list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 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/Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs/31858/default.aspx Title: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Year: 1937
Director: William Cottrell, Ben Sharpsteen, Dorothy Ann Blank, David Hand, Dick Richard, Merrill de Maris, Perce Pearce
Plot: It was called "Disney's Folly." Who on earth would want to sit still for 90 minutes to watch an animated cartoon? And why pick a well-worn Grimm's Fairy Tale that every schoolkid knows? But Walt Disney seemed to thrive on projects which a lesser man might have written off as "stupid" or "impossible". Investing three years, $1,500,000, and the combined talents of 570 artists into Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Disney produced a film that was not only acknowledged a classic from the outset, but also earned 8,500,000 depression-era dollars in gross rentals. Bypassing early temptations to transform the heroine Snow White into a plump Betty Boop type or a woebegone ZaSu Pitts lookalike, the Disney staffers wisely made radical differentiations between the "straight" and "funny" characters in the story. Thus, Snow White and Prince Charming moved and were drawn realistically, while the Seven Dwarfs were rendered in the rounded, caricatured manner of Disney's short-subject characters. In this way, the serious elements of the story could be propelled forward in a believable enough manner to grab the adult viewers, while the dwarfs provided enough comic and musical hijinks to keep the kids happy. It is a tribute to the genius of the Disney formula that the dramatic and comic elements were strong enough to please both demographic groups. Like any showman, Disney knew the value of genuine horror in maintaining audience interest: accordingly, the Wicked Queen, whose jealousy of Snow White's beauty motivates the story, is a thoroughly fearsome creature even before she transforms herself into an ancient crone. Best of all, Snow White clicks in the three areas in which Disney had always proven superiority over his rivals: Solid story values (any sequence that threatened to slow down the plotline was ruthlessly jettisoned, no matter how much time and money had been spent), vivid etched characterizations (it would have been easier to have all the Dwarfs walk, talk and act alike: thank heaven that Disney never opted for "easy"), and instantly memorable songs (Frank Churchill, Leigh Harline, Paul J. Smith and the entire studio music department was Oscar-nominated for such standards-to-be as "Whistle While You Work" and "Some Day My Prince Will Come"). ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 78
Number of Lists: 53
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 02:35:52 GMTSnow White and the Seven Dwarfs1937William Cottrell, Ben Sharpsteen, Dorothy Ann Blank, David Hand, Dick Richard, Merrill de Maris, Perce PearceIt was called "Disney's Folly." Who on earth would want to sit still for 90 minutes to watch an animated cartoon? And why pick a well-worn Grimm's Fairy Tale that every schoolkid knows? But Walt Disney seemed to thrive on projects which a lesser man might have written off as "stupid" or "impossible". Investing three years, $1,500,000, and the combined talents of 570 artists into Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Disney produced a film that was not only acknowledged a classic from the outset, but also earned 8,500,000 depression-era dollars in gross rentals. Bypassing early temptations to transform the heroine Snow White into a plump Betty Boop type or a woebegone ZaSu Pitts lookalike, the Disney staffers wisely made radical differentiations between the "straight" and "funny" characters in the story. Thus, Snow White and Prince Charming moved and were drawn realistically, while the Seven Dwarfs were rendered in the rounded, caricatured manner of Disney's short-subject characters. In this way, the serious elements of the story could be propelled forward in a believable enough manner to grab the adult viewers, while the dwarfs provided enough comic and musical hijinks to keep the kids happy. It is a tribute to the genius of the Disney formula that the dramatic and comic elements were strong enough to please both demographic groups. Like any showman, Disney knew the value of genuine horror in maintaining audience interest: accordingly, the Wicked Queen, whose jealousy of Snow White's beauty motivates the story, is a thoroughly fearsome creature even before she transforms herself into an ancient crone. Best of all, <a href=/films/31855/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Snow White</a> clicks in the three areas in which Disney had always proven superiority over his rivals: Solid story values (any sequence that threatened to slow down the plotline was ruthlessly jettisoned, no matter how much time and money had been spent), vivid etched characterizations (it would have been easier to have all the Dwarfs walk, talk and act alike: thank heaven that Disney never opted for "easy"), and instantly memorable songs (Frank Churchill, Leigh Harline, Paul J. Smith and the entire studio music department was Oscar-nominated for such standards-to-be as "Whistle While You Work" and "Some Day My Prince Will Come"). ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide78Tag Target (>10)53633http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t1427161px9.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs/31858/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/11/18/44389.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 11/18/2009 1:00:16 PM
Body: Snow White The final feature length film from the DVD set "Treasures From American Film Archives" is a classic tale, but set some of the future standards of cinematic interpretations. Or at least it is known to have been a considerable influence on Walt Disney in his inspiration and execution of his own version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. My biggest complaint is that there seems to be moments that jump over major scenes or plot points. I don't know if part of the film is missing or the filmmakers just assumed people were familiar with the story enough to know what wasn't being shown. Otherwise it's a fun example of very early American fantasy filmmaking. Rating: 7/10
]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:00:16 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog11/18/2009 1:00:16 PMSnow White The final feature length film from the DVD set "Treasures From American Film Archives" is a classic tale, but set some of the future standards of cinematic interpretations. Or at least it is known to have been a considerable influence on Walt Disney in his inspiration and execution of his own version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. My biggest complaint is that there seems to be moments that jump over major scenes or plot points. I don't know if part of the film is missing or the filmmakers just assumed people were familiar with the story enough to know what wasn't being shown. Otherwise it's a fun example of very early American fantasy filmmaking. Rating: 7/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2009/3/22/41190.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 3/22/2009 10:31:38 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 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#49)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (The Queen is the #10 villain)100 Greatest Film Songs (#19 - "Someday My Prince Will Come")The Revised Top 100 (#34)10 Top 10's (#1 Animated) Due to Disney's ironclad vault system, I had to go scouting for a borrowed copy of this film because I refused to waste a Netflix rental on it, when I'd seen it at least a good handful of times. It's been a few weeks since I've watched it again, due to my four-week affiliation with the Producers at the Grand Rapids Civic Theater (yes, that IS a shameless plug - only one week more to see it!), but I've seen the film enough to discuss it at length. I know you're excited. What can I say about Snow White? It's the first (American)* feature-length animated film. It's the singular template and formula pioneer for all classic Disney films (i.e. those produced under the chairmanship of the actual Disney). It has all of the elements viewers have come to expect from the Disney brand: a beautiful princess, a handsome Prince Charming, animals with people-like traits, a cruel and frightening villain (who gets her comeuppance), and comic relief caricatures with appeal to would-be watchers of all ages. Based on a Grimm's fairy tale, the story is as familiar as home sweet home. An evil but vain Queen daily asks her magic mirror "who's the fairest of them all" and is vexed to hear that it is Snow White, the pretty scullery maid that has caught the eye of the good prince. The evil Queen orders a woodsman to take the fair maiden to the woods and to cut out her heart as proof that he ended her life, but the woodsman has a change of heart in light of Snow White's beauty and kindness. Snow White runs, alone as she is except for the friendship of the woodland creatures who flock to her song, until they lead her to shelter - a house that seems to be occupied by children but is, in fact, occupied by seven fat little dwarfs with names anyone should know: Doc, Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy, Dopey, Bashful, and Grumpy. While Snow White makes merry and home for her stout hosts, the Queen, who is shocked to learn that Snow White lives, hatches a wicked scheme. Magically disguising herself as a fruit-selling hag, she takes a poisoned apple to Snow White while the dwarfs are away working in their mines. Left alone, who will save Snow White? The AFI no doubt ranked this film - including a 15-rank rise on the Revised list - as much as it did because it was such a pioneering effort on the part of the great and beloved Walt Disney. Not only did it put to the test a formula that would be repeated for decades to come, it also used animation techniques never before utilized on such a large scale. Snow White is not a caricature but a beautifully drawn figure that resembles a normal human. The Queen is truly menacing and mean, drawn in a kaleidoscope of dark and sinister colors, and the animals and dwarfs are brightly illustrated to please children, even as they appeal to adults. The songs are iconically famous, from the ranked "Someday My Prince Will Come" to "Hi-Ho" and "Whistle While You Work," and the story, simplistic as it is, flows along like a work of great fiction under the beautifully rendered animation. Since the film was the first of its kind, it's no surprise that it would be held in such high esteem. Personally, however, Snow White and even the merry dwarfs are not among my favorite Disney characters. I find that the film, which is now 72 years old, has not aged all that well, from the chirrupy character voice behind Snow White to the somewhat hokey nature of the humor and merriment in the piece. That's not an indictment of the film as much as it is merely a personal preference - Snow White was a great achievement, but obviously, a template can be tweaked and perfected and, for me, is executed more effectively in later Disney films such as Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio. Also, I tend to get bored watching this one; though the film might have mass appeal, I still think the tendency of the movie is to entice children, who are ultimately going to be the audience clamoring to see a long cartoon. I don't feel that way watching all Disney films, but Snow White gets older faster, and I'm afraid that fact grows only more true as I get older. Like I said, however, these are my personal preferences. Snow White has its place because it has the distinction of being a landmark, and landmarks often inspire new and improved versions of whatever could be so praised as a landmark. Still, in the world of my ratings system, I feel that the film merits an 8.5, between minor flaws/very good and perfectly entertaining. I don't love this one due to my personal observations as stated, and as to the test, it doesn't pass for me. Even when Disney opens its silly (or ingenious?) vault, I would be disinclined to purchase Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, if only because I've seen it enough times to be satisfied. For the interested viewer, though, if you haven't seen the film, you should at least give it one look. After all, it's truly something to be the first (American)* movie-length cartoon. *Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has been historically (and erroneously) labeled the official first feature-length animated film, but that's not entirely accurate. The Adventures of Prince Achmed, a foreign film, actually holds the title. I've never seen it, but since it hails from another country, I think it's fair to give Snow White the title of "first" if contextualized by attaching the word "American" to it, hence the parenthetical insertions.
]]>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:31:38 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts3/22/2009 10:31:38 PMWhat'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 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#49)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (The Queen is the #10 villain)100 Greatest Film Songs (#19 - "Someday My Prince Will Come")The Revised Top 100 (#34)10 Top 10's (#1 Animated) Due to Disney's ironclad vault system, I had to go scouting for a borrowed copy of this film because I refused to waste a Netflix rental on it, when I'd seen it at least a good handful of times. It's been a few weeks since I've watched it again, due to my four-week affiliation with the Producers at the Grand Rapids Civic Theater (yes, that IS a shameless plug - only one week more to see it!), but I've seen the film enough to discuss it at length. I know you're excited. What can I say about Snow White? It's the first (American)* feature-length animated film. It's the singular template and formula pioneer for all classic Disney films (i.e. those produced under the chairmanship of the actual Disney). It has all of the elements viewers have come to expect from the Disney brand: a beautiful princess, a handsome Prince Charming, animals with people-like traits, a cruel and frightening villain (who gets her comeuppance), and comic relief caricatures with appeal to would-be watchers of all ages. Based on a Grimm's fairy tale, the story is as familiar as home sweet home. An evil but vain Queen daily asks her magic mirror "who's the fairest of them all" and is vexed to hear that it is Snow White, the pretty scullery maid that has caught the eye of the good prince. The evil Queen orders a woodsman to take the fair maiden to the woods and to cut out her heart as proof that he ended her life, but the woodsman has a change of heart in light of Snow White's beauty and kindness. Snow White runs, alone as she is except for the friendship of the woodland creatures who flock to her song, until they lead her to shelter - a house that seems to be occupied by children but is, in fact, occupied by seven fat little dwarfs with names anyone should know: Doc, Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy, Dopey, Bashful, and Grumpy. While Snow White makes merry and home for her stout hosts, the Queen, who is shocked to learn that Snow White lives, hatches a wicked scheme. Magically disguising herself as a fruit-selling hag, she takes a poisoned apple to Snow White while the dwarfs are away working in their mines. Left alone, who will save Snow White? The AFI no doubt ranked this film - including a 15-rank rise on the Revised list - as much as it did because it was such a pioneering effort on the part of the great and beloved Walt Disney. Not only did it put to the test a formula that would be repeated for decades to come, it also used animation techniques never before utilized on such a large scale. Snow White is not a caricature but a beautifully drawn figure that resembles a normal human. The Queen is truly menacing and mean, drawn in a kaleidoscope of dark and sinister colors, and the animals and dwarfs are brightly illustrated to please children, even as they appeal to adults. The songs are iconically famous, from the ranked "Someday My Prince Will Come" to "Hi-Ho" and "Whistle While You Work," and the story, simplistic as it is, flows along like a work of great fiction under the beautifully rendered animation. Since the film was the first of its kind, it's no surprise that it would be held in such high esteem. Personally, however, Snow White and even the merry dwarfs are not among my favorite Disney characters. I find that the film, which is now 72 years old, has not aged all that well, from the chirrupy character voice behind Snow White to the somewhat hokey nature of the humor and merriment in the piece. That's not an indictment of the film as much as it is merely a personal preference - Snow White was a great achievement, but obviously, a template can be tweaked and perfected and, for me, is executed more effectively in later Disney films such as Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio. Also, I tend to get bored watching this one; though the film might have mass appeal, I still think the tendency of the movie is to entice children, who are ultimately going to be the audience clamoring to see a long cartoon. I don't feel that way watching all Disney films, but Snow White gets older faster, and I'm afraid that fact grows only more true as I get older. Like I said, however, these are my personal preferences. Snow White has its place because it has the distinction of being a landmark, and landmarks often inspire new and improved versions of whatever could be so praised as a landmark. Still, in the world of my ratings system, I feel that the film merits an 8.5, between minor flaws/very good and perfectly entertaining. I don't love this one due to my personal observations as stated, and as to the test, it doesn't pass for me. Even when Disney opens its silly (or ingenious?) vault, I would be disinclined to purchase Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, if only because I've seen it enough times to be satisfied. For the interested viewer, though, if you haven't seen the film, you should at least give it one look. After all, it's truly something to be the first (American)* movie-length cartoon. *Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has been historically (and erroneously) labeled the official first feature-length animated film, but that's not entirely accurate. The Adventures of Prince Achmed, a foreign film, actually holds the title. I've never seen it, but since it hails from another country, I think it's fair to give Snow White the title of "first" if contextualized by attaching the word "American" to it, hence the parenthetical insertions. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/11/38235.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/11/2008 11:01:42 AM
Body: The fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/11/2008 11:01:42 AMThe fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/8/38088.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/8/2008 5:00:35 PM
Body: It’s beginning to look a lot like 1991. A former Disney starlet is on track for a Best Actress nomination. One of cinema’s greatest villainous performances is a sure thing for an acting Oscar. And, due to a relatively disappointing crop of Academy Award contenders, an animated feature is being talked about for Best Picture. One major difference between now and 1991, however, is now there’s a separate Oscar category for Best Animated Feature. While that doesn’t mean Wall-E can’t be the first animated film nominated in the top category since Beauty and the Beast, it does potentially mean that it shouldn’t be. Historically, animated features have been marginalized by the Academy, though not unfairly. The first of its kind in the U.S., Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was not adequately recognized at the 1938 Oscars, so the Academy gave Disney a special Honorary Award (in the form of one normal-sized statuette and seven miniature statuettes) in 1939 to make up for it. The official credit given to Snow White was that it was a “significant screen innovation,” that “pioneered a great new entertainment field.” Basically, but not technically, this designated animated features as a new, separate art form from live-action motion pictures. Fantasia was similarly set apart a few years later with two Honorary Awards spotlighting the film’s achievements in sound and music, yet this time credit was given to the film for “widening the scope of the motion picture as entertainment and as an art form.” Still, for almost fifty years, the closest an animated feature came to being nominated inclusively in such a scope for Best Picture were live-action films incorporating animation, such as Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins. It should have officially been made clearer in the 1930s or 1940s that animated features are in a class of their own. Since 1932, the Academy has differentiated between animation and live-action with its short subject categories, but no corresponding distinction was ever made for features, possibly because there weren’t enough animated features to recognize with a separate award for many decades. Even today, the Best Animated Feature Oscar is only given if there are a certain number (eight) of animated features eligible in that year. Thanks to the Best Animated Feature Oscar, though, there is greater encouragement for the mainstream production of this kind of film and also a greater acknowledgement of foreign feature animation. Some critics might argue that it seems to lower the esteem of animated features, yet the creation of the category was in fact pushed for by animators, according to the AMPAS press release announcing its inception (the animators’ campaign, spearheaded mostly by Dreamworks Animation’s Jeffrey Katzenberg, was apparently fueled by the snub of Chicken Run as Best Picture in 2001). The Academy’s error, then, was in continuing to allow animated features to be eligible for Best Picture rather than renaming that “top” category Best Live-Action Picture. Now, if Wall-E or any other animated film is recognized in that category, the Best Animated Feature Oscar will indeed appear to be a lesser honor. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says the existence of the Animated Feature category creates a sort of psychological effect, which blocks voters from considering an animated feature for Best Picture. However, with enough campaigning from Disney and plenty of prodding from the media (blogs especially), Wall-E may have sufficient placement in the consciousness of Academy members to allow such a nomination to happen. The call for a Best Picture nod for the film has been around and growing since New York magazine’s Vulture blog first championed the idea back in June, writing that it “would be the smartest thing the Academy’s done in years.” For ratings, perhaps, but individual members themselves do not think of nor are they encouraged to consider telecast viewership when marking their ballots. As a celebration of great filmmaking, though, it would be smarter for voters to acknowledge Wall-E’s place and prestige as a front-runner in the Best Animated Feature category and then pick another deserving film, which isn’t likely to be recognized elsewhere, to nominate as Best Picture. For example, how about a popular and critically acclaimed foreign film that hasn’t been submitted for consideration in the foreign-language category, such as Tell No One or Let the Right One In? In July, Time magazine, which referred to the separate Animated Feature category as “Oscar’s cartoon ghetto,” began sampling quotes from supporters like New York and went so far as to call the film an “Obamaesque trailblazer.” In some way, Wall-E could resonate with Academy voters with relation to Obama, but perhaps only because it is one of the few hopeful, feel-good movies contending at a time when Bush–inspired negativity is supposedly no longer welcome (New York writer Logan Hill also acknowledged Best Picture candidate Slumdog Millionaire as similarly fitting the optimism bill after Fox Searchlight’s COO referred to the film as “Obama-like”). And maybe the environmentalist theme of Wall-E will be heavily supported by liberal Academy members, but ultimately the film seems even more preachy and, at times, dystopic than even The Dark Knight, let alone An Inconvenient Truth (which, by the way, had to settle on Oscar’s documentary ghetto and wasn’t considered Best Picture material, either). One significant point against the likelihood Wall-E receiving a Best Picture nomination was noted by Anne Thompson at Variety: actors tend to vote for live-action films because they feature live actors. Surely actors, forever in fear of being replaced by computer-generated characters, look at an eerily realistically rendered computer-animated film like Wall-E and contemplate the worst for their profession. Still, on the other hand, actors could actually celebrate Pixar for making an animated film that incorporates live actors (a kind of reversal of Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins, no?). But if actors want to pay respect to this technique, they should completely surprise Oscar prognosticators (and pay them back for another 2001 snub) by nominating Fred Willard for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe Wall-E is one of the best films of 2008, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be recommended for a Best Picture nomination. The Oscars are never an exact or fair measure of a year’s best in cinema, and even Oscar bloggers should be aware of the politics and logic of the Academy. This is the same organization that, for its first awards, ruled The Jazz Singer ineligible for Best Picture (or “Best Production” as it was named then) because it had the unfair advantage of being a sound film. Instead, the landmark film received a Special Award (almost like Disney received in 1939). Perhaps it is best, then, to think of animated features as also having an unfair advantage. After all, particularly with computer animation, they allow for more ease in certain aspects of direction, cinematography and special effects. In that case, let us, if not the Academy, view the Best Animated Feature category as the actual “top” category and shake off this unnecessary desire for an animated film to win “Best Picture.” Now, can we re-channel our energy into campaigning for Wall-E to be nominated in other categories, like Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:00:35 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/8/2008 5:00:35 PMIt’s beginning to look a lot like 1991. A former Disney starlet is on track for a Best Actress nomination. One of cinema’s greatest villainous performances is a sure thing for an acting Oscar. And, due to a relatively disappointing crop of Academy Award contenders, an animated feature is being talked about for Best Picture. One major difference between now and 1991, however, is now there’s a separate Oscar category for Best Animated Feature. While that doesn’t mean Wall-E can’t be the first animated film nominated in the top category since Beauty and the Beast, it does potentially mean that it shouldn’t be. Historically, animated features have been marginalized by the Academy, though not unfairly. The first of its kind in the U.S., Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was not adequately recognized at the 1938 Oscars, so the Academy gave Disney a special Honorary Award (in the form of one normal-sized statuette and seven miniature statuettes) in 1939 to make up for it. The official credit given to Snow White was that it was a “significant screen innovation,” that “pioneered a great new entertainment field.” Basically, but not technically, this designated animated features as a new, separate art form from live-action motion pictures. Fantasia was similarly set apart a few years later with two Honorary Awards spotlighting the film’s achievements in sound and music, yet this time credit was given to the film for “widening the scope of the motion picture as entertainment and as an art form.” Still, for almost fifty years, the closest an animated feature came to being nominated inclusively in such a scope for Best Picture were live-action films incorporating animation, such as Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins. It should have officially been made clearer in the 1930s or 1940s that animated features are in a class of their own. Since 1932, the Academy has differentiated between animation and live-action with its short subject categories, but no corresponding distinction was ever made for features, possibly because there weren’t enough animated features to recognize with a separate award for many decades. Even today, the Best Animated Feature Oscar is only given if there are a certain number (eight) of animated features eligible in that year. Thanks to the Best Animated Feature Oscar, though, there is greater encouragement for the mainstream production of this kind of film and also a greater acknowledgement of foreign feature animation. Some critics might argue that it seems to lower the esteem of animated features, yet the creation of the category was in fact pushed for by animators, according to the AMPAS press release announcing its inception (the animators’ campaign, spearheaded mostly by Dreamworks Animation’s Jeffrey Katzenberg, was apparently fueled by the snub of Chicken Run as Best Picture in 2001). The Academy’s error, then, was in continuing to allow animated features to be eligible for Best Picture rather than renaming that “top” category Best Live-Action Picture. Now, if Wall-E or any other animated film is recognized in that category, the Best Animated Feature Oscar will indeed appear to be a lesser honor. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says the existence of the Animated Feature category creates a sort of psychological effect, which blocks voters from considering an animated feature for Best Picture. However, with enough campaigning from Disney and plenty of prodding from the media (blogs especially), Wall-E may have sufficient placement in the consciousness of Academy members to allow such a nomination to happen. The call for a Best Picture nod for the film has been around and growing since New York magazine’s Vulture blog first championed the idea back in June, writing that it “would be the smartest thing the Academy’s done in years.” For ratings, perhaps, but individual members themselves do not think of nor are they encouraged to consider telecast viewership when marking their ballots. As a celebration of great filmmaking, though, it would be smarter for voters to acknowledge Wall-E’s place and prestige as a front-runner in the Best Animated Feature category and then pick another deserving film, which isn’t likely to be recognized elsewhere, to nominate as Best Picture. For example, how about a popular and critically acclaimed foreign film that hasn’t been submitted for consideration in the foreign-language category, such as Tell No One or Let the Right One In? In July, Time magazine, which referred to the separate Animated Feature category as “Oscar’s cartoon ghetto,” began sampling quotes from supporters like New York and went so far as to call the film an “Obamaesque trailblazer.” In some way, Wall-E could resonate with Academy voters with relation to Obama, but perhaps only because it is one of the few hopeful, feel-good movies contending at a time when Bush–inspired negativity is supposedly no longer welcome (New York writer Logan Hill also acknowledged Best Picture candidate Slumdog Millionaire as similarly fitting the optimism bill after Fox Searchlight’s COO referred to the film as “Obama-like”). And maybe the environmentalist theme of Wall-E will be heavily supported by liberal Academy members, but ultimately the film seems even more preachy and, at times, dystopic than even The Dark Knight, let alone An Inconvenient Truth (which, by the way, had to settle on Oscar’s documentary ghetto and wasn’t considered Best Picture material, either). One significant point against the likelihood Wall-E receiving a Best Picture nomination was noted by Anne Thompson at Variety: actors tend to vote for live-action films because they feature live actors. Surely actors, forever in fear of being replaced by computer-generated characters, look at an eerily realistically rendered computer-animated film like Wall-E and contemplate the worst for their profession. Still, on the other hand, actors could actually celebrate Pixar for making an animated film that incorporates live actors (a kind of reversal of Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins, no?). But if actors want to pay respect to this technique, they should completely surprise Oscar prognosticators (and pay them back for another 2001 snub) by nominating Fred Willard for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe Wall-E is one of the best films of 2008, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be recommended for a Best Picture nomination. The Oscars are never an exact or fair measure of a year’s best in cinema, and even Oscar bloggers should be aware of the politics and logic of the Academy. This is the same organization that, for its first awards, ruled The Jazz Singer ineligible for Best Picture (or “Best Production” as it was named then) because it had the unfair advantage of being a sound film. Instead, the landmark film received a Special Award (almost like Disney received in 1939). Perhaps it is best, then, to think of animated features as also having an unfair advantage. After all, particularly with computer animation, they allow for more ease in certain aspects of direction, cinematography and special effects. In that case, let us, if not the Academy, view the Best Animated Feature category as the actual “top” category and shake off this unnecessary desire for an animated film to win “Best Picture.” Now, can we re-channel our energy into campaigning for Wall-E to be nominated in other categories, like Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_3_The_Movies_in_the/625/36928/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rangertx
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/4/2008 2:01:40 AM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] Here's an idea I got from Gremlins. I bought this one from the $5 bin at Wal-Mart this weekend to show my kids on Halloween. One thing that struck me while watching this was the unusually high amount of references to other movies contained in withing the film. At one point we see It's A Wonderful Life being watched on a TV in the kitchen. This is a pretty common reference for Christmas movie. Then, in the pivotal scene that the mogwais are fed after midnight, we see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Later the gremlins are watching Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. There are quite a few references to Spielberg films, both blatant and subtle. The marquee of the theater has two films being showed: A Boy's Life (which was the working title for E.T.) and Watch The Skies.( working title for Close Encounters of a Third Kind.) There are really too many to name, I even saw The Road Warrior poster hanging in the bedroom. So have at it. There it is. I think that a lot of these are put in film just for people like us. Some are so sublte that only the true movie nerds will get them. So, what do y'all think? Do you jump for joy when you see one of your favorite classics referenced in a movie? Or, do you just hate it? And more importantly, why?? [/quote] So I actually love when I am watching a film and I see or hear a reference to another film. I was just watching Any Given Sunday. During the scene that Al Pacino is trying to motivate Jamie Fox Ben Hur is playing in the backroom. Oliver Stone sliced in moments of Jamie's speech with scenes from Ben Hur. I know that there so many other flics that have these moments but this is the only one that comes to mind.
]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:01:40 GMTrangertxWeekly Theme11/4/2008 2:01:40 AM[quote user="leeroy711"] Here's an idea I got from Gremlins. I bought this one from the $5 bin at Wal-Mart this weekend to show my kids on Halloween. One thing that struck me while watching this was the unusually high amount of references to other movies contained in withing the film. At one point we see It's A Wonderful Life being watched on a TV in the kitchen. This is a pretty common reference for Christmas movie. Then, in the pivotal scene that the mogwais are fed after midnight, we see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Later the gremlins are watching Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. There are quite a few references to Spielberg films, both blatant and subtle. The marquee of the theater has two films being showed: A Boy's Life (which was the working title for E.T.) and Watch The Skies.( working title for Close Encounters of a Third Kind.) There are really too many to name, I even saw The Road Warrior poster hanging in the bedroom. So have at it. There it is. I think that a lot of these are put in film just for people like us. Some are so sublte that only the true movie nerds will get them. So, what do y'all think? Do you jump for joy when you see one of your favorite classics referenced in a movie? Or, do you just hate it? And more importantly, why?? [/quote] So I actually love when I am watching a film and I see or hear a reference to another film. I was just watching Any Given Sunday. During the scene that Al Pacino is trying to motivate Jamie Fox Ben Hur is playing in the backroom. Oliver Stone sliced in moments of Jamie's speech with scenes from Ben Hur. I know that there so many other flics that have these moments but this is the only one that comes to mind. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_November_3_The_Movies_in_the_Mov/625/36902/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/3/2008 1:06:54 PM
Body: Here's an idea I got from Gremlins. I bought this one from the $5 bin at Wal-Mart this weekend to show my kids on Halloween. One thing that struck me while watching this was the unusually high amount of references to other movies contained in withing the film. At one point we see It's A Wonderful Life being watched on a TV in the kitchen. This is a pretty common reference for Christmas movie. Then, in the pivotal scene that the mogwais are fed after midnight, we see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Later the gremlins are watching Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. There are quite a few references to Spielberg films, both blatant and subtle. The marquee of the theater has two films being showed: A Boy's Life (which was the working title for E.T.) and Watch The Skies.( working title for Close Encounters of a Third Kind.) There are really too many to name, I even saw The Road Warrior poster hanging in the bedroom. So have at it. There it is. I think that a lot of these are put in film just for people like us. Some are so sublte that only the true movie nerds will get them. So, what do y'all think? Do you jump for joy when you see one of your favorite classics referenced in a movie? Or, do you just hate it? And more importantly, why??
]]>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:06:54 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme11/3/2008 1:06:54 PMHere's an idea I got from Gremlins. I bought this one from the $5 bin at Wal-Mart this weekend to show my kids on Halloween. One thing that struck me while watching this was the unusually high amount of references to other movies contained in withing the film. At one point we see It's A Wonderful Life being watched on a TV in the kitchen. This is a pretty common reference for Christmas movie. Then, in the pivotal scene that the mogwais are fed after midnight, we see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Later the gremlins are watching Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. There are quite a few references to Spielberg films, both blatant and subtle. The marquee of the theater has two films being showed: A Boy's Life (which was the working title for E.T.) and Watch The Skies.( working title for Close Encounters of a Third Kind.) There are really too many to name, I even saw The Road Warrior poster hanging in the bedroom. So have at it. There it is. I think that a lot of these are put in film just for people like us. Some are so sublte that only the true movie nerds will get them. So, what do y'all think? Do you jump for joy when you see one of your favorite classics referenced in a movie? Or, do you just hate it? And more importantly, why?? http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_October_27_I_Put_A_Spell_On_You/625/36702/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/27/2008 5:16:59 PM
Body: With Halloween only a few days away - old people getting their stores of pennies ready to unload on ungrateful tweens inappropriately underdressed as Britney Spears to the benefit of the local pedophiles - this week's theme is devoted to that staple of Halloween lore: the witch. Nowadays, the traditionally ugly wench with pointy hat and warted nose of The WIzard of Oz has been replaced by a flawless, Playboy centerfold body scantily clad in skintight black spandex and perfectly coifed mane of blonde hair with skanky purple highlights like Nicole Kidman in Practical Magic. While the oft forgotten male equivalent, the Warlock, with his itchy black robe and peculiar soul patch has been abandoned for anachronistically attired Abercrombie models with a good sprinkling of Brad Pitt in Interview With The Vampire like those in The Covenant. Ranging from the family-friendly features like Hocus Pocus and Snow White to the vomit-inducing The Blair Witch Project and Suspiria, witches and warlocks weave their spells throughout the cinematic world to the dismay of easily duped virgins just waiting to be sacrificed. So put down that over-sized bag of miniature Snickers and get started on this week's theme!
]]>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:16:59 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme10/27/2008 5:16:59 PMWith Halloween only a few days away - old people getting their stores of pennies ready to unload on ungrateful tweens inappropriately underdressed as Britney Spears to the benefit of the local pedophiles - this week's theme is devoted to that staple of Halloween lore: the witch. Nowadays, the traditionally ugly wench with pointy hat and warted nose of The WIzard of Oz has been replaced by a flawless, Playboy centerfold body scantily clad in skintight black spandex and perfectly coifed mane of blonde hair with skanky purple highlights like Nicole Kidman in Practical Magic. While the oft forgotten male equivalent, the Warlock, with his itchy black robe and peculiar soul patch has been abandoned for anachronistically attired Abercrombie models with a good sprinkling of Brad Pitt in Interview With The Vampire like those in The Covenant. Ranging from the family-friendly features like Hocus Pocus and Snow White to the vomit-inducing The Blair Witch Project and Suspiria, witches and warlocks weave their spells throughout the cinematic world to the dismay of easily duped virgins just waiting to be sacrificed. So put down that over-sized bag of miniature Snickers and get started on this week's theme! http://www.spout.com/blogs/ladykaede/archive/2008/8/17/34087.aspx Post By: LadyKaede
Post To: Lady Kaede's Noh Place
Post Date: 8/17/2008 8:47:47 AM
Body: In the long run, I'll have a lot to say about the use of computer graphics in cinema. But might as well start with this short chastisement I sent to the Filmspotting guys earlier in the year to express my horror at the critical reaction to this extremely well-conceived and well-crafted movie for kids of all ages. Only a tiny minority of reviewers correctly placed Speed Racer in its genre. Everybody knows a comic book movie when they see one now, but somehow the critical community can no longer recognize a cartoon! A few samples taken from Rotten Tomatoes: "Style, style, style without substance," and "the story is as flat as roadkill," and "a simple treat without any of the heartier substance of a full cinematic meal" -- can you imagine reviewers taking this line with Dave Fleischer's 1930's Popeye cartoons? Or Disney's Steamboat Willie? Or even Yoshida's original Mahha GoGoGo? All these criticisms have a grain of truth, but what do these grouchy adults think they're looking at? I feel like a big, important canvas of Spanish Surrealism were just hung in our salon, and the salonistas said, "that's the worst Cubism we've ever seen!" Is it that no jaded reporter can even conceive of spending $120 million on an entertainment for 10-year-olds? No, I think I know what the real problem here is: Luddism. For years I have been reading complaints in movie reviews about "poor CGI" and "too much CGI"; reviews that say the characters in Beowulf look like dolls or the environments in Star Wars movies look like cartoons. At last, here come the Wachowskis who use the same technology purposely to make a cartoon full of digital renderings of toys . . . and they still get dumped on. It's as if Disney had released Snow White and film critics said, "oh, I don't like all that hand-drawn stuff." What they actually said about Speed Racer was "an eysore, a shambles," "brutal sensory overload," "a Technicolor nightmare" and "everything I despise about what passes for filmmaking today, overwhelmed as it is by digital effects, Japanese animation, buzz-saw CGI combined with live action . . . two hours and 15 minutes of fuschia vomit." (That last was Rex Reed who at least was direct and has the dubious excuse that he's even older than I am - which is 52.) They don't understand the painting and they're blaming the paint. And of course, most of the movie is painted. Digital paint rather than watercolor, applied with a mouse rather than a brush, with the in-between frames rendered by a computer rather than an army of apprentice colorists . . . but the handiwork of visual artists nonetheless. And it's gorgeous! Loud, certainly, garish frequently, but gloriously so. Eye candy and unashamed. And what's not to like? For all the flash I never had trouble telling what was happening on the screen, where the good guys were, who the bad guys were. And the live action segments in real sets, the transitions, the overall editing was brilliantly designed to mate seamlessly to the animation and establish an overall style unique but still referencing the hand-drawn cartoon structures of the original TV show. The visuals are in fact so stunningly rendered and assembled that it is pure gravy that the actors manage to deliver the 1960's Japanese-cartoon-style uber-earnest dialog without irony, in a manner perfectly believable for 10-year-olds of all ages. Matty Robinson was correct to point out the relevance of the moral to the steroid scandal in Major League Baseball. Adam Kempanaar was off the mark when he assumed the appearance of a Motorola logo was crass hypocritical product placement. I expect to return frequently to this film as an example of how the critical community has simply not caught up with the revolution in the medium that is CGI.
]]>Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:47:47 GMTLadyKaedeLady Kaede's Noh Place8/17/2008 8:47:47 AM In the long run, I'll have a lot to say about the use of computer graphics in cinema. But might as well start with this short chastisement I sent to the Filmspotting guys earlier in the year to express my horror at the critical reaction to this extremely well-conceived and well-crafted movie for kids of all ages. Only a tiny minority of reviewers correctly placed Speed Racer in its genre. Everybody knows a comic book movie when they see one now, but somehow the critical community can no longer recognize a cartoon! A few samples taken from Rotten Tomatoes: "Style, style, style without substance," and "the story is as flat as roadkill," and "a simple treat without any of the heartier substance of a full cinematic meal" -- can you imagine reviewers taking this line with Dave Fleischer's 1930's Popeye cartoons? Or Disney's Steamboat Willie? Or even Yoshida's original Mahha GoGoGo? All these criticisms have a grain of truth, but what do these grouchy adults think they're looking at? I feel like a big, important canvas of Spanish Surrealism were just hung in our salon, and the salonistas said, "that's the worst Cubism we've ever seen!" Is it that no jaded reporter can even conceive of spending $120 million on an entertainment for 10-year-olds? No, I think I know what the real problem here is: Luddism. For years I have been reading complaints in movie reviews about "poor CGI" and "too much CGI"; reviews that say the characters in Beowulf look like dolls or the environments in Star Wars movies look like cartoons. At last, here come the Wachowskis who use the same technology purposely to make a cartoon full of digital renderings of toys . . . and they still get dumped on. It's as if Disney had released Snow White and film critics said, "oh, I don't like all that hand-drawn stuff." What they actually said about Speed Racer was "an eysore, a shambles," "brutal sensory overload," "a Technicolor nightmare" and "everything I despise about what passes for filmmaking today, overwhelmed as it is by digital effects, Japanese animation, buzz-saw CGI combined with live action . . . two hours and 15 minutes of fuschia vomit." (That last was Rex Reed who at least was direct and has the dubious excuse that he's even older than I am - which is 52.) They don't understand the painting and they're blaming the paint. And of course, most of the movie is painted. Digital paint rather than watercolor, applied with a mouse rather than a brush, with the in-between frames rendered by a computer rather than an army of apprentice colorists . . . but the handiwork of visual artists nonetheless. And it's gorgeous! Loud, certainly, garish frequently, but gloriously so. Eye candy and unashamed. And what's not to like? For all the flash I never had trouble telling what was happening on the screen, where the good guys were, who the bad guys were. And the live action segments in real sets, the transitions, the overall editing was brilliantly designed to mate seamlessly to the animation and establish an overall style unique but still referencing the hand-drawn cartoon structures of the original TV show. The visuals are in fact so stunningly rendered and assembled that it is pure gravy that the actors manage to deliver the 1960's Japanese-cartoon-style uber-earnest dialog without irony, in a manner perfectly believable for 10-year-olds of all ages. Matty Robinson was correct to point out the relevance of the moral to the steroid scandal in Major League Baseball. Adam Kempanaar was off the mark when he assumed the appearance of a Motorola logo was crass hypocritical product placement. I expect to return frequently to this film as an example of how the critical community has simply not caught up with the revolution in the medium that is CGI. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/12/31175.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/12/2008 3:01:33 PM
Body: Two big movies arrive in theaters this week, The Incredible Hulk and The Happening, and each has had its share of bad buzz. From what I can tell, though, the former is recuperating quite nicely with mostly favorable early reviews. And it’s sure to gross in the hundreds of millions, just like its big brother, Ang Lee’s Hulk, did a few years back. The latter, however, is still struggling through the muck, with writer-director M. Night Shyamalan doing everything he can to assure us that his film is merely a B-movie and shouldn’t be the victim of high expectations. If The Happening bombs, though, 20th Century Fox won’t be able to blame its bad buzz. Especially if The Incredible Hulk comes out a big winner this weekend. When a movie is good, or at least has some goods that audiences actually crave, it can overcome bad buzz. The list of films after the jump is evidence of this, although it’s possible that some of the older titles might have been less successful in the globally conscious age of blogs. Titanic - James Cameron’s romantic disaster film arrived in the early days of mass internet usage, but it didn’t need high-speed gossip to spread word of its troubled production. Any reader of entertainment news learned of the drug-induced food poisoning, the crew illnesses and injuries that came with filming in cold waters and the other problems that put the shoot way over schedule and way over budget. Then there was the matter of its release date being pushed back from July, 1997, to December. Yet Titanic had the goods, and it went on to become the highest-grossing film of all-time and win 11 Oscars, including Best Picture. Star Wars - If the first Star Wars film were made today, it would likely receive a lot of bad press on the web. The production was marred by a number of problems that have since been made public over the last 30 years, and apparently some initial screenings were met with disappointing reactions. But just because the bad buzz didn’t make its way to the masses doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. Much of the film’s cast and crew talked about how the movie was silly and would be a failure. My father, who was one of many illustrators commissioned to design the poster, also thought it looked stupid. And theater owners and studio execs weren’t that excited about it, either — considering this was already the beginning of the age of wide-releasing blockbusters, Star Wars‘ 32-screen opening was pretty slim. Right from that opening week, though, the movie was a smash hit, and of course its success and popularity only grew and grew. Batman - Considering how much disdain there is these days from internerds towards Michael Keaton’s Bruce Wayne/Batman, I can only imagine what kind of bad buzz Tim Burton’s movie would have gotten had the forums and blogs been around in 1989. However, at the time, there was indeed hatred for Keaton’s casting and the film in general. The Los Angeles Times printed a letter from a fan that read: “By casting a clown in the lead role, Warner Bros. and Tim Burton have defecated on the history of Batman.” Also, according to Peter Bart’s book “Boffo”, comic book geeks at Comic-Con booed representatives from the film, and the Wall Street Journal featured a front-page article criticizing the film’s extensive marketing. Ghost Rider - Like the casting of Keaton as Batman, Nicolas Cage as Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider seemed a ridiculous choice to many fans. And the movie got dragged through the mud seemingly every time it was mentioned on the web over the many years it took for the comic adaptation to be made and then released. The nail on the coffin seemed to be Sony’s decision to bump it from August 2006 to the dead-man’s month of February, in the following year. Yet despite all that, plus negative reviews, it became a surprise hit. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - Remember how we all reacted when it was announced Disney would make a movie based on a theme park ride? Remember how we all loved it when it was finally released? Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - Another old film made before the scourge of the internet; another old film with bad buzz that seems to have remained hidden from the public at its time. Still, in “Boffo”, Bart claims that due to escalating costs and an overlong production (this was the first feature-length animated film from Disney and nobody knew how much or how long it would take) and the fact that studio execs didn’t believe audiences would go for such a long cartoon, “Hollywood tagged the production ‘Disney’s Folly.’” Waterworld - This one was plagued by so much bad buzz that most people still think it bombed at the box office. And if you only look at the domestic numbers, it did. But this was around the time when Hollywood started realizing how much more money could be made from international b.o. and sell-through home video distribution (VHS was still big and the DVD breakthrough was around the corner), both of which overcompensated for lack of sufficient domestic gross. Cleopatra - Another film that has a sort of unfair reputation for being a box office failure. Sure, it nearly bankrupted Twentieth Century Fox, which indeed lost millions on the production. And sure, the scandalous affair between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton brought the film a lot of negative publicity around the world. But it was the top-grossing film of 1963 and was nominated for 9 Oscars, including Best Picture. So, despite the bad buzz, tons of people went to see it, but there was no possible way for the thing to make any money. Bee Movie - Everyone seemed to want this to fail, mostly because Jerry Seinfeld’s longtime marketing of the film was more obnoxious than anything experienced prior. And perhaps also because it was fun to refer to a bee having bad buzzzzzz. Yet children don’t follow buzz and so the movie did great business in the long term, even despite its inability to top the box office chart its opening weekend. The Da Vinci Code - It wasn’t the first movie to garner negative publicity from religious groups, but it may have been the biggest production to be threatened by protest and criticism from as high up as the Vatican. Likewise, it probably wasn’t the first movie to be laughed at and booed during its Cannes premiere. But news of that reaction circled the globe/net very quickly. However, despite whatever protests there were and despite the near-universal panning of the film by critics, it was a huge success. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:01:33 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/12/2008 3:01:33 PMTwo big movies arrive in theaters this week, The Incredible Hulk and The Happening, and each has had its share of bad buzz. From what I can tell, though, the former is recuperating quite nicely with mostly favorable early reviews. And it’s sure to gross in the hundreds of millions, just like its big brother, Ang Lee’s Hulk, did a few years back. The latter, however, is still struggling through the muck, with writer-director M. Night Shyamalan doing everything he can to assure us that his film is merely a B-movie and shouldn’t be the victim of high expectations. If The Happening bombs, though, 20th Century Fox won’t be able to blame its bad buzz. Especially if The Incredible Hulk comes out a big winner this weekend. When a movie is good, or at least has some goods that audiences actually crave, it can overcome bad buzz. The list of films after the jump is evidence of this, although it’s possible that some of the older titles might have been less successful in the globally conscious age of blogs. Titanic - James Cameron’s romantic disaster film arrived in the early days of mass internet usage, but it didn’t need high-speed gossip to spread word of its troubled production. Any reader of entertainment news learned of the drug-induced food poisoning, the crew illnesses and injuries that came with filming in cold waters and the other problems that put the shoot way over schedule and way over budget. Then there was the matter of its release date being pushed back from July, 1997, to December. Yet Titanic had the goods, and it went on to become the highest-grossing film of all-time and win 11 Oscars, including Best Picture. Star Wars - If the first Star Wars film were made today, it would likely receive a lot of bad press on the web. The production was marred by a number of problems that have since been made public over the last 30 years, and apparently some initial screenings were met with disappointing reactions. But just because the bad buzz didn’t make its way to the masses doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. Much of the film’s cast and crew talked about how the movie was silly and would be a failure. My father, who was one of many illustrators commissioned to design the poster, also thought it looked stupid. And theater owners and studio execs weren’t that excited about it, either — considering this was already the beginning of the age of wide-releasing blockbusters, Star Wars‘ 32-screen opening was pretty slim. Right from that opening week, though, the movie was a smash hit, and of course its success and popularity only grew and grew. Batman - Considering how much disdain there is these days from internerds towards Michael Keaton’s Bruce Wayne/Batman, I can only imagine what kind of bad buzz Tim Burton’s movie would have gotten had the forums and blogs been around in 1989. However, at the time, there was indeed hatred for Keaton’s casting and the film in general. The Los Angeles Times printed a letter from a fan that read: “By casting a clown in the lead role, Warner Bros. and Tim Burton have defecated on the history of Batman.” Also, according to Peter Bart’s book “Boffo”, comic book geeks at Comic-Con booed representatives from the film, and the Wall Street Journal featured a front-page article criticizing the film’s extensive marketing. Ghost Rider - Like the casting of Keaton as Batman, Nicolas Cage as Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider seemed a ridiculous choice to many fans. And the movie got dragged through the mud seemingly every time it was mentioned on the web over the many years it took for the comic adaptation to be made and then released. The nail on the coffin seemed to be Sony’s decision to bump it from August 2006 to the dead-man’s month of February, in the following year. Yet despite all that, plus negative reviews, it became a surprise hit. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - Remember how we all reacted when it was announced Disney would make a movie based on a theme park ride? Remember how we all loved it when it was finally released? Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - Another old film made before the scourge of the internet; another old film with bad buzz that seems to have remained hidden from the public at its time. Still, in “Boffo”, Bart claims that due to escalating costs and an overlong production (this was the first feature-length animated film from Disney and nobody knew how much or how long it would take) and the fact that studio execs didn’t believe audiences would go for such a long cartoon, “Hollywood tagged the production ‘Disney’s Folly.’” Waterworld - This one was plagued by so much bad buzz that most people still think it bombed at the box office. And if you only look at the domestic numbers, it did. But this was around the time when Hollywood started realizing how much more money could be made from international b.o. and sell-through home video distribution (VHS was still big and the DVD breakthrough was around the corner), both of which overcompensated for lack of sufficient domestic gross. Cleopatra - Another film that has a sort of unfair reputation for being a box office failure. Sure, it nearly bankrupted Twentieth Century Fox, which indeed lost millions on the production. And sure, the scandalous affair between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton brought the film a lot of negative publicity around the world. But it was the top-grossing film of 1963 and was nominated for 9 Oscars, including Best Picture. So, despite the bad buzz, tons of people went to see it, but there was no possible way for the thing to make any money. Bee Movie - Everyone seemed to want this to fail, mostly because Jerry Seinfeld’s longtime marketing of the film was more obnoxious than anything experienced prior. And perhaps also because it was fun to refer to a bee having bad buzzzzzz. Yet children don’t follow buzz and so the movie did great business in the long term, even despite its inability to top the box office chart its opening weekend. The Da Vinci Code - It wasn’t the first movie to garner negative publicity from religious groups, but it may have been the biggest production to be threatened by protest and criticism from as high up as the Vatican. Likewise, it probably wasn’t the first movie to be laughed at and booed during its Cannes premiere. But news of that reaction circled the globe/net very quickly. However, despite whatever protests there were and despite the near-universal panning of the film by critics, it was a huge success. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/13/28838.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 4:18:12 AM
Body: It is hard to overestimate the influence of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Contrary to popular belief, it was not the first feature length animated film (that would the wonderful Adventures of Prince Achmed by Lotte Raniger), but it was the first feature with cell animation, the first with synch sound, the second overall, and certainly the first to be sucesful. Laniger's film played for a few weeks at an art-house theatre in Germany before fading into undeserved obscurity, while this film is, adjusted for inflation, the second highest grossing film ever made, ahead of Star Wars and behind Gone with the Wind. It will probably surpass GWTW sometime this century, as that film's appeal is fading, and Snow White is always discovered by new generations of children. Simply put, there would be no animated feature films without Snow White. There might still be a Disney studio, but it would not have anywhere near the power at has now, and would probably be owned by a conglomorate, instead of being the conglomorate. Perhaps the movie's greatest achievement is that it paved the way for Disney's masterpieces-, Pionochio, Fantasia and Bambi, as well as the 90's era classics by his spirtual heirs (such as Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin). It also proved that animation is good for other things than comedy, although there was already evidence of this in Disney's more artful shorts. So it's a little disapointing that the film itself is not as strong as its influence. Unlike most, I did not see it as a young child. I first saw it in fifth grade, and found it boring (although my teachers lame commentary did not help). Rewatcthing it today, I find that it has some very beautiful and effective moments, and some great songs, but little reason to care about any of the characters or what happens. One of the biggest problems with Snow White is Snow White herself. Voiced by Adriana Caselotti, she is one of the most passive heroeins in the history of the studio, lacking the intelligence of Belle, the drive of Mulan, or even the charm of Lady. She flees from one crisis to another, and his essentially two emotional states- fear and cute. The Seven Dwarfs arn't that impressive or funny either (well OK, I liked Doc (Roy Atwell)). And in a strange way, the movie is like 2001: A Space Odyssey in the sense that scenes that would take a few seconds in other films are stretched out to rediculous lengths, and people do the same thing over and over and over and over again. It also like 2001 in the sense that everything is presented in a basic, literal manner. This not a criticism, in fact, I kind of liked that there is no self-referancial humor, such as the Genie in Aladdin. It's hardly surprising that it is one of the most analized film ever made, as there are a treasure trove of undiluted symbols and archetypes. Oddly enough, the scenes that work best are the scenes of horror. It is not surprising that this movie gives many kids nightmares as the Queen (Lucille La Verne) is a truly frightning villian. The scenes in her dark labatory are nightmarish, like something out Murnau. You can see from these sequences that Disney was getting tired of the comedy material he was putting in his shorts and wanted to take animation in a more aesthetic direction, which he would ultimately achieve in his abstract Fantasia and his Herzog-like nature ode Bambi. Unfortanley, the material with the Queen is so strong that it gives the movie a serious tonal problem, as it goes from being horrific to cute (or attempting to be) in the space of a few minuets. And of course, "Someday My Prince Will Come", "Whistle While You Work" and "Hi-Ho" are standards. So would kids like this movie? Well, I didn't when I saw it, but maybe I was old enough that the sort of pop culture cyncism that creeps into us was already effecting me, and I was distrissed by the lack of a hip character telling you us that it's cool to like the film. Can I reccamend the film for adult to see on their own? No. Many of Disney's later films had broad appeal to children of all ages, but this movie has a sort of basic immaturity to it. Students of animation will want to check it out for its many technical details (the Prince (Harry Stockwell) was the most realistic charcter ever animated at that time, Disney made extensive use a multiplane camera, his own invention, and so forth), but most will be bored. But the scenes that work are so good that it's a shame that Disney didn't give the movie more focus. It's sort of like Murneau taking the darkest scenes from Faust and mixing them with a screwball comedy, with more cute animals and a bunch of short, bald guys whose name describes their personality. Except Doc. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 08:18:12 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/13/2008 4:18:12 AMIt is hard to overestimate the influence of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Contrary to popular belief, it was not the first feature length animated film (that would the wonderful Adventures of Prince Achmed by Lotte Raniger), but it was the first feature with cell animation, the first with synch sound, the second overall, and certainly the first to be sucesful. Laniger's film played for a few weeks at an art-house theatre in Germany before fading into undeserved obscurity, while this film is, adjusted for inflation, the second highest grossing film ever made, ahead of Star Wars and behind Gone with the Wind. It will probably surpass GWTW sometime this century, as that film's appeal is fading, and Snow White is always discovered by new generations of children. Simply put, there would be no animated feature films without Snow White. There might still be a Disney studio, but it would not have anywhere near the power at has now, and would probably be owned by a conglomorate, instead of being the conglomorate. Perhaps the movie's greatest achievement is that it paved the way for Disney's masterpieces-, Pionochio, Fantasia and Bambi, as well as the 90's era classics by his spirtual heirs (such as Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin). It also proved that animation is good for other things than comedy, although there was already evidence of this in Disney's more artful shorts. So it's a little disapointing that the film itself is not as strong as its influence. Unlike most, I did not see it as a young child. I first saw it in fifth grade, and found it boring (although my teachers lame commentary did not help). Rewatcthing it today, I find that it has some very beautiful and effective moments, and some great songs, but little reason to care about any of the characters or what happens. One of the biggest problems with Snow White is Snow White herself. Voiced by Adriana Caselotti, she is one of the most passive heroeins in the history of the studio, lacking the intelligence of Belle, the drive of Mulan, or even the charm of Lady. She flees from one crisis to another, and his essentially two emotional states- fear and cute. The Seven Dwarfs arn't that impressive or funny either (well OK, I liked Doc (Roy Atwell)). And in a strange way, the movie is like 2001: A Space Odyssey in the sense that scenes that would take a few seconds in other films are stretched out to rediculous lengths, and people do the same thing over and over and over and over again. It also like 2001 in the sense that everything is presented in a basic, literal manner. This not a criticism, in fact, I kind of liked that there is no self-referancial humor, such as the Genie in Aladdin. It's hardly surprising that it is one of the most analized film ever made, as there are a treasure trove of undiluted symbols and archetypes. Oddly enough, the scenes that work best are the scenes of horror. It is not surprising that this movie gives many kids nightmares as the Queen (Lucille La Verne) is a truly frightning villian. The scenes in her dark labatory are nightmarish, like something out Murnau. You can see from these sequences that Disney was getting tired of the comedy material he was putting in his shorts and wanted to take animation in a more aesthetic direction, which he would ultimately achieve in his abstract Fantasia and his Herzog-like nature ode Bambi. Unfortanley, the material with the Queen is so strong that it gives the movie a serious tonal problem, as it goes from being horrific to cute (or attempting to be) in the space of a few minuets. And of course, "Someday My Prince Will Come", "Whistle While You Work" and "Hi-Ho" are standards. So would kids like this movie? Well, I didn't when I saw it, but maybe I was old enough that the sort of pop culture cyncism that creeps into us was already effecting me, and I was distrissed by the lack of a hip character telling you us that it's cool to like the film. Can I reccamend the film for adult to see on their own? No. Many of Disney's later films had broad appeal to children of all ages, but this movie has a sort of basic immaturity to it. Students of animation will want to check it out for its many technical details (the Prince (Harry Stockwell) was the most realistic charcter ever animated at that time, Disney made extensive use a multiplane camera, his own invention, and so forth), but most will be bored. But the scenes that work are so good that it's a shame that Disney didn't give the movie more focus. It's sort of like Murneau taking the darkest scenes from Faust and mixing them with a screwball comedy, with more cute animals and a bunch of short, bald guys whose name describes their personality. Except Doc. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) 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/Great/MemberTagFilms.aspxGreat
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:11:49 GMT231202371Tag 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/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 150

Number of times used: 417

]]>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:43:48 GMT260150417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brilliant/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT179137285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/musical/MemberTagFilms.aspxmusical
Number of films tagged: 174

Number of people who tagged: 109

Number of times used: 356

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:03:25 GMT174109356Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cute/MemberTagFilms.aspxcute
Number of films tagged: 210

Number of people who tagged: 98

Number of times used: 314

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:12 GMT21098314Tag 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/magic/MemberTagFilms.aspxmagic
Number of films tagged: 818

Number of people who tagged: 69

Number of times used: 173

]]>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:58:47 GMT81869173Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/children/MemberTagFilms.aspxchildren
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 270

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:28:15 GMT21266270Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/original/MemberTagFilms.aspxoriginal
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:07 GMT775294Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fairytale/MemberTagFilms.aspxfairytale
Number of films tagged: 197

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 80

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:04:51 GMT1974580Tag