list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Silence of the Lambs on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Silence_of_the_Lambs/31277/default.aspx Title: The Silence of the Lambs
Year: 1991
Director: Jonathan Demme
Plot: In this multiple Oscar-winning thriller, Jodie Foster stars as Clarice Starling, a top student at the FBI's training academy whose shrewd analyses of serial killers lands her a special assignment: the FBI is investigating a vicious murderer nicknamed Buffalo Bill, who kills young women and then removes the skin from their bodies. Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) wants Clarice to interview Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant psychiatrist who is also a violent psychopath, serving life behind bars for various acts of murder and cannibalism. Crawford believes that Lecter may have insight into this case and that Starling, as an attractive young woman, may be just the bait to draw him out. Lecter does indeed know something of Buffalo Bill, but his information comes with a price: in exchange for telling what he knows, he wants to be housed in a more comfortable facility. More important, he wants to speak with Clarice about her past. He skillfully digs into her psyche, forcing her to reveal her innermost traumas and putting her in a position of vulnerability when she can least afford to be weak. The film mingles the horrors of criminal acts with the psychological horrors of Lecter's slow-motion interrogation of Clarice and of her memories that emerge from it. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 85
Number of Lists: 122
Number of blog posts: 16
Number of discussion threads: 28
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:21:40 GMTThe Silence of the Lambs1991Jonathan DemmeIn this multiple Oscar-winning thriller, <a href="/players/P____90220/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jodie Foster</a> stars as Clarice Starling, a top student at the FBI's training academy whose shrewd analyses of serial killers lands her a special assignment: the FBI is investigating a vicious murderer nicknamed Buffalo Bill, who kills young women and then removes the skin from their bodies. Jack Crawford (<a href="/players/P____27245/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Scott Glenn</a>) wants Clarice to interview Dr. Hannibal Lecter (<a href="/players/P____94812/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anthony Hopkins</a>), a brilliant psychiatrist who is also a violent psychopath, serving life behind bars for various acts of murder and cannibalism. Crawford believes that Lecter may have insight into this case and that Starling, as an attractive young woman, may be just the bait to draw him out. Lecter does indeed know something of Buffalo Bill, but his information comes with a price: in exchange for telling what he knows, he wants to be housed in a more comfortable facility. More important, he wants to speak with Clarice about her past. He skillfully digs into her psyche, forcing her to reveal her innermost traumas and putting her in a position of vulnerability when she can least afford to be weak. The film mingles the horrors of criminal acts with the psychological horrors of Lecter's slow-motion interrogation of Clarice and of her memories that emerge from it. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide85Tag Target (>10)12216284http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u26334ynwbi.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Silence_of_the_Lambs/31277/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/babslkirsh/archive/2009/9/30/44084.aspx Post By: Babslkirsh
Post To: Babslkirsh Blog
Post Date: 9/30/2009 11:53:05 PM
Body: Silence Of The Lambs represents filmmaking at its finest for me. The script is smart and moves well. Jonathan Demme's direction is on the mark. And the acting scenes between Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins are unforgettable.
]]>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:53:05 GMTBabslkirshBabslkirsh Blog9/30/2009 11:53:05 PMSilence Of The Lambs represents filmmaking at its finest for me. The script is smart and moves well. Jonathan Demme's direction is on the mark. And the acting scenes between Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins are unforgettable. http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2009/9/27/44043.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 9/27/2009 9:19:51 PM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx The Silence of the Lambs is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#65)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#5)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Dr. Hannibal Lecter is the #1 villain, and Clarice Starling is the #6 hero)100 Movie Quotes (#21 - Dr. Hannibal Lecter: "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.")The Revised Top 100 (#74) Because I've seen The Silence of the Lambs a fair few times, I secured a copy the old-fashioned way by finding someone who owned it rather than using a Netflix rental on it. With better timing, I could have tried to locate it on cable, since it sees ample rotation, albeit edited for language and content. The Silence of the Lambs is, without question, a modern classic. Even those who have not seen the film can discern the many pop culture references to it, including iconic images of Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) in his restraints or his creepy little sound effect after suggesting that he ate a man's liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti. If it weren't for the type of film it is, I would probably love it more, but I'm not gonna lie. There is a palpably high disgust factor with this film, either in its images or suggested images, that truly prevents me from watching it too many times and also from thinking it's the greatest film in history. I am putting this out there up front, as I only rated the film four stars. I would have given it five, if the squeamish quality weren't as potent for me. It may not be the Saw movies (which I've never seen, naturally, either), but cannibalism and serial murder should not be taken lightly. The Silence of the Lambs is a complex and intelligent thriller that is one of only three films and the most recent film in history to win the major five Academy awards (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay). In addition, as this page notes, Hopkins won the Actor award for some of the most electrifying 16 minutes of screen time in all of cinema. Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is a top-honors FBI trainee. Her talent for profiling serial killers catches the attention of her superior, Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn), who wants Clarice to interview Dr. Lecter. Though in an asylum for serial cannibalism and other gross acts of murder, he is also a brilliant psychologist, and the FBI is investigating a string of serial murders by recently labeled Buffalo Bill, who targets young, curvaceous women and cuts away parts of their bodies as trophies. Crawford wants Clarice to perform this interview because she is an attractive woman, which he believes might entice Dr. Lecter to provide his psychlogical insight into and clues to the Buffalo Bill case. As it turns out, Dr. Lecter actually knows something about Bill, but he will not share information until he gets his own way: a more comfortable facility away from his current warden (Anthony Heald) and an in-depth conversation with Clarice about her past. Clarice reluctantly consents, but Dr. Lecter is a master at getting inside his subjects' heads. He manipulates her cooperation and forces her to reveal childhood traumas at the expense of her forced position of strength as a woman in a male-dominated profession and all at a jarring parallel with the progression of Bill's murders and the FBI's time-sensitive scramble to figure out his true identity. The Silence of the Lambs is a taut and satisfying thriller that provides all sorts of goosebumps (its high position on the AFI Thrillers list and, in fact, on all of the AFI rankings is well earned). The goosebumps come from one man and one performance - true, the adaptation of the original source novel has some underlying credit, but I doubt the words of the novel's pages could have been made so alive without the performance of Anthony Hopkins. It is his turn as Dr. Lecter that engages the viewer and sinks its teeth in without letting go. He is all at once funny, scary, tantalizing, disturbing, disgusting, and debonaire. You almost want to like him, even to pity him his stone prison and his lack of creature comforts, until he starts speaking in that cool, even, but creaky tone barely masking his obvious insanity. His affectations, his unblinking stares, his poetic descriptions of eating people all mix to formulate a disturbing picture that simulataneously steals the film even as it punctuates the movie's other events. Jodie Foster, an accomplished actress in her own right, also gives a sympathetic performance that almost walks a fine line between professional distance and admiration if not outright obsession with her subject. Her facial expressions betray a willingness to see Dr. Lecter as a human being while, at the same time, experiencing the horror of her past traumas and the realization of his talent at probing her innermost psyche (and at the fact that he is an infamous monster). While she may not have been as charismatic as Hopkins and Hannibal, she was an excellently-cast match for Hopkins and his spooky turn as the serial killer. The story was also great and ultimately satisfying. The denouement, while open, is quite possibly one of the most chilling endings to a film ever - but, then again, I don't watch too many horror films or graphic thrillers. The film is also expertly paced and brilliantly directed by Jonathan Demme; there are no wasted frames, and many of the simplest details seem like bone-chlling twists with the way that each scene is set up and staged. The best scenes are those between Lecter and Clarice when a pane of glass separates them in his basement corner of the asylum, as the camera interchanges between close-ups of either character's face while they interrogate each other in an inquisitive tete-a-tete. The only flaw I see in this film is in the awkward performance behind Buffalo Bill. Granted, Buffalo Bill's existence and motivations are awkward, but the actor portraying him renders him so eccentric, he becomes far less disturbing by comparison than Dr. Lecter, even as he is committing gross acts of mutilation and stuffing moth larvae down the throats of his victims. Also, Dr. Lecter's actual knowledge of this man feels almost like a deux ex machina in the grand scheme of the story - it feels too convenient even as Dr. Lecter's hold over Clarice and manipulation of his captors is so hard-fought and carefully orchestrated. I don't know if this detail is more attributable to the novel or to the adaptation, but this whole Buffalo Bill side of the story also becomes less interesting in the big picture as a result. The scenes between Bill and his latest victim (Brooke Smith) almost feel as if they don't mesh with the rest of the film, and I don't know if Demme or the actor or both served to create such an odd caricature of a man pursuing his particular trophies. His role in the story is central; it just didn't seem as interesting or as rivetingly believable as Dr. Lecter and his psychosis, which, upon analysis, doesn't seem right. Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky; after all, The Silence of the Lambs is undeniably a great film and something of the beginning of a tradition in the modern thriller. There are scenes that I can't watch because of the "icky" factor, too, so that may be coloring my views of the picture somewhat. Still, The Silence of the Lambs just may not be absolutely perfect either, so I feel resigned in my decision to rate the film an 8 on the patented ratings scale for having minor flaws but being very good (very very good). As to the test, it does not pass. I've seen it a handful of times, as I've stated, and more than enough to preclude having to own it. Ultimately, if being squeamish or startled doesn't deter you, The Silence of the Lambs is a wonderful film, a scary film, and the most chilling and best reason to watch it is for Anthony Hopkins and his frightening Hannibal the Cannibal.
]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:19:51 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts9/27/2009 9:19:51 PM What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx The Silence of the Lambs is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#65)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#5)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Dr. Hannibal Lecter is the #1 villain, and Clarice Starling is the #6 hero)100 Movie Quotes (#21 - Dr. Hannibal Lecter: "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.")The Revised Top 100 (#74) Because I've seen The Silence of the Lambs a fair few times, I secured a copy the old-fashioned way by finding someone who owned it rather than using a Netflix rental on it. With better timing, I could have tried to locate it on cable, since it sees ample rotation, albeit edited for language and content. The Silence of the Lambs is, without question, a modern classic. Even those who have not seen the film can discern the many pop culture references to it, including iconic images of Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) in his restraints or his creepy little sound effect after suggesting that he ate a man's liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti. If it weren't for the type of film it is, I would probably love it more, but I'm not gonna lie. There is a palpably high disgust factor with this film, either in its images or suggested images, that truly prevents me from watching it too many times and also from thinking it's the greatest film in history. I am putting this out there up front, as I only rated the film four stars. I would have given it five, if the squeamish quality weren't as potent for me. It may not be the Saw movies (which I've never seen, naturally, either), but cannibalism and serial murder should not be taken lightly. The Silence of the Lambs is a complex and intelligent thriller that is one of only three films and the most recent film in history to win the major five Academy awards (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay). In addition, as this page notes, Hopkins won the Actor award for some of the most electrifying 16 minutes of screen time in all of cinema. Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is a top-honors FBI trainee. Her talent for profiling serial killers catches the attention of her superior, Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn), who wants Clarice to interview Dr. Lecter. Though in an asylum for serial cannibalism and other gross acts of murder, he is also a brilliant psychologist, and the FBI is investigating a string of serial murders by recently labeled Buffalo Bill, who targets young, curvaceous women and cuts away parts of their bodies as trophies. Crawford wants Clarice to perform this interview because she is an attractive woman, which he believes might entice Dr. Lecter to provide his psychlogical insight into and clues to the Buffalo Bill case. As it turns out, Dr. Lecter actually knows something about Bill, but he will not share information until he gets his own way: a more comfortable facility away from his current warden (Anthony Heald) and an in-depth conversation with Clarice about her past. Clarice reluctantly consents, but Dr. Lecter is a master at getting inside his subjects' heads. He manipulates her cooperation and forces her to reveal childhood traumas at the expense of her forced position of strength as a woman in a male-dominated profession and all at a jarring parallel with the progression of Bill's murders and the FBI's time-sensitive scramble to figure out his true identity. The Silence of the Lambs is a taut and satisfying thriller that provides all sorts of goosebumps (its high position on the AFI Thrillers list and, in fact, on all of the AFI rankings is well earned). The goosebumps come from one man and one performance - true, the adaptation of the original source novel has some underlying credit, but I doubt the words of the novel's pages could have been made so alive without the performance of Anthony Hopkins. It is his turn as Dr. Lecter that engages the viewer and sinks its teeth in without letting go. He is all at once funny, scary, tantalizing, disturbing, disgusting, and debonaire. You almost want to like him, even to pity him his stone prison and his lack of creature comforts, until he starts speaking in that cool, even, but creaky tone barely masking his obvious insanity. His affectations, his unblinking stares, his poetic descriptions of eating people all mix to formulate a disturbing picture that simulataneously steals the film even as it punctuates the movie's other events. Jodie Foster, an accomplished actress in her own right, also gives a sympathetic performance that almost walks a fine line between professional distance and admiration if not outright obsession with her subject. Her facial expressions betray a willingness to see Dr. Lecter as a human being while, at the same time, experiencing the horror of her past traumas and the realization of his talent at probing her innermost psyche (and at the fact that he is an infamous monster). While she may not have been as charismatic as Hopkins and Hannibal, she was an excellently-cast match for Hopkins and his spooky turn as the serial killer. The story was also great and ultimately satisfying. The denouement, while open, is quite possibly one of the most chilling endings to a film ever - but, then again, I don't watch too many horror films or graphic thrillers. The film is also expertly paced and brilliantly directed by Jonathan Demme; there are no wasted frames, and many of the simplest details seem like bone-chlling twists with the way that each scene is set up and staged. The best scenes are those between Lecter and Clarice when a pane of glass separates them in his basement corner of the asylum, as the camera interchanges between close-ups of either character's face while they interrogate each other in an inquisitive tete-a-tete. The only flaw I see in this film is in the awkward performance behind Buffalo Bill. Granted, Buffalo Bill's existence and motivations are awkward, but the actor portraying him renders him so eccentric, he becomes far less disturbing by comparison than Dr. Lecter, even as he is committing gross acts of mutilation and stuffing moth larvae down the throats of his victims. Also, Dr. Lecter's actual knowledge of this man feels almost like a deux ex machina in the grand scheme of the story - it feels too convenient even as Dr. Lecter's hold over Clarice and manipulation of his captors is so hard-fought and carefully orchestrated. I don't know if this detail is more attributable to the novel or to the adaptation, but this whole Buffalo Bill side of the story also becomes less interesting in the big picture as a result. The scenes between Bill and his latest victim (Brooke Smith) almost feel as if they don't mesh with the rest of the film, and I don't know if Demme or the actor or both served to create such an odd caricature of a man pursuing his particular trophies. His role in the story is central; it just didn't seem as interesting or as rivetingly believable as Dr. Lecter and his psychosis, which, upon analysis, doesn't seem right. Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky; after all, The Silence of the Lambs is undeniably a great film and something of the beginning of a tradition in the modern thriller. There are scenes that I can't watch because of the "icky" factor, too, so that may be coloring my views of the picture somewhat. Still, The Silence of the Lambs just may not be absolutely perfect either, so I feel resigned in my decision to rate the film an 8 on the patented ratings scale for having minor flaws but being very good (very very good). As to the test, it does not pass. I've seen it a handful of times, as I've stated, and more than enough to preclude having to own it. Ultimately, if being squeamish or startled doesn't deter you, The Silence of the Lambs is a wonderful film, a scary film, and the most chilling and best reason to watch it is for Anthony Hopkins and his frightening Hannibal the Cannibal. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_versus_movies_would_you_most_l/657/42670/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: tadiv
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 6/16/2009 10:27:28 PM
Body: Clint Eastwood and Anthony Hopkins - WOW... That's my vote...
]]>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:27:28 GMTtadivMovie Polls6/16/2009 10:27:28 PMClint Eastwood and Anthony Hopkins - WOW... That's my vote... http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_April_20_Abducted/625/41842/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/29/2009 12:11:42 AM
Body: When I think about kidnapping films the first thing that comes to mind is "It puts the lotion in the basket." The Silence of the Lambs has that rare ability to give me chills each time I watch it and I love it for that. I think a lot of people also became weary of helping others after Buffalo Bill feigned an injury in order to kidnap his prey in the film. The thought of being trapped in a well and starved so someone could skin me definitely gives me the willies. I just recently got to see my first Buster Keaton film, The General, which revolves around a kidnapping. It's probably one of a handful of films in which the audience is rooting for a Southerner to win out over the North during the Civil War. Another older film that involves kidnapping is Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. It's a disturbingly creepy but incredibly enjoyable musical about a group of mountain men that decide to kidnap the local towns young girls in order to get all the "perks" of marriage. I'm really only a fan of the first one, but all of the Saw films centered around kidnappings. Similarly, all of the Cube films revolve around a group of kidnapped victims trying to figure out why they were abducted. And lastly, The Princess Bride. Undoubtedly doesn't need any explanation. The combination of Wallace Shawn, Andre the Giant and Mandy Patinkin as the kidnappers is just perfection.
]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:11:42 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme4/29/2009 12:11:42 AMWhen I think about kidnapping films the first thing that comes to mind is "It puts the lotion in the basket." The Silence of the Lambs has that rare ability to give me chills each time I watch it and I love it for that. I think a lot of people also became weary of helping others after Buffalo Bill feigned an injury in order to kidnap his prey in the film. The thought of being trapped in a well and starved so someone could skin me definitely gives me the willies. I just recently got to see my first Buster Keaton film, The General, which revolves around a kidnapping. It's probably one of a handful of films in which the audience is rooting for a Southerner to win out over the North during the Civil War. Another older film that involves kidnapping is Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. It's a disturbingly creepy but incredibly enjoyable musical about a group of mountain men that decide to kidnap the local towns young girls in order to get all the "perks" of marriage. I'm really only a fan of the first one, but all of the Saw films centered around kidnappings. Similarly, all of the Cube films revolve around a group of kidnapped victims trying to figure out why they were abducted. And lastly, The Princess Bride. Undoubtedly doesn't need any explanation. The combination of Wallace Shawn, Andre the Giant and Mandy Patinkin as the kidnappers is just perfection. http://www.spout.com/blogs/dibot/archive/2009/2/9/40351.aspx Post By: dibot
Post To: dibot Blog
Post Date: 2/9/2009 1:55:18 PM
Body: Dark Corners started out as a pretty interesting horror movie with Thora Birch ("Train") playing dual roles as a depressed, poor woman having beautiful dreams and a wealthy, happy woman having nightmares. They seemed to be dreaming each other's lives. And then it just descended into making zero sense and plausibility. I don't mind bending the rules of space and time. But there needs to be something I can hold onto as possible.Gran Torino gives us Clint Eastwood ("Million Dollar Baby") at his grizzled best. Eastwood stars as a grumpy old racist man living in a changing neighborhood. He starts getting close to his Hmong neighbors who change his outlook as he tries to keep them out of trouble. Besides Eastwood, the acting of the unknowns in the film is atrocious. But the story is so good, that I mostly overlooked that. And I enjoy Eastwood as a director. He doesn't waste time. All the shots are important and further the story. If this is truly Eastwood's final acting performance, then this is a good one to end with. But I hope he keeps directing for many more years.Another in the Filmspotting Angry Young Men Marathon, If... just confirms that I don't like this genre. A very young Malcolm McDowell ("Bolt") stars as a disgruntled, head-in-the-clouds, authority hating teen at a boarding school. As the term wears on, McDowell and his friends rebel against some older bullies and the teachers backing them. And a full-fledged war develops. There are some very surreal sequences as well. These supossedly emphasize the absurdness of the society and school. I just didn't enjoy it.Persepolis is an animated coming-of-age story of an imaginative Iranian girl during and after the Islamic Revolution. I really enjoyed the black and white animation. Very dramatic. And the story. It was funny, informative and heart-breaking. I don't know much about the Islamic Revolution, but this story, based on the life of cowriter/codirector Marjane Satrapi, shows the long-lasting effects on one family. Very good.And then I rewatched Silence of the Lambs. I don't know what to say about it that hasn't already been said. It still rocks. It's still tense even though I know exactly what's coming. Anthony Hopkins ("Beowolf") is perfect and not over the top. Jodie Foster ("Nim's Island") is all young and determined to prove herself. I love it!
]]>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:55:18 GMTdibotdibot Blog2/9/2009 1:55:18 PMDark Corners started out as a pretty interesting horror movie with Thora Birch ("Train") playing dual roles as a depressed, poor woman having beautiful dreams and a wealthy, happy woman having nightmares. They seemed to be dreaming each other's lives. And then it just descended into making zero sense and plausibility. I don't mind bending the rules of space and time. But there needs to be something I can hold onto as possible.Gran Torino gives us Clint Eastwood ("Million Dollar Baby") at his grizzled best. Eastwood stars as a grumpy old racist man living in a changing neighborhood. He starts getting close to his Hmong neighbors who change his outlook as he tries to keep them out of trouble. Besides Eastwood, the acting of the unknowns in the film is atrocious. But the story is so good, that I mostly overlooked that. And I enjoy Eastwood as a director. He doesn't waste time. All the shots are important and further the story. If this is truly Eastwood's final acting performance, then this is a good one to end with. But I hope he keeps directing for many more years.Another in the Filmspotting Angry Young Men Marathon, If... just confirms that I don't like this genre. A very young Malcolm McDowell ("Bolt") stars as a disgruntled, head-in-the-clouds, authority hating teen at a boarding school. As the term wears on, McDowell and his friends rebel against some older bullies and the teachers backing them. And a full-fledged war develops. There are some very surreal sequences as well. These supossedly emphasize the absurdness of the society and school. I just didn't enjoy it.Persepolis is an animated coming-of-age story of an imaginative Iranian girl during and after the Islamic Revolution. I really enjoyed the black and white animation. Very dramatic. And the story. It was funny, informative and heart-breaking. I don't know much about the Islamic Revolution, but this story, based on the life of cowriter/codirector Marjane Satrapi, shows the long-lasting effects on one family. Very good.And then I rewatched Silence of the Lambs. I don't know what to say about it that hasn't already been said. It still rocks. It's still tense even though I know exactly what's coming. Anthony Hopkins ("Beowolf") is perfect and not over the top. Jodie Foster ("Nim's Island") is all young and determined to prove herself. I love it! http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_December_1_The_Anti_Hero/625/37830/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 12/1/2008 9:30:22 PM
Body: Great theme Leeroy! The Silence of the Lambs - Hannibal Lector Sick, perverse yet you can't help rooting for him to get out of prison. A Clockwork Orange - Alex DeLarge Again, sick and perverse but you're still rooting for the bastard. The Professional - Leon Minimalist. Botanist. Cold-blooded killer. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome - Max You thought he wasn't gonna help those aboriginal kids, didn't you! Natural Born Killers - Mickey & Mallory Knox Bring on the arguments, but I loved this cute little couple. Kill Bill - Beatrix Kiddo Trained assassin that shows (almost) no mercy. Great female anti-hero. Pitch Black - Riddick Great role for Vin Diesel. He barely spoke the entire film. Constantine - John Constantine Smoker. Sinner. Blasphemer. Suicidal. But still cool a pretty cool guy. Hellboy - Anung un Rama, The Beast of the Apocalypse Again, smoker, blasphemer, jerk. But really nice to pyrokinetics, cats and the occasional human baby. From Dusk Till Dawn - Seth Gecko Mass murderer. Kidnapper. Bank Robber. But we all still think he's badass. Even if it is George Clooney. Brick - Brenden Frye Loner. Plays rough with the ladies. Blackmailer. Smart little hard-boiled detective. Point of No Return - Maggie Hayward Druggie. Runaway. B*#$h. But really likable towards the end. The Fifth Element - Korben Dallas Complete a*&#@le but does good and gets the alien chick. The Crow - Eric Draven Goth freak vigilante revenant (?) serial killer. But the good kind. Fight Club - Tyler Durden Thief. Terrorist. Womanizer. Soap Maker. Made every straight man just a little gay with his abnormally perfect abdominal muscles. The Boondock Saints - Connor & Murphy McManus Blah. Blah. Murderers. Blah. Blah. Alcoholics. Blah. Blah. Inspirational Vigilantes. Sin City - Marv Brutish ogre with a soft spot for big breasted woman.
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:30:22 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme12/1/2008 9:30:22 PMGreat theme Leeroy! The Silence of the Lambs - Hannibal Lector Sick, perverse yet you can't help rooting for him to get out of prison. A Clockwork Orange - Alex DeLarge Again, sick and perverse but you're still rooting for the bastard. The Professional - Leon Minimalist. Botanist. Cold-blooded killer. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome - Max You thought he wasn't gonna help those aboriginal kids, didn't you! Natural Born Killers - Mickey &amp; Mallory Knox Bring on the arguments, but I loved this cute little couple. Kill Bill - Beatrix Kiddo Trained assassin that shows (almost) no mercy. Great female anti-hero. Pitch Black - Riddick Great role for Vin Diesel. He barely spoke the entire film. Constantine - John Constantine Smoker. Sinner. Blasphemer. Suicidal. But still cool a pretty cool guy. Hellboy - Anung un Rama, The Beast of the Apocalypse Again, smoker, blasphemer, jerk. But really nice to pyrokinetics, cats and the occasional human baby. From Dusk Till Dawn - Seth Gecko Mass murderer. Kidnapper. Bank Robber. But we all still think he's badass. Even if it is George Clooney. Brick - Brenden Frye Loner. Plays rough with the ladies. Blackmailer. Smart little hard-boiled detective. Point of No Return - Maggie Hayward Druggie. Runaway. B*#$h. But really likable towards the end. The Fifth Element - Korben Dallas Complete a*&amp;#@le but does good and gets the alien chick. The Crow - Eric Draven Goth freak vigilante revenant (?) serial killer. But the good kind. Fight Club - Tyler Durden Thief. Terrorist. Womanizer. Soap Maker. Made every straight man just a little gay with his abnormally perfect abdominal muscles. The Boondock Saints - Connor &amp; Murphy McManus Blah. Blah. Murderers. Blah. Blah. Alcoholics. Blah. Blah. Inspirational Vigilantes. Sin City - Marv Brutish ogre with a soft spot for big breasted woman. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/1/37819.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/1/2008 7:00:29 PM
Body: Kate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.” Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin. The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke. It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader. The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters. Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category). So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:29 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/1/2008 7:00:29 PMKate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.” Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin. The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke. It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader. The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters. Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category). So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/25/37625.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/25/2008 2:01:13 PM
Body: When you gather with your loved ones this week, be sure to give extra thanks for that turkey or soy-based equivalent on which you’re about to dine. Times are hard, but for most of us, we’re still able to eat. Nevertheless, we need to prepare for the even tougher times that inevitably lay ahead. As countless movies attest, desperate times call for desperate measures at the dinner table. Like cannibalism. The circumstances under which “eat or be eaten” becomes the rule vary widely. Plenty of films have taken on this ancient taboo; in fact, a search for the tag “cannibal” on Spout.com yields eleven pages of results. For your holiday viewing pleasure, I’ve narrowed the list down to ten. Alive Often the best cannibalism stories are the true ones. The tale of the Uruguayan rugby team that crash-landed in the Andes and eventually resorted to eating the dead is one that filmmakers can’t get enough of. Not only was it the source for 1993’s Alive, starring Ethan Hawke, the story was also told in a documentary that same year, Alive: 20 Years Later. Recently, there have been two more documentaries: an episode of the National Geographic show Trapped, and Stranded: I Have Come from a Plane That Crashed on the Mountains (2008). I wonder what’s harder, surviving 72 days in the mountains with no food, or repeatedly being asked, “So, when did you decide to eat you friends?” Soylent Green Sure, putting this on the list is a spoiler. But if this movie hasn’t been ruined yet by The Simpsons or one of the many other references to soylent green’s mysterious ingredient, you’ve been living under a rock. While there are plenty of sci-fi movies that depict a future where desperation leads to cannibalism, Soylent Green is notable because the taboo is the act of a corporation, rather than a savage choice by an individual. Eating Raoul (This clip is NSFW) A gold standard for black comedies, this 1982 film follows the story of Paul and Mary, a married couple hard up for cash. While fending off a would-be rapist, they realize they can make a decent living killing unsuspecting swingers and taking their money. Raoul, a locksmith/burglar, finds out about their scheme, and wants in on the action. He helps them dispose of bodies, until his desire for Mary complicates the arrangement. If you want to know how it ends, um… read the title again. Zombie Movies It’s impossible to pick just one, when there are so many great flicks about brain-hungry walking dead. George Romero, godfather of all things zombie, must be mentioned. His first film, Night of the Living Dead, was the first zombie movie where the creatures wanted to eat the flesh of the living. Romero continues his Dead series of zombie apocalypse movies, along with countless imitators. BRAAAAAINS!!! The Silence of the Lambs Know what we need more of? Academy Award winning cannibal movies. There aren’t enough of them. This is a total classic. Anthony Hopkins holds two records: one, the shortest amount of screen time to ever win a best actor Oscar (16 minutes). And two, being the creepiest human being on the planet. 301/302 This Korean horror film is notable because it is centered only on female characters. Two women, neighbors in an apartment building, have very different ways of dealing with the travails of life. Their differences come to a head in a final scene that you should probably skip if you have a weak stomach. You’ve been warned. C.H.U.D. Another staple of obscure Simpsons references, the 1984 cult classic C.H.U.D. tells the story of “Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers” who are eating the homeless in New York City. The C.H.U.D.’s, once homeless people themselves, were mutated by improper storage of nuclear waste, turning them into flesh-hungry beasts. Delicatessen Before Jean-Pierre Jeunet made Amelie, he made some dark and freaky movies. His first was Delicatessen. It’s a darkly comic post-apocalyptic tale about a small apartment building with a butcher shop on the ground floor. Meat is becoming scarce, and you know what that means. This film is actually a great companion piece to Amelie, because it shares the playful quality and fun cast of character with the later film. And people get eaten. Keep The River On Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale As a young man, Tobias Schneebaum lived with the Harakambut people of Peru and the Asmat people of Indonesia, both cannibalistic tribes. In true “going native” style, he not only joined them in their wars against other tribes, he also partook or their unsavory meals. He returned in 1999 with a documentary crew, was reunited with his former lover, and confronted the scars of war and fear. Interesting bit of info: the Asmat tribe are suspected of killing and eating Michael Rockefeller, son of New York Governor Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, but there is no proof. This was before Schneebaum arrived. But it would be pretty crazy if Schneebaum, a native New Yorker, ate one of his city’s elite. Hopefully a fictionalized version will come to the screen that’s not afraid to take some artistic license in this matter. [minor spoiler alert] The Road This adaptation of the award-winning Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name was once my most highly anticipated 2008 release. Sigh. It is now my most highly anticipated 2009 release. The film version will star Viggo Mortensen as the father of a young boy, the two of whom struggle to traverse a burned, post-apocalyptic landscape. I understand that simply putting it on this list could be seen as a minor spoiler, so I won’t say anything else about it. We’ll have to wait a little while, but The Road offers hope that The Silence of the Lambs will no longer be alone as an Oscar-snagging tale dealing with the most taboo of food choices. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:01:13 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/25/2008 2:01:13 PM When you gather with your loved ones this week, be sure to give extra thanks for that turkey or soy-based equivalent on which you’re about to dine. Times are hard, but for most of us, we’re still able to eat. Nevertheless, we need to prepare for the even tougher times that inevitably lay ahead. As countless movies attest, desperate times call for desperate measures at the dinner table. Like cannibalism. The circumstances under which “eat or be eaten” becomes the rule vary widely. Plenty of films have taken on this ancient taboo; in fact, a search for the tag “cannibal” on Spout.com yields eleven pages of results. For your holiday viewing pleasure, I’ve narrowed the list down to ten. Alive Often the best cannibalism stories are the true ones. The tale of the Uruguayan rugby team that crash-landed in the Andes and eventually resorted to eating the dead is one that filmmakers can’t get enough of. Not only was it the source for 1993’s Alive, starring Ethan Hawke, the story was also told in a documentary that same year, Alive: 20 Years Later. Recently, there have been two more documentaries: an episode of the National Geographic show Trapped, and Stranded: I Have Come from a Plane That Crashed on the Mountains (2008). I wonder what’s harder, surviving 72 days in the mountains with no food, or repeatedly being asked, “So, when did you decide to eat you friends?” Soylent Green Sure, putting this on the list is a spoiler. But if this movie hasn’t been ruined yet by The Simpsons or one of the many other references to soylent green’s mysterious ingredient, you’ve been living under a rock. While there are plenty of sci-fi movies that depict a future where desperation leads to cannibalism, Soylent Green is notable because the taboo is the act of a corporation, rather than a savage choice by an individual. Eating Raoul (This clip is NSFW) A gold standard for black comedies, this 1982 film follows the story of Paul and Mary, a married couple hard up for cash. While fending off a would-be rapist, they realize they can make a decent living killing unsuspecting swingers and taking their money. Raoul, a locksmith/burglar, finds out about their scheme, and wants in on the action. He helps them dispose of bodies, until his desire for Mary complicates the arrangement. If you want to know how it ends, um… read the title again. Zombie Movies It’s impossible to pick just one, when there are so many great flicks about brain-hungry walking dead. George Romero, godfather of all things zombie, must be mentioned. His first film, Night of the Living Dead, was the first zombie movie where the creatures wanted to eat the flesh of the living. Romero continues his Dead series of zombie apocalypse movies, along with countless imitators. BRAAAAAINS!!! The Silence of the Lambs Know what we need more of? Academy Award winning cannibal movies. There aren’t enough of them. This is a total classic. Anthony Hopkins holds two records: one, the shortest amount of screen time to ever win a best actor Oscar (16 minutes). And two, being the creepiest human being on the planet. 301/302 This Korean horror film is notable because it is centered only on female characters. Two women, neighbors in an apartment building, have very different ways of dealing with the travails of life. Their differences come to a head in a final scene that you should probably skip if you have a weak stomach. You’ve been warned. C.H.U.D. Another staple of obscure Simpsons references, the 1984 cult classic C.H.U.D. tells the story of “Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers” who are eating the homeless in New York City. The C.H.U.D.’s, once homeless people themselves, were mutated by improper storage of nuclear waste, turning them into flesh-hungry beasts. Delicatessen Before Jean-Pierre Jeunet made Amelie, he made some dark and freaky movies. His first was Delicatessen. It’s a darkly comic post-apocalyptic tale about a small apartment building with a butcher shop on the ground floor. Meat is becoming scarce, and you know what that means. This film is actually a great companion piece to Amelie, because it shares the playful quality and fun cast of character with the later film. And people get eaten. Keep The River On Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale As a young man, Tobias Schneebaum lived with the Harakambut people of Peru and the Asmat people of Indonesia, both cannibalistic tribes. In true “going native” style, he not only joined them in their wars against other tribes, he also partook or their unsavory meals. He returned in 1999 with a documentary crew, was reunited with his former lover, and confronted the scars of war and fear. Interesting bit of info: the Asmat tribe are suspected of killing and eating Michael Rockefeller, son of New York Governor Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, but there is no proof. This was before Schneebaum arrived. But it would be pretty crazy if Schneebaum, a native New Yorker, ate one of his city’s elite. Hopefully a fictionalized version will come to the screen that’s not afraid to take some artistic license in this matter. [minor spoiler alert] The Road This adaptation of the award-winning Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name was once my most highly anticipated 2008 release. Sigh. It is now my most highly anticipated 2009 release. The film version will star Viggo Mortensen as the father of a young boy, the two of whom struggle to traverse a burned, post-apocalyptic landscape. I understand that simply putting it on this list could be seen as a minor spoiler, so I won’t say anything else about it. We’ll have to wait a little while, but The Road offers hope that The Silence of the Lambs will no longer be alone as an Oscar-snagging tale dealing with the most taboo of food choices. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Top_10_Scene_Stealers/190/37066/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 11/7/2008 2:48:03 PM
Body: Some of these movies are better than others, but they all share one thing in common: whenever the following actors leave the screen, you wish they'd come right back. 10. Kurt Russell: Stuntman Mike in Death Proof 9. Mickey Rourke: Marv in Sin City 8. Gene Wilder: Willy Wonka in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory 7. Bill Murray: Carl Speckler in Caddyshack 6. Jack Nicholson: the Joker in Batman 5. Brad Pitt: Chad Feldheimer in Burn After Reading 4. Daniel Day-Lewis: Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York 3. Heath Ledger: the Joker in The Dark Knight 2. Anthony Hopkins: Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs 1. Harrison Ford: Han Solo in Star Wars: A New Hope
]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:48:03 GMTSkyPilotTop 511/7/2008 2:48:03 PMSome of these movies are better than others, but they all share one thing in common: whenever the following actors leave the screen, you wish they'd come right back. 10. Kurt Russell: Stuntman Mike in Death Proof 9. Mickey Rourke: Marv in Sin City 8. Gene Wilder: Willy Wonka in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory 7. Bill Murray: Carl Speckler in Caddyshack 6. Jack Nicholson: the Joker in Batman 5. Brad Pitt: Chad Feldheimer in Burn After Reading 4. Daniel Day-Lewis: Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York 3. Heath Ledger: the Joker in The Dark Knight 2. Anthony Hopkins: Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs 1. Harrison Ford: Han Solo in Star Wars: A New Hope http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/15/36353.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/15/2008 10:01:17 AM
Body: Forget about Don Cheadle replacing Terence Howard as James Rhodes / War Machine in Iron Man II, which smells a lot like the “we’ll threaten to replace Tobey Maguire with Jake Gyllenhaal” tactic that Sony used for Spider-Man II –– Hollywood has been doing this for years. It was bad enough back in the days of television with Dick Sargent replacing Dick York in Bewitched, but now it’s becoming pretty commonplace for producers to replace actors in iconic roles. Although now it’s more common due to monetary concerns, which seems to be what has taken Howard out of the War Machine suit, it’s also common to see an actor ankle a role because they don’t like the source material, or the direction the character is taking. We’ve put together several different re-castings, which all happened for a variety of reasons: money, dissatisfaction with the script, test audience reactions, and actors just growing tired of playing the same character. Check them out after the break. Alec Baldwin –> Harrison Ford –> Ben Affleck –> Ryan Gosling (?) In Tom Clancy’s series of “Ryanverse” books, action politician and former teacher Jack Ryan has dne everything from rescue a rogue Russian submarine to become the President of the United States. Alec Baldwin first played the role in 1990’s The Hunt for Red October, but he was unavailable for the sequel Patriot Games (which in the books is a prequel), due to a stint on Broadway. The producers then approached Harrison Ford, who took over the role for two movies, with Clear and Present Danger being the highest grossing Ryan film to date. Ford decided not to play the role a third time, and for 2002’s The Sum of All Fears they decided to try and jumpstart the franchise with a young Jack Ryan, casting Ben Affleck in the role. At the time, Ford reportedly told Affleck, “Knock yourself out. I don’t want to do these movies anymore.” Which contrasts with what he just told AOL’s Moviefone: “I thought that we hadn’t quite exhausted the potential of the Jack Ryan character. Those films were, I think, very good movies. I wouldn’t mind doing another of those.” Nevertheless, there’s a rumor that Ryan Gosling will become the new Jack Ryan in Without Remorse, which is currently in development. Personally? I thought Baldwin made the best Jack Ryan, but he’s a better Jack Donaghy. Jodie Foster –> Julianne Moore When Foster declined to reprise the Clarice Starling role from Silence of the Lambs in Hannibal, the producers considered a list of actors that ranged from Winona Ryder to Gillian Anderson, who lost the role because her contract at Fox said she couldn’t play another FBI agent. Even though Foster had initially said she’d do it and had specific notes on the script, eventually Julianne Moore won the part, but in the end it wasn’t much of a prize –– it’s hard to remember that Ridley Scott directed this movie, because it just didn’t have a the spark or charisma of the original. Similarly, if you rent the excellent Manhunter, you’ll see William Petersen in a non-CSI role playing FBI agent Will Graham, who actually captured Hannibal Lecter (oddly spelled Lecktor in this movie), played by Brian Cox. Later Hollywood remade this movie as Red Dragon (the name of the book) with Anthony Hopkins reprising his Lecter role, and Ed Norton playing Will Graham. Although if we include remakes on this list, it’ll stretch on far too long. Katie Holmes  –> Maggie Gyllenhaal Katie Holmes turned down a big payday when she decided not to return for the sequel to Batman Begins, and missed out on being in the biggest movie of this year. It’s still unclear if her decision shows Tom Cruise’s influence at work, or if she just didn’t want to do it now that she’s a mommy, but it was one of those head-scratching moments that just makes you wonder what happened. Maybe she bristled at the paltry two million dollars she was being offered for the role, especially since the part was beefed up for The Dark Knight. Claudia Wells –> Elisabeth Shue and Crispin Glover –> Jeffrey Weisman Back to the Future Part II saw two major roles get recast, and in some cases rewritten completely. Claudia Wells, who played Marty’s girlfriend Jennifer in the first film, decided to leave acting since her mother was diagnosed with cancer, and she later took more time off to have children. Her part was recast with Elisabeth Shue stepping in, and they had to re-shoot the ending sequence of the original movie since that’s how Back to the Future II opens. Additionally, Crispin Glover found out that the producers were using his image without his approval for the sequel, and he sued the directors and producers, including Steven Spielberg. The case was settled out of court, and the Screen Actors Guild later implemented rules to prevent this from happening again. As a result, Glover’s part was recast with Jeffrey Weisman playing George McFly, and most of his scenes show the back of his head, or him floating upside down (he’s supposed to be in traction, having hurt his back) and wearing heavy prosthetics. Burt Reynolds –> Jackie Gleason –> Jerry Reed This story is so strange that it makes me want to go back and watch this movie again, even though I remember how terrible it was when I saw it as a kid. This movie was originally titled Smokey and the Bandit III: Smokey IS The Bandit, with Jackie Gleason playing both Buford T. Justice, and the role of the Bandit. We sure would have like to see him as the Bandit, but apparently audiences didn’t and were too confused by the dual roles. So the studio dumped Gleason as the Bandit, and rewrote the film to have Jerry Reed as the Bandit. If you remember from the first two movies (and it’s forgiveable is you don’t have the lore of Smokey and the Bandit memorized at this point), Reed was the Bandit’s best buddy, Cledus Snow, who drove the big truck. However in this third installment, the Enoses (I swear I’m getting dumber by remembering all of this stuff) decided that the Bandit was too egotistical, and hire Snow to do their bidding. In the climactic scene, when Smokey finally catches the Bandit, he seems him as Burt Reynolds, who reprised the role just for that one moment. Now I need to go get a stiff drink. If someone out there can find the footage of Gleason as the Bandit, you’ll make my day. Thank god he made Nothing In Common with Tom Hanks before he died, because this would have a been a terrible film to end a career with. I was going to include Michael Gambon replacing Richard Harris in the role of Dumbledore, which opens up a whole realm of actors who had to be replaced because they died. Then I realized there’s actually quite a lot of those, so look for that in a future post. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:01:17 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/15/2008 10:01:17 AM Forget about Don Cheadle replacing Terence Howard as James Rhodes / War Machine in Iron Man II, which smells a lot like the “we’ll threaten to replace Tobey Maguire with Jake Gyllenhaal” tactic that Sony used for Spider-Man II –– Hollywood has been doing this for years. It was bad enough back in the days of television with Dick Sargent replacing Dick York in Bewitched, but now it’s becoming pretty commonplace for producers to replace actors in iconic roles. Although now it’s more common due to monetary concerns, which seems to be what has taken Howard out of the War Machine suit, it’s also common to see an actor ankle a role because they don’t like the source material, or the direction the character is taking. We’ve put together several different re-castings, which all happened for a variety of reasons: money, dissatisfaction with the script, test audience reactions, and actors just growing tired of playing the same character. Check them out after the break. Alec Baldwin –> Harrison Ford –> Ben Affleck –> Ryan Gosling (?) In Tom Clancy’s series of “Ryanverse” books, action politician and former teacher Jack Ryan has dne everything from rescue a rogue Russian submarine to become the President of the United States. Alec Baldwin first played the role in 1990’s The Hunt for Red October, but he was unavailable for the sequel Patriot Games (which in the books is a prequel), due to a stint on Broadway. The producers then approached Harrison Ford, who took over the role for two movies, with Clear and Present Danger being the highest grossing Ryan film to date. Ford decided not to play the role a third time, and for 2002’s The Sum of All Fears they decided to try and jumpstart the franchise with a young Jack Ryan, casting Ben Affleck in the role. At the time, Ford reportedly told Affleck, “Knock yourself out. I don’t want to do these movies anymore.” Which contrasts with what he just told AOL’s Moviefone: “I thought that we hadn’t quite exhausted the potential of the Jack Ryan character. Those films were, I think, very good movies. I wouldn’t mind doing another of those.” Nevertheless, there’s a rumor that Ryan Gosling will become the new Jack Ryan in Without Remorse, which is currently in development. Personally? I thought Baldwin made the best Jack Ryan, but he’s a better Jack Donaghy. Jodie Foster –> Julianne Moore When Foster declined to reprise the Clarice Starling role from Silence of the Lambs in Hannibal, the producers considered a list of actors that ranged from Winona Ryder to Gillian Anderson, who lost the role because her contract at Fox said she couldn’t play another FBI agent. Even though Foster had initially said she’d do it and had specific notes on the script, eventually Julianne Moore won the part, but in the end it wasn’t much of a prize –– it’s hard to remember that Ridley Scott directed this movie, because it just didn’t have a the spark or charisma of the original. Similarly, if you rent the excellent Manhunter, you’ll see William Petersen in a non-CSI role playing FBI agent Will Graham, who actually captured Hannibal Lecter (oddly spelled Lecktor in this movie), played by Brian Cox. Later Hollywood remade this movie as Red Dragon (the name of the book) with Anthony Hopkins reprising his Lecter role, and Ed Norton playing Will Graham. Although if we include remakes on this list, it’ll stretch on far too long. Katie Holmes  –> Maggie Gyllenhaal Katie Holmes turned down a big payday when she decided not to return for the sequel to Batman Begins, and missed out on being in the biggest movie of this year. It’s still unclear if her decision shows Tom Cruise’s influence at work, or if she just didn’t want to do it now that she’s a mommy, but it was one of those head-scratching moments that just makes you wonder what happened. Maybe she bristled at the paltry two million dollars she was being offered for the role, especially since the part was beefed up for The Dark Knight. Claudia Wells –> Elisabeth Shue and Crispin Glover –> Jeffrey Weisman Back to the Future Part II saw two major roles get recast, and in some cases rewritten completely. Claudia Wells, who played Marty’s girlfriend Jennifer in the first film, decided to leave acting since her mother was diagnosed with cancer, and she later took more time off to have children. Her part was recast with Elisabeth Shue stepping in, and they had to re-shoot the ending sequence of the original movie since that’s how Back to the Future II opens. Additionally, Crispin Glover found out that the producers were using his image without his approval for the sequel, and he sued the directors and producers, including Steven Spielberg. The case was settled out of court, and the Screen Actors Guild later implemented rules to prevent this from happening again. As a result, Glover’s part was recast with Jeffrey Weisman playing George McFly, and most of his scenes show the back of his head, or him floating upside down (he’s supposed to be in traction, having hurt his back) and wearing heavy prosthetics. Burt Reynolds –> Jackie Gleason –> Jerry Reed This story is so strange that it makes me want to go back and watch this movie again, even though I remember how terrible it was when I saw it as a kid. This movie was originally titled Smokey and the Bandit III: Smokey IS The Bandit, with Jackie Gleason playing both Buford T. Justice, and the role of the Bandit. We sure would have like to see him as the Bandit, but apparently audiences didn’t and were too confused by the dual roles. So the studio dumped Gleason as the Bandit, and rewrote the film to have Jerry Reed as the Bandit. If you remember from the first two movies (and it’s forgiveable is you don’t have the lore of Smokey and the Bandit memorized at this point), Reed was the Bandit’s best buddy, Cledus Snow, who drove the big truck. However in this third installment, the Enoses (I swear I’m getting dumber by remembering all of this stuff) decided that the Bandit was too egotistical, and hire Snow to do their bidding. In the climactic scene, when Smokey finally catches the Bandit, he seems him as Burt Reynolds, who reprised the role just for that one moment. Now I need to go get a stiff drink. If someone out there can find the footage of Gleason as the Bandit, you’ll make my day. Thank god he made Nothing In Common with Tom Hanks before he died, because this would have a been a terrible film to end a career with. I was going to include Michael Gambon replacing Richard Harris in the role of Dumbledore, which opens up a whole realm of actors who had to be replaced because they died. Then I realized there’s actually quite a lot of those, so look for that in a future post. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scary/MemberTagFilms.aspxscary
Number of films tagged: 155

Number of people who tagged: 104

Number of times used: 197

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:07 GMT155104197Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/escape/MemberTagFilms.aspxescape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 279

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT286876279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/thriller/MemberTagFilms.aspxthriller
Number of films tagged: 198

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 243

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:42:38 GMT19874243Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/personal-classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpersonal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT18064274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/prison/MemberTagFilms.aspxprison
Number of films tagged: 2437

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 167

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:02:27 GMT243762167Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gore/MemberTagFilms.aspxgore
Number of films tagged: 246

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 136

]]>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:53:52 GMT24650136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/book/MemberTagFilms.aspxbook
Number of films tagged: 683

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 114

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:55:43 GMT68345114Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/excellent/MemberTagFilms.aspxexcellent
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 60

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:40:08 GMT444460Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/serialkiller/MemberTagFilms.aspxserialkiller
Number of films tagged: 996

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 64

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT9963264Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/killing/MemberTagFilms.aspxkilling
Number of films tagged: 7191

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 96

]]>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:01:54 GMT71913196Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/psycho/MemberTagFilms.aspxpsycho
Number of films tagged: 32

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 41

]]>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:30:05 GMT323041Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/investigation/MemberTagFilms.aspxinvestigation
Number of films tagged: 5883

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 124

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:28 GMT588329124Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cannibal/MemberTagFilms.aspxcannibal
Number of films tagged: 273

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 38

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:20:45 GMT2732838Tag