason: Wall-E would only be the second best pic nominated film in the history of the Oscars to be set in the future. The only one to date is A Clockwork Orange. When you consider how many nominees are period pieces (I didn’t care to count), this represents a massive bias on the part of the Academy. It’s clear that they love the past, but they hate the future. What would the history of the Academy Awards look like if the Hollywood elite wasn’t terrified of speculative fiction? Below, seven movies about the future that should have been nominated for Best Picture: 1. Metropolis The first Academy Awards, held in 1929, gave honors to films produced in both 1928 and 1927, so this should have at least been nominated. Of course the nomination process was rather primitive back then, and American audiences probably wouldn’t have been familiar with German films such as this, but for the purpose of revisionist history, we’ll say it got snubbed. There’s something very 20th century about Art Deco skyscrapers and class conflict, but Metropolis‘ depiction of 2026 still feels relevant today. The film laid the ground work for countless sci-fi tropes, including sexy female androids (see #5). 2. On The Beach This 1959 post-apocalyptic drama stars Gregory Peck as the captain of a US submarine stationed in Melbourne. Set in the near future of 1964, nuclear war has wiped out the rest of the planet, and it’s only a matter of months before the wind brings the deadly radioactive fallout to Australia. The film is a beautiful meditation on the inevitability of death, featuring a solid performance by Ava Gardner, and the most melancholy work by Fred Astaire I’ve ever seen (he does not sing or dance). On the Beach was nominated for both Best Score and Best Editing Oscars, and director Stanley Kramer won a BAFTA. 3. 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick’s masterpiece wasn’t completely snubbed; it received four Oscar nominations, with a win for Visual Effects. But the fact that it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination is criminal. The film is consistently listed on top 100 movie lists, and breaks the top ten on plenty of them. It’s clear that something went very wrong that year. Perhaps the snub can be blamed on the fact that the film was so far ahead of its time, that many people just didn’t get it. Pauline Kael said it was “a monumentally unimaginative movie.” 4. Solaris This 1972 Russian science fiction film is just as cerebral as 2001, and perhaps an even deeper plumb of the human psyche. The Palme d’Or nominated film, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, follows the story of psychologist Chris Kelvin as he ventures to a distant space station, orbiting the water-covered planet Solaris. The station has fallen into disarray, and Kelvin soon figures out why. An apparition of his dead wife appears, apparently created by Solaris using Kelvin’s brain waves. The film is slow and introspective, and is one of those rare gems of science fiction that transcends the trappings of the genre. It should have at least been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film; instead, it wasn’t nominated for anything. 5. Blade Runner For some, saying that Blade Runner was one of the five best films of 1982 is stating the obvious. Perhaps the blending of sci-fi and noir seemed at the time to be nothing more than a cheap genre gimmick. But the enduring quality of Blade Runner makes it clear that it deserved more than the two nominations in received for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects. The snub of Blade Runner is perhaps the best way to prove the Academy’s bias toward the past, when you consider that Ridley Scott’s 2000 film, Gladiator was not only nominated for Best Picture, but it won! I repeat, Gladiator won Best Picture, while Blade Runner was not even nominated. Which did you think was the better movie? 6. Brazil Terry Gilliam’s dystopian black comedy might have had a shot at few Academy awards if Gilliam hadn’t burned every bridge in Hollywood as he made it. The film operates in the dystopian mold cast by 1984, with a healthy dose of dark humor and fantasy. It’s one of the most egregious examples of a studio re-cutting a film and essentially destroying it in the process. Fortunately, Gilliam’s cut is readily available on DVD now, but the director’s trustworthiness in Hollywood is still highly suspect. Gilliam is one of those filmmakers who, no matter how good a movie he makes, will never be welcomed into the inner sanctum. Still, Brazil deserved a Best Picture nomination. 7. Children of Men When the 2006 Best Picture nominees were announced, you may have heard a faint stream of cursing on the wind. That was me. I know that people tend to win Oscars when they’re “due,” which easily explains why The Departed took home the top prize, but the fact that Children of Men wasn’t even nominated is just silly. It was nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing, which is the Academy’s way of saying, “Wow, this movie is incredible, but it’s about the future, so let’s only honor that one really long take near the end.” Bullshit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:00:47 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/7/2009 5:00:47 PMIt’s only a couple of short weeks before the 2008 Oscar nominees are announced, and the internet is abuzz with prognostications. One hotly debated topic is whether or not Wall-E can pull off a Best Picture nomination, or even a win. It would be the second animated film to be nominated in the category, after Beauty and the Beast, which got the honor before the Animated Feature prize existed. Will the stodgy old Academy seat Wall-E at the kid’s table, giving it an easy win in the animation category, or will it be allowed to play with the big boys? A best pic nomination for Wall-E would be a rare honor for animation in general, but it would also be a long over due rarity for another reason: Wall-E would only be the second best pic nominated film in the history of the Oscars to be set in the future. The only one to date is A Clockwork Orange. When you consider how many nominees are period pieces (I didn’t care to count), this represents a massive bias on the part of the Academy. It’s clear that they love the past, but they hate the future. What would the history of the Academy Awards look like if the Hollywood elite wasn’t terrified of speculative fiction? Below, seven movies about the future that should have been nominated for Best Picture: 1. Metropolis The first Academy Awards, held in 1929, gave honors to films produced in both 1928 and 1927, so this should have at least been nominated. Of course the nomination process was rather primitive back then, and American audiences probably wouldn’t have been familiar with German films such as this, but for the purpose of revisionist history, we’ll say it got snubbed. There’s something very 20th century about Art Deco skyscrapers and class conflict, but Metropolis‘ depiction of 2026 still feels relevant today. The film laid the ground work for countless sci-fi tropes, including sexy female androids (see #5). 2. On The Beach This 1959 post-apocalyptic drama stars Gregory Peck as the captain of a US submarine stationed in Melbourne. Set in the near future of 1964, nuclear war has wiped out the rest of the planet, and it’s only a matter of months before the wind brings the deadly radioactive fallout to Australia. The film is a beautiful meditation on the inevitability of death, featuring a solid performance by Ava Gardner, and the most melancholy work by Fred Astaire I’ve ever seen (he does not sing or dance). On the Beach was nominated for both Best Score and Best Editing Oscars, and director Stanley Kramer won a BAFTA. 3. 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick’s masterpiece wasn’t completely snubbed; it received four Oscar nominations, with a win for Visual Effects. But the fact that it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination is criminal. The film is consistently listed on top 100 movie lists, and breaks the top ten on plenty of them. It’s clear that something went very wrong that year. Perhaps the snub can be blamed on the fact that the film was so far ahead of its time, that many people just didn’t get it. Pauline Kael said it was “a monumentally unimaginative movie.” 4. Solaris This 1972 Russian science fiction film is just as cerebral as 2001, and perhaps an even deeper plumb of the human psyche. The Palme d’Or nominated film, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, follows the story of psychologist Chris Kelvin as he ventures to a distant space station, orbiting the water-covered planet Solaris. The station has fallen into disarray, and Kelvin soon figures out why. An apparition of his dead wife appears, apparently created by Solaris using Kelvin’s brain waves. The film is slow and introspective, and is one of those rare gems of science fiction that transcends the trappings of the genre. It should have at least been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film; instead, it wasn’t nominated for anything. 5. Blade Runner For some, saying that Blade Runner was one of the five best films of 1982 is stating the obvious. Perhaps the blending of sci-fi and noir seemed at the time to be nothing more than a cheap genre gimmick. But the enduring quality of Blade Runner makes it clear that it deserved more than the two nominations in received for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects. The snub of Blade Runner is perhaps the best way to prove the Academy’s bias toward the past, when you consider that Ridley Scott’s 2000 film, Gladiator was not only nominated for Best Picture, but it won! I repeat, Gladiator won Best Picture, while Blade Runner was not even nominated. Which did you think was the better movie? 6. Brazil Terry Gilliam’s dystopian black comedy might have had a shot at few Academy awards if Gilliam hadn’t burned every bridge in Hollywood as he made it. The film operates in the dystopian mold cast by 1984, with a healthy dose of dark humor and fantasy. It’s one of the most egregious examples of a studio re-cutting a film and essentially destroying it in the process. Fortunately, Gilliam’s cut is readily available on DVD now, but the director’s trustworthiness in Hollywood is still highly suspect. Gilliam is one of those filmmakers who, no matter how good a movie he makes, will never be welcomed into the inner sanctum. Still, Brazil deserved a Best Picture nomination. 7. Children of Men When the 2006 Best Picture nominees were announced, you may have heard a faint stream of cursing on the wind. That was me. I know that people tend to win Oscars when they’re “due,” which easily explains why The Departed took home the top prize, but the fact that Children of Men wasn’t even nominated is just silly. It was nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing, which is the Academy’s way of saying, “Wow, this movie is incredible, but it’s about the future, so let’s only honor that one really long take near the end.” Bullshit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/DOOMSDAY/Re_Disaster_Most_Likely_to_End_the_World/612/39167/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: DOOMSDAY
Post Date: 1/6/2009 6:56:05 PM
Body: I've got three plausible scenarios: 1. 28 Days Later: Disease epidemics seem like they could easily wipe out the population (see: The Black Plague) and the way Danny Boyle handles the situation seems pretty much like the way it might happen in real life, 28 Weeks Later even more so (although I say it's a far inferior movie). Plus, if you want the world to end in horrible disaster, you want it to go out like a badass. Rage-infected zombies: totally badass. 2. Sunshine: I dunno...it sounds possible. 3. Wall-e: I know it's not really a "disaster" movie, but doesn't our rampant consumerism and wastefulness seem like it might cause the world to become a barren junkyard wasteland? I think it does.
]]>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:56:05 GMTindieabby88DOOMSDAY1/6/2009 6:56:05 PMI've got three plausible scenarios: 1. 28 Days Later: Disease epidemics seem like they could easily wipe out the population (see: The Black Plague) and the way Danny Boyle handles the situation seems pretty much like the way it might happen in real life, 28 Weeks Later even more so (although I say it's a far inferior movie). Plus, if you want the world to end in horrible disaster, you want it to go out like a badass. Rage-infected zombies: totally badass. 2. Sunshine: I dunno...it sounds possible. 3. Wall-e: I know it's not really a "disaster" movie, but doesn't our rampant consumerism and wastefulness seem like it might cause the world to become a barren junkyard wasteland? I think it does. 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: 1475

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT124773361475Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 315

Number of times used: 939

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:40:23 GMT606315939Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 258

Number of people who tagged: 149

Number of times used: 415

]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:42:06 GMT258149415Tag 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/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 492

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 258

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMT492101258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 214

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:30:57 GMT226101214Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cute/MemberTagFilms.aspxcute
Number of films tagged: 209

Number of people who tagged: 98

Number of times used: 313

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:21 GMT20998313Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sweet/MemberTagFilms.aspxsweet
Number of films tagged: 108

Number of people who tagged: 90

Number of times used: 170

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:28:46 GMT10890170Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/of/MemberTagFilms.aspxof
Number of films tagged: 96

Number of people who tagged: 87

Number of times used: 105

]]>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:13:39 GMT9687105Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/satire/MemberTagFilms.aspxsatire
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 120

]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:25 GMT17055120Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/space/MemberTagFilms.aspxspace
Number of films tagged: 494

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 139

]]>Mon, 25 May 2009 14:36:30 GMT49454139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/original/MemberTagFilms.aspxoriginal
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:07 GMT775294Tag