list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Big 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/Big/3140/default.aspx Title: Big
Year: 1988
Director: Penny Marshall
Plot: More than anything else, 13-year old New Jerseyite Josh (David Moscow) wants to be "big". That's the wish he makes at an odd-looking amusement pier fortunetelling machine. The next morning, Josh wakes up-only to discover that he's grown to manhood overnight! (At this point, the part is taken over by Tom Hanks). Still a 13-year-old mentally and emotionally, Josh decides to hide out in New York City until he can figure out what to do next. He lucks into a job with a major toy company run by kid-at-heart McMillan (Robert Loggia). By cannily bringing a child's eye view to McMillan's business, Josh rises to the top-and in process, he falls in love with fellow employee Susan (Elizabeth Perkins). But he's still a kid, and he'd like to go back to his own world and own body. Written by Gary Ross and Anne Spielberg, Big proved a crucial success for budding director Penny Marshall, who'd work harmoniously with Hanks again on the radically different A League of Their Own. The cinematography was by Barry Sonenfeld, who went on to become a director himself with The Addams Family. That Big was heavily reliant upon the input of Tom Hanks and Penny Marshall was proven by the failed attempt to turn the property into a Broadway musical. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 78
Number of Lists: 61
Number of blog posts: 5
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 13:48:41 GMTBig1988Penny MarshallMore than anything else, 13-year old New Jerseyite Josh (<a href="/players/P____50948/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>David Moscow</a>) wants to be "big". That's the wish he makes at an odd-looking amusement pier fortunetelling machine. The next morning, Josh wakes up-only to discover that he's grown to manhood overnight! (At this point, the part is taken over by <a href="/players/P____93341/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Hanks</a>). Still a 13-year-old mentally and emotionally, Josh decides to hide out in New York City until he can figure out what to do next. He lucks into a job with a major toy company run by kid-at-heart McMillan (<a href="/players/P____42988/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Loggia</a>). By cannily bringing a child's eye view to McMillan's business, Josh rises to the top-and in process, he falls in love with fellow employee Susan (<a href="/players/P____56069/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Elizabeth Perkins</a>). But he's still a kid, and he'd like to go back to his own world and own body. Written by <a href="/players/P___108980/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gary Ross</a> and Anne Spielberg, Big proved a crucial success for budding director <a href="/players/P___101407/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Penny Marshall</a>, who'd work harmoniously with Hanks again on the radically different <a href=/films/19929/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>A League of Their Own</a>. The cinematography was by Barry Sonenfeld, who went on to become a director himself with <a href=/films/413/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Addams Family</a>. That Big was heavily reliant upon the input of <a href="/players/P____93341/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Hanks</a> and <a href="/players/P___101407/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Penny Marshall</a> was proven by the failed attempt to turn the property into a Broadway musical. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide78Tag Target (>10)61533http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u32807tnyso.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Big/3140/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_Recast_ONE_FLEW_OVER_THE_CUCKOO_S_NEST_1975/563/37320/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 11/14/2008 3:07:53 PM
Body: The t-shirt goes to seven-ate-9, who really knocked this one out of the park. Everyone had some great picks. Like pippin says, Elijah Wood could do great as Billy Bibbitt. And benthams_head, I love Paul Giamatti as Cheswick, and Roberto Begnini as Martini.seven-ate-9 offered two great choices for McMurphy, and though I love the idea of Ryan Gosling in the role, I think Sam Rockwell is one more degree of perfect. I recommend you check out seven-ate-9's full post; here's why I love his choices:Jack Nicholson ... R.P. McMurphy ... Sam Rockwell Sam is hugely talented, and he hits the right note between charming & smarmy. Favorite Sam roles, anyone? I'll go with Charlie in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.Louise Fletcher ... Nurse Mildred Ratched ... Linda Hamilton Whoa! The tough chick who's institutionalized in T:2 turns to the other side! Brilliant.William Redfield ... Dale Harding ... Sam Waterston Sydney Lassick ... Charley Cheswick ... Kevin Spacey I'm imagining Spacey playing this like his character in The Usual Suspects, but it would be great to see him play someone who's not hiding a wolf-like cunning.Brad Dourif ... Billy Bibbit ... James Van der Beek It would be wild to see this former teen sex symbol become terrified of the thought that his mother would discover he lost his virginity. Christopher Lloyd ... Taber ... Elias Koteas seven-ate-9 said "Does anyone out there currently play a better nutter?" I don't have an opinion on that, but I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Mr. Koteas. Remember him as the compassionate Captain Staros in The Thin Red Line? And who can forget him as Casey Jones in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.William Duell ... Jim Sefelt ... Michael Jeter Poor Michael Jeter. I didn't even know he was gone until I read seven-ate-9's post. Since he's the only one we'd have to resurrect, what do you guys think of benthams_head's choice, Dylan Baker? He's one of those "Oh, that guy. I like that guy!" kind of actors.Vincent Schiavelli ... Fredrickson ... Steve Buscemi Will Sampson ... Chief Bromden ... Ron Perlman seven-ate-9 is right on: "While not preserving the American Indian vibe, I'm convinced he could bring the strong and silent like he did in The City of Lost Children (1995)."Danny DeVito ... Martini ... Colin Farrell Wow. Farrell can pull off a boyish charm (did you see In Bruges?) but playing that cute meatball, Martini, would be a challenge. If he pulled it off, he should star in a modern remake of Tom Hanks's Big. Dean R. Brooks ... Dr. John Spivey ... J.K. Simmons Nice! The guy who played Juno's dad would be perfect here. I can see himplaying it similar to how he played the CIA boss in Burn After Reading. He and Brad Pitt were my two favorite things about that film. Scatman Crothers ... Turkle the Janitor ... John Witherspoon
]]>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:07:53 GMTSkyPilotFilmgaming11/14/2008 3:07:53 PMThe t-shirt goes to seven-ate-9, who really knocked this one out of the park. Everyone had some great picks. Like pippin says, Elijah Wood could do great as Billy Bibbitt. And benthams_head, I love Paul Giamatti as Cheswick, and Roberto Begnini as Martini.seven-ate-9 offered two great choices for McMurphy, and though I love the idea of Ryan Gosling in the role, I think Sam Rockwell is one more degree of perfect. I recommend you check out seven-ate-9's full post; here's why I love his choices:Jack Nicholson ... R.P. McMurphy ... Sam Rockwell Sam is hugely talented, and he hits the right note between charming &amp; smarmy. Favorite Sam roles, anyone? I'll go with Charlie in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.Louise Fletcher ... Nurse Mildred Ratched ... Linda Hamilton Whoa! The tough chick who's institutionalized in T:2 turns to the other side! Brilliant.William Redfield ... Dale Harding ... Sam Waterston Sydney Lassick ... Charley Cheswick ... Kevin Spacey I'm imagining Spacey playing this like his character in The Usual Suspects, but it would be great to see him play someone who's not hiding a wolf-like cunning.Brad Dourif ... Billy Bibbit ... James Van der Beek It would be wild to see this former teen sex symbol become terrified of the thought that his mother would discover he lost his virginity. Christopher Lloyd ... Taber ... Elias Koteas seven-ate-9 said "Does anyone out there currently play a better nutter?" I don't have an opinion on that, but I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Mr. Koteas. Remember him as the compassionate Captain Staros in The Thin Red Line? And who can forget him as Casey Jones in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.William Duell ... Jim Sefelt ... Michael Jeter Poor Michael Jeter. I didn't even know he was gone until I read seven-ate-9's post. Since he's the only one we'd have to resurrect, what do you guys think of benthams_head's choice, Dylan Baker? He's one of those "Oh, that guy. I like that guy!" kind of actors.Vincent Schiavelli ... Fredrickson ... Steve Buscemi Will Sampson ... Chief Bromden ... Ron Perlman seven-ate-9 is right on: "While not preserving the American Indian vibe, I'm convinced he could bring the strong and silent like he did in The City of Lost Children (1995)."Danny DeVito ... Martini ... Colin Farrell Wow. Farrell can pull off a boyish charm (did you see In Bruges?) but playing that cute meatball, Martini, would be a challenge. If he pulled it off, he should star in a modern remake of Tom Hanks's Big. Dean R. Brooks ... Dr. John Spivey ... J.K. Simmons Nice! The guy who played Juno's dad would be perfect here. I can see himplaying it similar to how he played the CIA boss in Burn After Reading. He and Brad Pitt were my two favorite things about that film. Scatman Crothers ... Turkle the Janitor ... John Witherspoon http://www.spout.com/blogs/jjgittes/archive/2008/8/1/33385.aspx Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 8/1/2008 10:30:59 AM
Body: I got on my soapbox last week about Reel 13 Classics airing films from the 80's, so I'll spare you that this time and focus on the film itself. If BIG is considered to be a successful film and a "classic", it is so because of one reason – the charm and performance of Tom Hanks. Nothing else about the film is very resonant or appealing, but Hanks is good enough to almost hypnotize an audience to ignore or forget about its flaws.The film doesn't really get started until Hanks appears as a child who wakes up one morning as an adult (but with the mind of a child). You get the sense that director Penny Marshall knew this as well. She wastes no time getting the film to the change (the first act is only ten minutes long). There is very little exposition about the main character of Josh and his need to be "big" is flimsy, at best (my guess is that much of this was discarded in the editing room). Once Hanks is at the center of things, the film chooses to focus on him being funny and getting in funny, cute situations (What if an adult kid gets a job? What if an adult kid meets a girl?). All this ignores the fact that his parents think he's been kidnapped (more needed to be done with this) and the idea that a carnival machine can transform a kid overnight into an adult. Pushing these factors to the side in favor of Hanks shtick as the film does is the equivalent of tap dancing to get people not to look at the burning building behind them.All that I've written so far suggests that I heartily dislike BIG, which actually isn't the case. It IS kind of charming and THAT is entirely due to Hanks. The plot is contrived and the other actors are hardly as successful (the usually reliable John Heard is overly smarmy here, Robert Loggia's character is underdeveloped and love interest Elizabeth Perkins is wholly unappealing) and yet, Hanks makes it work. I can't say enough about his thoroughly detailed performance (he did receive an Oscar nomination for his efforts, but lost to Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN). Every choice he makes is spot-on and the way he uses his body language to further the illusion that he is a child inside the body of an adult man is wonderfully amazing. It's a master class in screen acting that should be studied by young thespians for years to come. If only the script were better…
]]>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:30:59 GMTjjgittesjjgittes Blog8/1/2008 10:30:59 AMI got on my soapbox last week about Reel 13 Classics airing films from the 80's, so I'll spare you that this time and focus on the film itself. If BIG is considered to be a successful film and a "classic", it is so because of one reason &ndash; the charm and performance of Tom Hanks. Nothing else about the film is very resonant or appealing, but Hanks is good enough to almost hypnotize an audience to ignore or forget about its flaws.The film doesn't really get started until Hanks appears as a child who wakes up one morning as an adult (but with the mind of a child). You get the sense that director Penny Marshall knew this as well. She wastes no time getting the film to the change (the first act is only ten minutes long). There is very little exposition about the main character of Josh and his need to be "big" is flimsy, at best (my guess is that much of this was discarded in the editing room). Once Hanks is at the center of things, the film chooses to focus on him being funny and getting in funny, cute situations (What if an adult kid gets a job? What if an adult kid meets a girl?). All this ignores the fact that his parents think he's been kidnapped (more needed to be done with this) and the idea that a carnival machine can transform a kid overnight into an adult. Pushing these factors to the side in favor of Hanks shtick as the film does is the equivalent of tap dancing to get people not to look at the burning building behind them.All that I've written so far suggests that I heartily dislike BIG, which actually isn't the case. It IS kind of charming and THAT is entirely due to Hanks. The plot is contrived and the other actors are hardly as successful (the usually reliable John Heard is overly smarmy here, Robert Loggia's character is underdeveloped and love interest Elizabeth Perkins is wholly unappealing) and yet, Hanks makes it work. I can't say enough about his thoroughly detailed performance (he did receive an Oscar nomination for his efforts, but lost to Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN). Every choice he makes is spot-on and the way he uses his body language to further the illusion that he is a child inside the body of an adult man is wonderfully amazing. It's a master class in screen acting that should be studied by young thespians for years to come. If only the script were better&hellip; http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/6/26/31754.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 6/26/2008 7:00:44 PM
Body: As with Moonstruck's appearance on the romantic comedy list, I found myself charmed by many of the selections on the fantasy list, even where I may not have made the choice myself. I was particularly happy to see Groundhog Day (1993) on this Top 10, but, like a number of other films here, the more I thought about the idea of “fantasy”, the more I began to wonder if some weren't misplaced or mis-categorized. Groundhog Day, alongside Harvey (1950), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), and It's a Wonderful Life (1946), may be fantasies, but they are more accurately described as “fables”, that is, as stories that are essentially about life lessons rather than the fantastic, though they may use fantasy elements to tell their stories. Where the three older films are concerned, there are questions that clearly can, and are, raised about what the protagonists have experienced or who they actually are. Is George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) actually visited by an angel, or has his subconscious conjured Clarence (Henry Travers) to thwart suicide? Is Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) actually Santa Claus? Does Harvey exist? I think that there are many reasonable answers to these questions. Even the list's top film, The Wizard of Oz (1939), quite explicitly raises the question of whether the heroine's experience was a dream or not. The keywords in the AFI's definition of this genre are “inhabit” and “experience”. Of the films on the list, The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), King Kong (1933), Field of Dreams (1989), The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and Big (1988), are the ones that clearly, materially involve “live-action characters” in “imagined settings” or “situations that transcend the rules of the natural world” (although I would certainly pitch Field of Dreams as a fable, probably Big as well, which just goes to show the plasticity of genre). The selections cited above may or may not have their characters actually engaged in these kinds of worlds and circumstances. Do dreams, hallucinations, and what if scenarios count as inhabitable worlds or supernatural situations? If they do, then all of the films are fantasies of one kind or another. On the other hand, if the fantasy elements are not “actually” happening, maybe they aren't. In other words, for a film to be a “fantasy” does its storyworld have to be imagined or supernatural in a material sense or is it good enough that the audience is shown fantastic things, whatever their diegetic “reality” or origin? Not unlike my thinking about the “mystery” category, I think that the AFI could have invested some time in refining its criteria. The current definition, for example, would seem to make room for superhero films (unless you want to count those as science fiction, or, hey, their own genre on some future special), but I doubt that those were seriously considered, if they were considered at all, for this category (a look at the larger selection lists would obviously answer this question, but I'm not motivated enough to open an AFI account; suffice to say that there are no superhero films on this or the scifi Top 10). More to the point, thinking about “fables” as a sub or independent genre would give more precision to how you think about “fantasy,” and maybe draw attention to a wider variety of movies that do, or at least more clearly, present live-action characters in fantastic settings and situations (Pleasantville, 1998, comes to mind). On the other hand, as I stated in the introduction to this post, I think that this list is mostly made up of fine, or at least well loved, films, and maybe there's not much point in pushing arguments over definition (although I would argue for treating The Lord of the Rings movies as a single work; it seems that no matter which installment you pick, it is ultimately just a stand-in for the whole). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:00:44 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog6/26/2008 7:00:44 PMAs with Moonstruck's appearance on the romantic comedy list, I found myself charmed by many of the selections on the fantasy list, even where I may not have made the choice myself. I was particularly happy to see Groundhog Day (1993) on this Top 10, but, like a number of other films here, the more I thought about the idea of &ldquo;fantasy&rdquo;, the more I began to wonder if some weren't misplaced or mis-categorized. Groundhog Day, alongside Harvey (1950), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), and It's a Wonderful Life (1946), may be fantasies, but they are more accurately described as &ldquo;fables&rdquo;, that is, as stories that are essentially about life lessons rather than the fantastic, though they may use fantasy elements to tell their stories. Where the three older films are concerned, there are questions that clearly can, and are, raised about what the protagonists have experienced or who they actually are. Is George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) actually visited by an angel, or has his subconscious conjured Clarence (Henry Travers) to thwart suicide? Is Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) actually Santa Claus? Does Harvey exist? I think that there are many reasonable answers to these questions. Even the list's top film, The Wizard of Oz (1939), quite explicitly raises the question of whether the heroine's experience was a dream or not. The keywords in the AFI's definition of this genre are &ldquo;inhabit&rdquo; and &ldquo;experience&rdquo;. Of the films on the list, The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), King Kong (1933), Field of Dreams (1989), The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and Big (1988), are the ones that clearly, materially involve &ldquo;live-action characters&rdquo; in &ldquo;imagined settings&rdquo; or &ldquo;situations that transcend the rules of the natural world&rdquo; (although I would certainly pitch Field of Dreams as a fable, probably Big as well, which just goes to show the plasticity of genre). The selections cited above may or may not have their characters actually engaged in these kinds of worlds and circumstances. Do dreams, hallucinations, and what if scenarios count as inhabitable worlds or supernatural situations? If they do, then all of the films are fantasies of one kind or another. On the other hand, if the fantasy elements are not &ldquo;actually&rdquo; happening, maybe they aren't. In other words, for a film to be a &ldquo;fantasy&rdquo; does its storyworld have to be imagined or supernatural in a material sense or is it good enough that the audience is shown fantastic things, whatever their diegetic &ldquo;reality&rdquo; or origin? Not unlike my thinking about the &ldquo;mystery&rdquo; category, I think that the AFI could have invested some time in refining its criteria. The current definition, for example, would seem to make room for superhero films (unless you want to count those as science fiction, or, hey, their own genre on some future special), but I doubt that those were seriously considered, if they were considered at all, for this category (a look at the larger selection lists would obviously answer this question, but I'm not motivated enough to open an AFI account; suffice to say that there are no superhero films on this or the scifi Top 10). More to the point, thinking about &ldquo;fables&rdquo; as a sub or independent genre would give more precision to how you think about &ldquo;fantasy,&rdquo; and maybe draw attention to a wider variety of movies that do, or at least more clearly, present live-action characters in fantastic settings and situations (Pleasantville, 1998, comes to mind). On the other hand, as I stated in the introduction to this post, I think that this list is mostly made up of fine, or at least well loved, films, and maybe there's not much point in pushing arguments over definition (although I would argue for treating The Lord of the Rings movies as a single work; it seems that no matter which installment you pick, it is ultimately just a stand-in for the whole). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/groups/Movies_with_the_Kids/Re_Something_besides_Disney_PLEASE/246/30527/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Movies with the Kids
Post Date: 6/5/2008 2:20:22 AM
Body: These are just some of my favorites that are kid-friendly and NOT Disney: Babe - Brings the tears every time I watch it. The Princess Bride - My favorite movie to watch when staying at home from school with a cold as a kid. The Bear - A live-action version of Bambi, but with a bear. Beetlejuice - I've always viewed this as a kid-friendly horror movie; a lurid sub-text to the film yet done without the bad language or overly horrific effects. Big - Just plain fun for kids and parents. Chicken Run - Not a favorite of mine, but know lots of friends with kids that love it. E.T. - Again, always brings the tears. Edward Scissorhands - Parents might want to exercise discretion with this one: there are some adult themes, but it is done in such a magical / fairy-tale manner that older kids can understand it. The Iron Giant - LOVE this film and perfect for the whole family. Jurassic Park - Might be a little too intense for the little kids, but definitely a great action flick for the junior cineastes. Little Man Tate - Great flick about a boy-genius trying to overcome his immense intellect and make some friends. A Little Princess - Spectacular cinematography envelopes every frame of this magical film. The Secret Garden - Beautiful film. The Wizard of Oz - No explanation since I'm sure most kids have already seen this classic, but just in case you needed a reminder. Howl's Moving Castle - Not typically a fan of anime myself, this animated feature dubbed in English is just so captivating, loaded with interesting characters and a bizarre story line that is rather confusing but overall lots of fun. And the English dubbing was done by Disney but it's not technically a Disney film. Hope that helps some.
]]>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:20:22 GMTmercurialMovies with the Kids6/5/2008 2:20:22 AM These are just some of my favorites that are kid-friendly and NOT Disney: Babe - Brings the tears every time I watch it. The Princess Bride - My favorite movie to watch when staying at home from school with a cold as a kid. The Bear - A live-action version of Bambi, but with a bear. Beetlejuice - I've always viewed this as a kid-friendly horror movie; a lurid sub-text to the film yet done without the bad language or overly horrific effects. Big - Just plain fun for kids and parents. Chicken Run - Not a favorite of mine, but know lots of friends with kids that love it. E.T. - Again, always brings the tears. Edward Scissorhands - Parents might want to exercise discretion with this one: there are some adult themes, but it is done in such a magical / fairy-tale manner that older kids can understand it. The Iron Giant - LOVE this film and perfect for the whole family. Jurassic Park - Might be a little too intense for the little kids, but definitely a great action flick for the junior cineastes. Little Man Tate - Great flick about a boy-genius trying to overcome his immense intellect and make some friends. A Little Princess - Spectacular cinematography envelopes every frame of this magical film. The Secret Garden - Beautiful film. The Wizard of Oz - No explanation since I'm sure most kids have already seen this classic, but just in case you needed a reminder. Howl's Moving Castle - Not typically a fan of anime myself, this animated feature dubbed in English is just so captivating, loaded with interesting characters and a bizarre story line that is rather confusing but overall lots of fun. And the English dubbing was done by Disney but it's not technically a Disney film. Hope that helps some. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/3/3/25819.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/3/2008 3:00:42 PM
Body: Star Wars may have the most famous opening title sequence in film history, but in terms of influence it’s got nothing on the work of Saul Bass. He’s the brilliant graphic designer who gave us the animated credits for Hitchcock’s Vertigo, North by Northwest and Psycho and Scorsese’s Casino, Cape Fear, The Age of Innocence and Goodfellas and most of Otto Preminger’s work, including Exodus, Anatomy of a Murder and The Man With the Golden Arm. You’ve also seen his work at the beginning of West Side Story and Alien and Big and The Seven Year Itch and Spartacus. But what if he had designed the opening credits to Star Wars? Well, it might have looked something like this video, which was created for a school project. Interesting, yes. Creative, yes. Entertaining, yes. Memorable, no. It just goes to show how significant some credit sequences can be, because this is hardly appropriate for George Lucas’ film. And I don’t just mean because the music is all wrong. If this student wanted to go with a jazz score for the titles, he should have gone with a jazz cover of the Star Wars theme. And if he wanted something more upbeat, he could have used a jazz cover of the Cantina Band song (both covers can be heard on this album). If I was this guy’s professor, I’d give him a B+, mostly for effort and the fact that I love the lazer blasts and the zoom in on the Death Star at the end. For the A, though, he’d need to resubmit with something more suitable than a Buddy Rich soundtrack. [via Fraktastic] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:00:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/3/2008 3:00:42 PM Star Wars may have the most famous opening title sequence in film history, but in terms of influence it’s got nothing on the work of Saul Bass. He’s the brilliant graphic designer who gave us the animated credits for Hitchcock’s Vertigo, North by Northwest and Psycho and Scorsese’s Casino, Cape Fear, The Age of Innocence and Goodfellas and most of Otto Preminger’s work, including Exodus, Anatomy of a Murder and The Man With the Golden Arm. You’ve also seen his work at the beginning of West Side Story and Alien and Big and The Seven Year Itch and Spartacus. But what if he had designed the opening credits to Star Wars? Well, it might have looked something like this video, which was created for a school project. Interesting, yes. Creative, yes. Entertaining, yes. Memorable, no. It just goes to show how significant some credit sequences can be, because this is hardly appropriate for George Lucas’ film. And I don’t just mean because the music is all wrong. If this student wanted to go with a jazz score for the titles, he should have gone with a jazz cover of the Star Wars theme. And if he wanted something more upbeat, he could have used a jazz cover of the Cantina Band song (both covers can be heard on this album). If I was this guy’s professor, I’d give him a B+, mostly for effort and the fact that I love the lazer blasts and the zoom in on the Death Star at the end. For the A, though, he’d need to resubmit with something more suitable than a Buddy Rich soundtrack. [via Fraktastic] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/eagle795/archive/2007/8/26/18790.aspx Post By: eagle795
Post To: eagle795 Blog
Post Date: 8/26/2007 2:19:09 PM
Body: Tom Hanks & a giant piano…good times. And am I the only guy that finds Elizabeth Perkins smokin’?
]]>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:19:09 GMTeagle795eagle795 Blog8/26/2007 2:19:09 PMTom Hanks &amp; a giant piano&hellip;good times. And am I the only guy that finds Elizabeth Perkins smokin&rsquo;? http://www.spout.com/blogs/kattmandu/archive/2007/7/30/16858.aspx Post By: KATTmandu
Post To: KATTmandu Blog
Post Date: 7/30/2007 10:42:36 AM
Body: I watched this film again over the weekend as I stumbled upon it while channel surfing. I immediatly regained the joy I recieved the first time I watched it over ten years ago. Tom Hanks plays the part of a 13 year old boy as if there really is a kid trapped inside him and the film is constantly highlighted by scenes that allow Hanks to shine. I could not help but laugh out loud during the famous FAO Schwartz piano scene where Josh (Hanks) plays Chopsticks with his boss on the giant keyboard. Another scene that made me chuckle was the business formal where Josh chews on baby corn like it is a full husk and he nibbles off the mini kernels. I really enjoyed this film and it reminded me why I've always liked Tom Hanks so much. He is one of the most versitale and talented actors of our generation and I always look forward to seeing his next film.
]]>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:42:36 GMTKATTmanduKATTmandu Blog7/30/2007 10:42:36 AMI watched this film again over the weekend as I stumbled upon it while channel surfing. I immediatly regained the joy I recieved the first time I watched it over ten years ago. Tom Hanks plays the part of a 13 year old boy as if there really is a kid trapped inside him and the film is constantly highlighted by scenes that allow Hanks to shine. I could not help but laugh out loud during the famous FAO Schwartz piano scene where Josh (Hanks) plays Chopsticks with his boss on the giant keyboard. Another scene that made me chuckle was the business formal where Josh chews on baby corn like it is a full husk and he nibbles off the mini kernels. I really enjoyed this film and it reminded me why I&#39;ve always liked Tom Hanks so much. He is one of the most versitale and talented actors of our generation and I always look forward to seeing his next film. http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmspotting/Re_Top_5_Movies_Directed_By_Women/304/9166/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: totoro
Post To: Filmspotting
Post Date: 5/22/2007 1:31:48 PM
Body: [quote user="Jymkata"]The '80s are generally mocked as a shallow time in film, but at least women were given a chance to direct mainstream films and a few of the movies are among my favorite 80's and early 90's films:[/quote] Its nice to see another Near Dark fan! I totally agree about the 80's having been a better time for women directors.Big, directed by Penny Marshall, is a great example of a movie directed by a woman that did extremely well and wasn't a typical "chick flick". As for "Triumph of the Will", I think it was off limits for the list because of the restriction on documentaries.
]]>Tue, 22 May 2007 17:31:48 GMTtotoroFilmspotting5/22/2007 1:31:48 PM[quote user="Jymkata"]The &#39;80s are generally mocked as a shallow time in film, but at least women were given a chance to direct mainstream films and a few of the movies are among my favorite 80&#39;s and early 90&#39;s films:[/quote] Its nice to see another Near Dark fan! I totally agree about the 80&#39;s having been a better time for women directors.Big, directed by Penny Marshall, is a great example of a movie directed by a woman that did extremely well and wasn&#39;t a typical "chick flick". As for "Triumph of the Will", I think it was off limits for the list because of the restriction on documentaries. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7163

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1005

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT71631691005Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comingofage/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomingofage
Number of films tagged: 1186

Number of people who tagged: 72

Number of times used: 219

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:51:56 GMT118672219Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/favorite/MemberTagFilms.aspxfavorite
Number of films tagged: 85

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:22:58 GMT8562127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/coming-of-age/MemberTagFilms.aspxcoming-of-age
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 99

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:47:51 GMT834099Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adolescence/MemberTagFilms.aspxadolescence
Number of films tagged: 398

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 120

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:43 GMT39838120Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/boy/MemberTagFilms.aspxboy
Number of films tagged: 1318

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 60

]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:02:48 GMT13183660Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/80s-classic/MemberTagFilms.aspx80s-classic
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 34

Number of times used: 108

]]>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:37:46 GMT4434108Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/piano/MemberTagFilms.aspxpiano
Number of films tagged: 489

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 52

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:56:22 GMT4893252Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/newyork/MemberTagFilms.aspxnewyork
Number of films tagged: 38

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 46

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:41:54 GMT382746Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hillarious/MemberTagFilms.aspxhillarious
Number of films tagged: 32

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 42

]]>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:45:00 GMT322542Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/toys/MemberTagFilms.aspxtoys
Number of films tagged: 18

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 31

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:41:56 GMT182031Tag