list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Alvin and the Chipmunks 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/Alvin_and_the_Chipmunks/318472/default.aspx Title: Alvin and the Chipmunks
Year: 2007
Director: Tim Hill
Plot: Alvin, Simon, and Theodore are back in director Tim Hill's computer-animation/live-action hybrid following the further adventures of the world's most adorable singing trio. Jason Lee co-stars as Dave Seville. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 38
Number of Lists: 11
Number of blog posts: 14
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:27:29 GMTAlvin and the Chipmunks2007Tim HillAlvin, Simon, and Theodore are back in director Tim Hill's computer-animation/live-action hybrid following the further adventures of the world's most adorable singing trio. <a href="/players/P___215686/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jason Lee</a> co-stars as Dave Seville. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide38Tag Target (>10)111412http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s318472.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Alvin_and_the_Chipmunks/318472/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/16/32629.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/16/2008 2:00:50 PM
Body: The latest Eddie Murphy comedy, Meet Dave, debuted at a dismal 7th place this past weekend with only $5.3 million (on Monday it had already dropped down to #8), marking the worst wide-release opening for the actor since The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Can you spot the connection between these two movies? If you noted that they’re both sci-fi comedies, you’re smarter than the average movie exec, apparently. After comedy subgenre failures like Pluto Nash and Vampire in Brooklyn, you’d think producers would have known better than to cast the broad comedy star in something like Meet Dave. Actually, its distributor, Fox, may have started growing wise to the issue when it threw away the original title, Starship Dave. A few writers have now addressed some of the reasons why Meet Dave failed, and it should be clear how to avoid such a bomb in the future. At the L.A. Times, Patrick Goldstein argues the sci-fi comedy case, though figured out the subgenre can sometimes go blockbuster, as the Men in Black movies show us. He also notes all the horrible crap that Fox has been putting out lately, displaying how shocking it is that this particular film did so much more poorly than garbage like Alvin and the Chipmunks and even What Happens in Vegas. Still, there seems to be some debate over whether or not Meet Dave suffered from actually being a sci-fi comedy or from Fox’s failure to own up to the fact and market it as such. Meanwhile, at Defamer, Stu Van Airsdale offers the simple idea that kids today just don’t give a rats ass about Eddie Murphy. And neither does anyone else. But enough people cared to allow Norbit to come really close to grossing a million bucks, and the people tend to enjoy him, as Anne Thompson claims, when he’s in disguise (of course, he also makes big bucks when his face is visible and he’s surrounded by talking animals or rambunctious kids). Considering his recent Oscar nomination (for Dreamgirls), he probably just needs to go serious for a bit. Or merely stay away from the spacemen roles. It’s definitely not too late for Murphy, despite Vulture blog’s call for his retirement. Personally, I stayed away from Meet Dave because it seemed a lot like a cross between What Planet Are You From? and Innerspace, neither of which I particularly enjoyed (well, I have a soft spot for the latter as a huge Joe Dante fan). That, and I guess I’m in the Stu-designated camp since I haven’t bothered with any of Murphy’s films since I Spy (and honestly I stopped caring after The Distinguished Gentleman — I didn’t even see Beverly Hills Cop III). As for the people who have cared in the past, neither the little kids nor the older fans likely saw any appeal in Meet Dave. Maybe Murphy needs to decide to go directly for the family films or directly for the raunchy stuff (it still works well enough for Martin Lawrence and others). Trying for the middle clearly isn’t working. What was your reason for avoiding the flop? The star? The subgenre? The fact that a ton of other bigger blockbusters are out right now? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:00:50 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/16/2008 2:00:50 PMThe latest Eddie Murphy comedy, Meet Dave, debuted at a dismal 7th place this past weekend with only $5.3 million (on Monday it had already dropped down to #8), marking the worst wide-release opening for the actor since The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Can you spot the connection between these two movies? If you noted that they’re both sci-fi comedies, you’re smarter than the average movie exec, apparently. After comedy subgenre failures like Pluto Nash and Vampire in Brooklyn, you’d think producers would have known better than to cast the broad comedy star in something like Meet Dave. Actually, its distributor, Fox, may have started growing wise to the issue when it threw away the original title, Starship Dave. A few writers have now addressed some of the reasons why Meet Dave failed, and it should be clear how to avoid such a bomb in the future. At the L.A. Times, Patrick Goldstein argues the sci-fi comedy case, though figured out the subgenre can sometimes go blockbuster, as the Men in Black movies show us. He also notes all the horrible crap that Fox has been putting out lately, displaying how shocking it is that this particular film did so much more poorly than garbage like Alvin and the Chipmunks and even What Happens in Vegas. Still, there seems to be some debate over whether or not Meet Dave suffered from actually being a sci-fi comedy or from Fox’s failure to own up to the fact and market it as such. Meanwhile, at Defamer, Stu Van Airsdale offers the simple idea that kids today just don’t give a rats ass about Eddie Murphy. And neither does anyone else. But enough people cared to allow Norbit to come really close to grossing a million bucks, and the people tend to enjoy him, as Anne Thompson claims, when he’s in disguise (of course, he also makes big bucks when his face is visible and he’s surrounded by talking animals or rambunctious kids). Considering his recent Oscar nomination (for Dreamgirls), he probably just needs to go serious for a bit. Or merely stay away from the spacemen roles. It’s definitely not too late for Murphy, despite Vulture blog’s call for his retirement. Personally, I stayed away from Meet Dave because it seemed a lot like a cross between What Planet Are You From? and Innerspace, neither of which I particularly enjoyed (well, I have a soft spot for the latter as a huge Joe Dante fan). That, and I guess I’m in the Stu-designated camp since I haven’t bothered with any of Murphy’s films since I Spy (and honestly I stopped caring after The Distinguished Gentleman — I didn’t even see Beverly Hills Cop III). As for the people who have cared in the past, neither the little kids nor the older fans likely saw any appeal in Meet Dave. Maybe Murphy needs to decide to go directly for the family films or directly for the raunchy stuff (it still works well enough for Martin Lawrence and others). Trying for the middle clearly isn’t working. What was your reason for avoiding the flop? The star? The subgenre? The fact that a ton of other bigger blockbusters are out right now? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/11/31116.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/11/2008 2:00:51 PM
Body: I don’t know what is the worse idea, an all-CGI 3-D Smurfs movie, as Paramount had planned, or a CGI/live-action mix, as Sony Animation is now planning for our beloved blue communists friends. I guess if we only think back to Alvin and the Chipmunks and Underdog, it’s easy to think Sony’s new plan for The Smurfs is a terrible idea. But I think the second Scooby-Doo movie worked pretty well as far as cartoon adaptations go, and there’s a chance Hollywood could do a good job again, despite the majority (including Garfield: The Movie, The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, the first Scooby-Doo) being on the bad side. That said, I’m still no fan of the trend. However, if it must continue, I think it would be interesting to see any of the following 15 animated series, all of which feature the necessary mix of talking animals (or inanimate objects) and humans, turned into live-action movies with CGI characters: The Yogi Bear Show - I feel it’s inevitable that we’ll be seeing this one soon enough. And if Hollywood is feeling lazy enough, the plot can be a remake of the animated feature Hey There, It’s Yogi Bear! Steve Carell will play Ranger Smith, of course. Help!…It’s the Hair Bear Bunch! - Few people remember this Yogi Bear-like series starring three hippie bears, one of whom had a straggly afro. The movie would involve the usual plot in which the bears escape from the zoo and are chased by the human zoo-keeper and his fat assistant. I’d love to see the sweet production design that goes into the bear’s bachelor pad cave. And aside from the fact that CGI bears would make the invisible motorcycle easier to work with, live-action bears have been proven to be a much worse idea (see The Country Bears). The Great Grape Ape Show - This would be kinda like Peter Jackson’s King Kong, only without the intention of making the CGI look realistic. I’m not sure what the plot would be, but going with the King Kong idea, they could probably just have Grape Ape and Beagle Beagle visit New York (or another city) to allow for plenty of accidental destruction (isn’t that the only reason Transformers‘ last act was in a city?). Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with a caveman instead of a talking dog. They could probably just have a guy dressed up in a very hairy costume for the prehistoric superhero, but as long as CGI characters are bringing Hollywood so much dough, they might as well render him on a computer, too. Speed Buggy - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with a talking car instead of a talking dog. And I bet audiences will be more comfortable with a CGI talking car than with a CGI talking dog. Dynomutt, Dog Wonder - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with superheroes. Hey, I hear superheroes are big at the box office this century. Actually, I’m really, really surprised we haven’t heard about this one yet. Jabberjaw - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with…. wait, I’m starting to see that most of these Hanna Barbera cartoons are a lot alike. But even more than Scooby-Doo, this would be like the live-action Josie and the Pussycats, except with the benefit of having a CGI shark who plays drums for the group. Because most of the action would take place under the sea, there’s a good chance this would be too expensive to produce. Fangface - It’s like Scooby-Doo but not made by Hanna Barbera (however, it was produced by Joe Ruby and Ken Spears, who also created Captain Caveman, Jabberjaw, Dynomutt and others on this list). Instead of a talking dog, here one of the mystery-solving teens is a werewolf. And despite everyone’s love for Lon Chaney Jr. and the Teen Wolf movies, Hollywood can rarely make a werewolf these days without CGI. It’s Punky Brewster - They could always just base a movie off the original sitcom (though I doubt they ever would), but wouldn’t it be much cuter if there was a CGI character? Fortunately the cartoon series had that leprechaun-gopher thing named “Glomer.” Snorks - I guess there were no humans in this cartoon, but knowing Hollywood’s ability to mess with things, some could surely be added. Either the Snorks somehow venture out of the sea or a friendly scuba diving kid finds them. Though for the latter, the budget could be too high. I wonder if the Snorks could survive out of water… Ghostbusters - Would be allowed for there to be a feature film version of Filmation’s Ghostbusters — you know, the one that wasn’t based on the REAL Ghostbusters? The one that was actually based on a TV series that came before the movie Ghostbusters? Hmm. I guess this one should really go in the list of live-action series calling for CGI/live-action treatment (like ALF…) The Archie Show - Obviously this one could be completely live-action. But that’s no fun. And that TV movie from 1990 was extremely disappointing. Solution: CGI Jughead! Rainbow Brite - Hey, I really liked Rainbow Brite when I was a kid. Is that OK to admit yet? I may have even wanted a plush toy of Twink. Or maybe I did have a plush toy of Twink. Either way, I’d be the first heterosexual male in line at the theater for this one. Rugrats - This one will only be kinda CGI. It can star real kids with CGI mouths, like what they do with animals in the Babe and Dr. Dolittle movies. Oh yeah, and what they do with babies in the Baby Geniuses movies. Of course, the animated Rugrats movies each made significantly more money than the Baby Geniuses movies, so anyone who’d actually take on this idea is an idiot. The Herculoids - I really don’t care if they make it all CGI, mixed CGI/live-action, all 2D animation, or what; all I care about is that I get to see Tundro on the big screen one day before I die. Back when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time, I thought the triceratops was really lame. But it wasn’t because it was obviously animatronic. It was because it couldn’t shoot rocks out of its horn like Tundro. The rest of the Herculoids, especially Igoo and Gloop & Gleep, would also be awesome to see in a movie. In fact, to be honest, I mostly just made this list in order to profess my desire for a Herculoids movie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:00:51 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/11/2008 2:00:51 PMI don’t know what is the worse idea, an all-CGI 3-D Smurfs movie, as Paramount had planned, or a CGI/live-action mix, as Sony Animation is now planning for our beloved blue communists friends. I guess if we only think back to Alvin and the Chipmunks and Underdog, it’s easy to think Sony’s new plan for The Smurfs is a terrible idea. But I think the second Scooby-Doo movie worked pretty well as far as cartoon adaptations go, and there’s a chance Hollywood could do a good job again, despite the majority (including Garfield: The Movie, The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, the first Scooby-Doo) being on the bad side. That said, I’m still no fan of the trend. However, if it must continue, I think it would be interesting to see any of the following 15 animated series, all of which feature the necessary mix of talking animals (or inanimate objects) and humans, turned into live-action movies with CGI characters: The Yogi Bear Show - I feel it’s inevitable that we’ll be seeing this one soon enough. And if Hollywood is feeling lazy enough, the plot can be a remake of the animated feature Hey There, It’s Yogi Bear! Steve Carell will play Ranger Smith, of course. Help!…It’s the Hair Bear Bunch! - Few people remember this Yogi Bear-like series starring three hippie bears, one of whom had a straggly afro. The movie would involve the usual plot in which the bears escape from the zoo and are chased by the human zoo-keeper and his fat assistant. I’d love to see the sweet production design that goes into the bear’s bachelor pad cave. And aside from the fact that CGI bears would make the invisible motorcycle easier to work with, live-action bears have been proven to be a much worse idea (see The Country Bears). The Great Grape Ape Show - This would be kinda like Peter Jackson’s King Kong, only without the intention of making the CGI look realistic. I’m not sure what the plot would be, but going with the King Kong idea, they could probably just have Grape Ape and Beagle Beagle visit New York (or another city) to allow for plenty of accidental destruction (isn’t that the only reason Transformers‘ last act was in a city?). Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with a caveman instead of a talking dog. They could probably just have a guy dressed up in a very hairy costume for the prehistoric superhero, but as long as CGI characters are bringing Hollywood so much dough, they might as well render him on a computer, too. Speed Buggy - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with a talking car instead of a talking dog. And I bet audiences will be more comfortable with a CGI talking car than with a CGI talking dog. Dynomutt, Dog Wonder - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with superheroes. Hey, I hear superheroes are big at the box office this century. Actually, I’m really, really surprised we haven’t heard about this one yet. Jabberjaw - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with…. wait, I’m starting to see that most of these Hanna Barbera cartoons are a lot alike. But even more than Scooby-Doo, this would be like the live-action Josie and the Pussycats, except with the benefit of having a CGI shark who plays drums for the group. Because most of the action would take place under the sea, there’s a good chance this would be too expensive to produce. Fangface - It’s like Scooby-Doo but not made by Hanna Barbera (however, it was produced by Joe Ruby and Ken Spears, who also created Captain Caveman, Jabberjaw, Dynomutt and others on this list). Instead of a talking dog, here one of the mystery-solving teens is a werewolf. And despite everyone’s love for Lon Chaney Jr. and the Teen Wolf movies, Hollywood can rarely make a werewolf these days without CGI. It’s Punky Brewster - They could always just base a movie off the original sitcom (though I doubt they ever would), but wouldn’t it be much cuter if there was a CGI character? Fortunately the cartoon series had that leprechaun-gopher thing named “Glomer.” Snorks - I guess there were no humans in this cartoon, but knowing Hollywood’s ability to mess with things, some could surely be added. Either the Snorks somehow venture out of the sea or a friendly scuba diving kid finds them. Though for the latter, the budget could be too high. I wonder if the Snorks could survive out of water… Ghostbusters - Would be allowed for there to be a feature film version of Filmation’s Ghostbusters — you know, the one that wasn’t based on the REAL Ghostbusters? The one that was actually based on a TV series that came before the movie Ghostbusters? Hmm. I guess this one should really go in the list of live-action series calling for CGI/live-action treatment (like ALF…) The Archie Show - Obviously this one could be completely live-action. But that’s no fun. And that TV movie from 1990 was extremely disappointing. Solution: CGI Jughead! Rainbow Brite - Hey, I really liked Rainbow Brite when I was a kid. Is that OK to admit yet? I may have even wanted a plush toy of Twink. Or maybe I did have a plush toy of Twink. Either way, I’d be the first heterosexual male in line at the theater for this one. Rugrats - This one will only be kinda CGI. It can star real kids with CGI mouths, like what they do with animals in the Babe and Dr. Dolittle movies. Oh yeah, and what they do with babies in the Baby Geniuses movies. Of course, the animated Rugrats movies each made significantly more money than the Baby Geniuses movies, so anyone who’d actually take on this idea is an idiot. The Herculoids - I really don’t care if they make it all CGI, mixed CGI/live-action, all 2D animation, or what; all I care about is that I get to see Tundro on the big screen one day before I die. Back when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time, I thought the triceratops was really lame. But it wasn’t because it was obviously animatronic. It was because it couldn’t shoot rocks out of its horn like Tundro. The rest of the Herculoids, especially Igoo and Gloop & Gleep, would also be awesome to see in a movie. In fact, to be honest, I mostly just made this list in order to profess my desire for a Herculoids movie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/4/26966.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/4/2008 4:01:17 PM
Body: Here is the new teaser trailer for Blindness, the latest film from Fernando Meirelles (City of God; The Constant Gardener). Normally I wouldn’t be so excited about something that reminds me of Val Kilmer’s post-eye-surgery point-of-view shots from At First Sight, especially when such visuals are accompanied by generic outbreak plots, but I’m so excited about Meirelles’ work that I’d have seen Alvin and the Chipmunks – poop-eating included — if he’d been behind the camera. All this despite the fact that I was extremely disappointed with The Constant Gardener the first time I watched it on account I had such high expectations. Maybe I should calm down my anticipation before Blindness hits theaters this September. Anyway, I know there are some other outbreak films coming out soon, including M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening and the enticingly titled Zombie Strippers, but neither of them come from a Nobel Prize-winning novel, like Blindness does. Of course, the greatest novels are often those which cannot be adequately adapted into films, so maybe Zombie Strippers (which is merely based on, loosely, the non-Nobel-winning play Rhinoceros, by Eugene Ionesco) will actually be better. Which should make Meirelles, the producer, realize: the Rio favelas would sure be a good setting for a zombie movie. May I suggest the obvious title City of Zombies? It fittingly fills out an unintended trilogy. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:01:17 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/4/2008 4:01:17 PM Here is the new teaser trailer for Blindness, the latest film from Fernando Meirelles (City of God; The Constant Gardener). Normally I wouldn’t be so excited about something that reminds me of Val Kilmer’s post-eye-surgery point-of-view shots from At First Sight, especially when such visuals are accompanied by generic outbreak plots, but I’m so excited about Meirelles’ work that I’d have seen Alvin and the Chipmunks – poop-eating included — if he’d been behind the camera. All this despite the fact that I was extremely disappointed with The Constant Gardener the first time I watched it on account I had such high expectations. Maybe I should calm down my anticipation before Blindness hits theaters this September. Anyway, I know there are some other outbreak films coming out soon, including M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening and the enticingly titled Zombie Strippers, but neither of them come from a Nobel Prize-winning novel, like Blindness does. Of course, the greatest novels are often those which cannot be adequately adapted into films, so maybe Zombie Strippers (which is merely based on, loosely, the non-Nobel-winning play Rhinoceros, by Eugene Ionesco) will actually be better. Which should make Meirelles, the producer, realize: the Rio favelas would sure be a good setting for a zombie movie. May I suggest the obvious title City of Zombies? It fittingly fills out an unintended trilogy. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/2/8/24883.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/8/2008 4:00:29 PM
Body: Complaints about the Oscars include the following: the people who choose them are too old and out of touch; they don’t adequately honor comedy; they don’t give enough recognition to science fiction and fantasy movies; they fail to recognize that often the best animated film should also be nominated for best picture. Well, except for that last issue, the Kids Choice Awards, which announced their 2008 nominees today, should be then be a favorable alternative. Obviously they are chosen by people who are young and hip. They continue to acknowledge the worth of both comedy — Eddie Murphy received his eight and ninth nominations this year — and science fiction/fantasy (note to the Academy: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End and Transformers are more than just special effects and other technical achievements!). If only Shrek the Third, which received four nominations, was in the race for best movie in addition to best animated movie then the Kids Choice Awards would definitely be the most perfect kudos fest ever. Beginning on March 3, kids get to vote online for the winners. I know Karina will be stuffing the ballots for her favorite, Alvin and the Chipmunks, while I’ll be busily trying to get Ice Cube that win he deserved two years ago for Are We There Yet? (he’s nominated this year for the sequel, Are We Done Yet?). By the way, speaking of the best actor category, kids need to stop recognizing Johnny Depp so much. Don’t they realize he can’t be cool with them and with the old codgers in the Academy? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:00:29 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/8/2008 4:00:29 PMComplaints about the Oscars include the following: the people who choose them are too old and out of touch; they don’t adequately honor comedy; they don’t give enough recognition to science fiction and fantasy movies; they fail to recognize that often the best animated film should also be nominated for best picture. Well, except for that last issue, the Kids Choice Awards, which announced their 2008 nominees today, should be then be a favorable alternative. Obviously they are chosen by people who are young and hip. They continue to acknowledge the worth of both comedy — Eddie Murphy received his eight and ninth nominations this year — and science fiction/fantasy (note to the Academy: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End and Transformers are more than just special effects and other technical achievements!). If only Shrek the Third, which received four nominations, was in the race for best movie in addition to best animated movie then the Kids Choice Awards would definitely be the most perfect kudos fest ever. Beginning on March 3, kids get to vote online for the winners. I know Karina will be stuffing the ballots for her favorite, Alvin and the Chipmunks, while I’ll be busily trying to get Ice Cube that win he deserved two years ago for Are We There Yet? (he’s nominated this year for the sequel, Are We Done Yet?). By the way, speaking of the best actor category, kids need to stop recognizing Johnny Depp so much. Don’t they realize he can’t be cool with them and with the old codgers in the Academy? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/lizzyie/archive/2008/1/2/23449.aspx Post By: lizzyie
Post To: lizzyie Blog
Post Date: 1/2/2008 6:39:31 PM
Body: ALVIN and the chipmunks is a good movie
]]>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:39:31 GMTlizzyielizzyie Blog1/2/2008 6:39:31 PMALVIN and the chipmunks is a good movie http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/2/23433.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/2/2008 1:00:46 PM
Body: Here is my follow-up to last month’s question of what mainstream movie will feature on the most top ten movie lists. And the winner is … Ratatouille. Oh wait, didn’t I disqualify that one for being too obvious? No? Well, I should have. Yes, according to Movie City News’ Big Ass Chart (aka Scorecard) of critics’ top tens, the Pixar movie made it on to 51 best-of lists, making it the best-grossing best movie of the year. But maybe it wasn’t the most mainstream, if you define mainstream as studio-produced fare. Under that qualification Zodiac was the best mainstream movie of 2007, having been made jointly by Warner Bros. and Paramount and showing up on 70 best-of lists. Other Warner successes include Michael Clayton, which featured on 54 lists, Sweeney Todd, which received 44 mentions, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which showed up on one list, and Letters From Iwo Jima, which showed up a little late on one list. As far as those mainstream movies I predicted would feature heavily, Knocked Up (34 lists) ended up defeating Superbad (25 lists) — meanwhile, the third Judd Apatow movie of the year, Walk Hard, managed to get on one critic’s list — though both were actually behind The Bourne Ultimatum (28 lists), when it came to “average vote” (average numerical placement on the list). If we’re going by mainstream appeal (and if Karina is correct in her view of the film), then Juno was the best mainstream comedy of the year with 63 lists. Hairspray (13 lists) beat out its crappy musical siblings Across the Universe (7 lists) and Enchanted (8 lists). In addition to showing up on Richard Corliss’ list, Beowulf managed 3 other mentions. And Transformers not only showed up on a top ten list, it featured on 3! Of course, it’s more surprising that Spider-Man 3 made it on 4 lists. The greatest thing to happen, of course, was Manohla Dargis listing The Kingdom as one of her favorites. Joining her is Don Payne. If I had made a top ten list (instead of this thing), the film could very well have beaten Transformers. Oh well, at least nobody put the shocking blockbuster Alvin and the Chipmunks on their list … yet. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:00:46 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/2/2008 1:00:46 PMHere is my follow-up to last month’s question of what mainstream movie will feature on the most top ten movie lists. And the winner is … Ratatouille. Oh wait, didn’t I disqualify that one for being too obvious? No? Well, I should have. Yes, according to Movie City News’ Big Ass Chart (aka Scorecard) of critics’ top tens, the Pixar movie made it on to 51 best-of lists, making it the best-grossing best movie of the year. But maybe it wasn’t the most mainstream, if you define mainstream as studio-produced fare. Under that qualification Zodiac was the best mainstream movie of 2007, having been made jointly by Warner Bros. and Paramount and showing up on 70 best-of lists. Other Warner successes include Michael Clayton, which featured on 54 lists, Sweeney Todd, which received 44 mentions, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which showed up on one list, and Letters From Iwo Jima, which showed up a little late on one list. As far as those mainstream movies I predicted would feature heavily, Knocked Up (34 lists) ended up defeating Superbad (25 lists) — meanwhile, the third Judd Apatow movie of the year, Walk Hard, managed to get on one critic’s list — though both were actually behind The Bourne Ultimatum (28 lists), when it came to “average vote” (average numerical placement on the list). If we’re going by mainstream appeal (and if Karina is correct in her view of the film), then Juno was the best mainstream comedy of the year with 63 lists. Hairspray (13 lists) beat out its crappy musical siblings Across the Universe (7 lists) and Enchanted (8 lists). In addition to showing up on Richard Corliss’ list, Beowulf managed 3 other mentions. And Transformers not only showed up on a top ten list, it featured on 3! Of course, it’s more surprising that Spider-Man 3 made it on 4 lists. The greatest thing to happen, of course, was Manohla Dargis listing The Kingdom as one of her favorites. Joining her is Don Payne. If I had made a top ten list (instead of this thing), the film could very well have beaten Transformers. Oh well, at least nobody put the shocking blockbuster Alvin and the Chipmunks on their list … yet. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/1/2/23422.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 1/2/2008 11:00:51 AM
Body: David Cross has written a long blog post justifying his appearance in Alvin and the Chipmunks. He lists four “mitigating factors” (and #4 has a sub-clause, so it’s really five), but it all pretty much comes down to what you’d expect: “indie hipster cred” doesn’ pay for upstate cottages, and he needed the job. An excerpt: I like to work. I really do…Up to working on Alvin I had not worked in six (SIX!) months. That is an eternity if you’re an actor. Think about not working for two months with no hope of anything on the horizon. Now triple that. It was the longest period without work since after Ben Stiller got cancelled (the show, not the man) and I was going nuts. I was depressed and difficult to live with. I was VERY happy to have the work. Again, no regrets. Cross basically has to do this (the blog post, not the work) because his fan base consists in large part of post-punk consumerists??????ie: people who themselves enjoy the spoils of consumer culture, but persist on holding their cultural icons to an impossible high standard of “integrity” and commercial purity. This is why we don’t see similar posts from, say Helen Mirren, justifying her choice to follow up her Oscar-winning work in The Queen by playing sexy academic in National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Which is a shame, because I’d love to see her follow in David Cross’ footsteps, and use a New York Times review as evidence for why her fans could/should “suck it.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:00:51 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog1/2/2008 11:00:51 AMDavid Cross has written a long blog post justifying his appearance in Alvin and the Chipmunks. He lists four “mitigating factors” (and #4 has a sub-clause, so it’s really five), but it all pretty much comes down to what you’d expect: “indie hipster cred” doesn’ pay for upstate cottages, and he needed the job. An excerpt: I like to work. I really do…Up to working on Alvin I had not worked in six (SIX!) months. That is an eternity if you’re an actor. Think about not working for two months with no hope of anything on the horizon. Now triple that. It was the longest period without work since after Ben Stiller got cancelled (the show, not the man) and I was going nuts. I was depressed and difficult to live with. I was VERY happy to have the work. Again, no regrets. Cross basically has to do this (the blog post, not the work) because his fan base consists in large part of post-punk consumerists??????ie: people who themselves enjoy the spoils of consumer culture, but persist on holding their cultural icons to an impossible high standard of “integrity” and commercial purity. This is why we don’t see similar posts from, say Helen Mirren, justifying her choice to follow up her Oscar-winning work in The Queen by playing sexy academic in National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Which is a shame, because I’d love to see her follow in David Cross’ footsteps, and use a New York Times review as evidence for why her fans could/should “suck it.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/2/23421.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/2/2008 11:00:43 AM
Body: David Cross has written a long blog post justifying his appearance in Alvin and the Chipmunks. He lists four “mitigating factors” (and #4 has a sub-clause, so it’s really five), but it all pretty much comes down to what you’d expect: “indie hipster cred” doesn’ pay for upstate cottages, and he needed the job. An excerpt: I like to work. I really do…Up to working on Alvin I had not worked in six (SIX!) months. That is an eternity if you’re an actor. Think about not working for two months with no hope of anything on the horizon. Now triple that. It was the longest period without work since after Ben Stiller got cancelled (the show, not the man) and I was going nuts. I was depressed and difficult to live with. I was VERY happy to have the work. Again, no regrets. Cross basically has to do this (the blog post, not the work) because his fan base consists in large part of post-punk consumerists??????ie: people who themselves enjoy the spoils of consumer culture, but persist on holding their cultural icons to an impossible high standard of “integrity” and commercial purity. This is why we don’t see similar posts from, say Helen Mirren, justifying her choice to follow up her Oscar-winning work in The Queen by playing sexy academic in National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Which is a shame, because I’d love to see her follow in David Cross’ footsteps, and use a New York Times review as evidence for why her fans could/should “suck it.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/2/2008 11:00:43 AMDavid Cross has written a long blog post justifying his appearance in Alvin and the Chipmunks. He lists four “mitigating factors” (and #4 has a sub-clause, so it’s really five), but it all pretty much comes down to what you’d expect: “indie hipster cred” doesn’ pay for upstate cottages, and he needed the job. An excerpt: I like to work. I really do…Up to working on Alvin I had not worked in six (SIX!) months. That is an eternity if you’re an actor. Think about not working for two months with no hope of anything on the horizon. Now triple that. It was the longest period without work since after Ben Stiller got cancelled (the show, not the man) and I was going nuts. I was depressed and difficult to live with. I was VERY happy to have the work. Again, no regrets. Cross basically has to do this (the blog post, not the work) because his fan base consists in large part of post-punk consumerists??????ie: people who themselves enjoy the spoils of consumer culture, but persist on holding their cultural icons to an impossible high standard of “integrity” and commercial purity. This is why we don’t see similar posts from, say Helen Mirren, justifying her choice to follow up her Oscar-winning work in The Queen by playing sexy academic in National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Which is a shame, because I’d love to see her follow in David Cross’ footsteps, and use a New York Times review as evidence for why her fans could/should “suck it.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/kingcool/archive/2007/12/31/23385.aspx Post By: kingcool
Post To: kingcool Blog
Post Date: 12/31/2007 8:32:29 PM
Body: i lovvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeee it its so funny and cute its 1 of the best mooveis iv ever seen lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
]]>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:32:29 GMTkingcoolkingcool Blog12/31/2007 8:32:29 PMi lovvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeee it its so funny and cute its 1 of the best mooveis iv ever seen lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2007/12/31/23360.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 12/31/2007 9:01:00 AM
Body: Perhaps the most depressing quote I’ve read in Variety all year: this weekend, Alvin and the Chipmunks “grossed an estimated $30 million from 3,484 runs for a cume of $142.4 million, outpacing all expectations and positioning the family title to be among the top 10 grossing films of the year.” The less soul-sickening box office news is buried at the bottom of the writeup: There Will Be Blood scored the highest per screen average of the year with a six day gross of $185,525 from just 2 screens, and Charlie Wilson’s War and Juno both saw significant increases. Joe Leydon predicts the future of film academia: “Decades from now, film scholars writing about early 21st-century chick flicks likely will cite 27 Dresses as an illustrative example…a romantic comedy in which nothing the least bit surprising occurs, no disagreement or estrangement seems sufficiently serious to persist, and no one behaves in a manner that cannot be predicted by anyone who has seen more than two or three other romantic comedies. And yet, despite all that, or maybe even because of it, pic is surprisingly enjoyable as slickly produced, undemanding fluff.” Jay Leno is having trouble booking A-list stars for planned, writer-less installments of The Tonight Show. In a pinch like this, where can one expect to find a desperate media whore with no qualms about defying a union? Oh, right??????the presidential campaign. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:01:00 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog12/31/2007 9:01:00 AM Perhaps the most depressing quote I’ve read in Variety all year: this weekend, Alvin and the Chipmunks “grossed an estimated $30 million from 3,484 runs for a cume of $142.4 million, outpacing all expectations and positioning the family title to be among the top 10 grossing films of the year.” The less soul-sickening box office news is buried at the bottom of the writeup: There Will Be Blood scored the highest per screen average of the year with a six day gross of $185,525 from just 2 screens, and Charlie Wilson’s War and Juno both saw significant increases. Joe Leydon predicts the future of film academia: “Decades from now, film scholars writing about early 21st-century chick flicks likely will cite 27 Dresses as an illustrative example…a romantic comedy in which nothing the least bit surprising occurs, no disagreement or estrangement seems sufficiently serious to persist, and no one behaves in a manner that cannot be predicted by anyone who has seen more than two or three other romantic comedies. And yet, despite all that, or maybe even because of it, pic is surprisingly enjoyable as slickly produced, undemanding fluff.” Jay Leno is having trouble booking A-list stars for planned, writer-less installments of The Tonight Show. In a pinch like this, where can one expect to find a desperate media whore with no qualms about defying a union? Oh, right??????the presidential campaign. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7162

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1004

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT71621691004Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/the/MemberTagFilms.aspxthe
Number of films tagged: 124

Number of people who tagged: 131

Number of times used: 150

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT124131150Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 364

Number of people who tagged: 115

Number of times used: 188

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:57:46 GMT364115188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/christmas/MemberTagFilms.aspxchristmas
Number of films tagged: 995

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 254

]]>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:31:29 GMT99582254Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/film/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilm
Number of films tagged: 657

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 190

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT65782190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/and/MemberTagFilms.aspxand
Number of films tagged: 59

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 64

]]>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:54:50 GMT595364Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/relationship/MemberTagFilms.aspxrelationship
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 189

]]>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:18:01 GMT109050189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friends/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriends
Number of films tagged: 157

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 181

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:40 GMT15736181Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lies/MemberTagFilms.aspxlies
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 85

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT1873285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/home/MemberTagFilms.aspxhome
Number of films tagged: 844

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 35

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:23 GMT8442335Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/singer/MemberTagFilms.aspxsinger
Number of films tagged: 3001

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 52

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:39 GMT30012052Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/girlfriend/MemberTagFilms.aspxgirlfriend
Number of films tagged: 1237

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 55

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT12371955Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/photographer/MemberTagFilms.aspxphotographer
Number of films tagged: 339

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 33

]]>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:16:59 GMT3391633Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/songs/MemberTagFilms.aspxsongs
Number of films tagged: 1299

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 23

]]>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:08:24 GMT1299923Tag