list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Valkyrie 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/Valkyrie/326290/default.aspx Title: Valkyrie
Year: 2008
Director: Bryan Singer
Plot: At the absolute height of World War II, German generals hatch a daring plan to assassinate Adolf Hitler and effectively render the German war machine impotent. Directed by Bryan Singer (Superman Returns), Valkyrie stars Tom Cruise and was penned by writing partners Chris McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 19
Number of Lists: 8
Number of blog posts: 15
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:30:24 GMTValkyrie2008Bryan SingerAt the absolute height of World War II, German generals hatch a daring plan to assassinate Adolf Hitler and effectively render the German war machine impotent. Directed by <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___193696/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bryan Singer</a> (<a href="http://www.spout.com/films/254359/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Superman Returns</a>), Valkyrie stars <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____86295/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Cruise</a> and was penned by writing partners Chris McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide19Tag Target (>10)81533http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s326290.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Valkyrie/326290/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/warmovieblog/archive/2009/5/22/42383.aspx Post By: WarMovieBlog
Post To: WarMovieBlog Blog
Post Date: 5/22/2009 12:01:41 PM
Body: Valkyrie (2008, Blu-Ray) IMDB In 1944, a segment of the German Army was fed up with what Hitler was doing to the country, and put into motion a series of events that nearly resulted in success.  Nearly.Valkyrie is a telling of that story.  Revolving around Col. Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) we see the events unfold from his days in North Africa, until his execution (spoilers? you know how it ended!) after the failed attempt on Hitler's life in the "Wolf's Lair" bunker.... Alright, so Valkyrie really isn't a "war movie" per-se, lets just get that over with right now.  I'd classify it more along the lines of "mystery/thriller/docudrama" more than anything.  If you're looking for action and scenes of combat, this isn't it.  The story is intriguing, and this telling really is engaging, but the truth is, we know how its going to end, so its like watching someone build a model or put together a puzzle that we know what the end result will be.Performance wise I have to say that nobody really stands out as having a really good day.  The cast goes through all the right motions and they act like good staunch Germans... but I can't really recall anything that stood out as great.  There are a lot of familiar faces, to be sure, too many to try to list.  And the potrayals of the Nazi high command seem to be cardboard cutouts of their stereotypes, Hitler included.  He is portrayed here as a forgetful, absent-minded putz, rather than a raving lunatic.The production however is another story, brilliantly pulled off, and quite epic at times.  The shots of the Berlin "government quarter" with the rows of flags and such are really quite good.  Most everything else, however takes place behind closed doors, or behind the fences of the Wolf's Lair....  With the notable exception of the well-done attack scene at the beginning.  The HD Master audio sound was brilliant, but at times the quiet scenes were, well, too quiet.  And there were a lot of them.What really drove me nuts though, and I've noticed this on a few new Blu-ray releases, was the presence of (for lack of a better term) low light digital noise in some of the darker scenes.  It was obvious these scenes were shot in HD video rather than on film, and this difference was even more noticable when the edit would change to a similar scene without the noise.  I would think that these things could be cleared up during post.  Or maybe it was just my equipment, I'm not sure.  I didn't see it on the big screen, or on regular DVD, so I can't comment on whether or not it was there all along, but the fact it came and went, and only on certain shots lead me to the conclusion that someone cheaped out bigtime.The other part of it is that in order to actually "get into" the film, you need to somehow find it within yourself to side with Stauffenberg and the rest of the dissenting Germans.  Depending on your prejudices that might be a tricky task.  It would help if there were really something more to grab on to.  I kept hoping there would be more exploration of how these decisions affected his family.  But alas, we are only given a fleeting glimpse into that as he hunkers in the bomb shelter with them, and as his wife is leaving for safer shelter....Ultimately I think Valkyrie turned out to be somewhat of a disappointment.  A beautiful picture to look at (despite the aforementioned problems) but lacking in substance.  I have to succumb and only lay a 6/10.  Sorry, United Artists, you're going to have to do better! Valkyrie (2008, Blu-Ray) on Spout.com Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News
]]>Fri, 22 May 2009 16:01:41 GMTWarMovieBlogWarMovieBlog Blog5/22/2009 12:01:41 PMValkyrie (2008, Blu-Ray) IMDB In 1944, a segment of the German Army was fed up with what Hitler was doing to the country, and put into motion a series of events that nearly resulted in success.  Nearly.Valkyrie is a telling of that story.  Revolving around Col. Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) we see the events unfold from his days in North Africa, until his execution (spoilers? you know how it ended!) after the failed attempt on Hitler's life in the "Wolf's Lair" bunker.... Alright, so Valkyrie really isn't a "war movie" per-se, lets just get that over with right now.  I'd classify it more along the lines of "mystery/thriller/docudrama" more than anything.  If you're looking for action and scenes of combat, this isn't it.  The story is intriguing, and this telling really is engaging, but the truth is, we know how its going to end, so its like watching someone build a model or put together a puzzle that we know what the end result will be.Performance wise I have to say that nobody really stands out as having a really good day.  The cast goes through all the right motions and they act like good staunch Germans... but I can't really recall anything that stood out as great.  There are a lot of familiar faces, to be sure, too many to try to list.  And the potrayals of the Nazi high command seem to be cardboard cutouts of their stereotypes, Hitler included.  He is portrayed here as a forgetful, absent-minded putz, rather than a raving lunatic.The production however is another story, brilliantly pulled off, and quite epic at times.  The shots of the Berlin "government quarter" with the rows of flags and such are really quite good.  Most everything else, however takes place behind closed doors, or behind the fences of the Wolf's Lair....  With the notable exception of the well-done attack scene at the beginning.  The HD Master audio sound was brilliant, but at times the quiet scenes were, well, too quiet.  And there were a lot of them.What really drove me nuts though, and I've noticed this on a few new Blu-ray releases, was the presence of (for lack of a better term) low light digital noise in some of the darker scenes.  It was obvious these scenes were shot in HD video rather than on film, and this difference was even more noticable when the edit would change to a similar scene without the noise.  I would think that these things could be cleared up during post.  Or maybe it was just my equipment, I'm not sure.  I didn't see it on the big screen, or on regular DVD, so I can't comment on whether or not it was there all along, but the fact it came and went, and only on certain shots lead me to the conclusion that someone cheaped out bigtime.The other part of it is that in order to actually "get into" the film, you need to somehow find it within yourself to side with Stauffenberg and the rest of the dissenting Germans.  Depending on your prejudices that might be a tricky task.  It would help if there were really something more to grab on to.  I kept hoping there would be more exploration of how these decisions affected his family.  But alas, we are only given a fleeting glimpse into that as he hunkers in the bomb shelter with them, and as his wife is leaving for safer shelter....Ultimately I think Valkyrie turned out to be somewhat of a disappointment.  A beautiful picture to look at (despite the aforementioned problems) but lacking in substance.  I have to succumb and only lay a 6/10.  Sorry, United Artists, you're going to have to do better! Valkyrie (2008, Blu-Ray) on Spout.com Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/9/40898.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/9/2009 10:01:13 AM
Body: There are those who think it’s time for a moratorium on Holocaust movies, and there are those who stand by the belief that there won’t be enough until there’s been 6 million produced and released. As of 2003, we were up to at least 442 titles, according to Annette Insdorf’s book Indelible Shadows. And due to last year’s boom of Holocaust-related features, it seems as though Insdorf could easily add another 100 more to the list in her next edition. But there’s no need to put an end to Holocaust films, anymore than there’s a need to cease making any genre of movie. A good film is a good film, no matter if it’s set in a concentration camp, features Nazis or merely alludes to the Shoah. And a bad movie is a bad movie, an exploitative movie is an exploitative movie and Oscar bait is Oscar bait. Beginning this Tuesday, when The Boy in the Striped Pajamas arrives on DVD, those hungering for more Holocaust movies will get another shot at seeing 2008’s contributions to the genre, but they’ll also start to see why critics were getting tired of these films. It wasn’t the subject matter, though, and it wasn’t necessarily the quantity so much as it was the quality. These days, Holocaust films are more dependent on clichés and are adversely affected by trends than ever before, even when they appear to be intent on breaking with conventions. Here is an excellent bit from a Mr.Cranky review of Defiance: Here’s the thing: the more bad Holocaust films you make, the more Holocaust clichés you employ, the more the Holocaust itself becomes a cliché. The first few Holocaust films had a message and were probably intended to be meaningful. The last hundred were commercial vehicles designed to play on audience sympathies and line the producers’ pockets with money. Ultimately, Hollywood has done what every Jew on the planet pleas desperately to never happen: made the Holocaust meaningless on a pop culture scale. As soon as filmmakers can completely abandon all ten of the following problems with the Holocaust genre, the better off we’ll be in getting to those 6 million titles without further protest. 10. The Academy Awards Cliché “The fact that it was recently nominated for a best picture Oscar offers stunning proof that Hollywood seems to believe that if it’s a ‘Holocaust film,’ it must be worthy of approbation, end of story,” wrote Ron Rosenbaum in a Slate piece earlier this year requesting that the Academy not to honor The Reader. Not every Holocaust film has a shot at winning or even being nominated for an Oscar, though. Notice the lack of Academy love this year for The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Adam Resurrected, Good, Valkyrie and, most surprisingly, the documentary Blessed is the Match. But there is nonetheless continued reason to believe that Holocaust=Oscars. The Reader snuck in with some shocking nominations, and Defiance managed a single nod, while Kate Winslet proved her own Extras gag by winning one. And then there was the predicable honoring of live-action short Spielzeugland. Why is this tradition negative? Because it encourages too many safe, conventional, mediocre contributions to the genre produced solely and clearly as Oscar bait. It’s possible The Reader might have been better if Harvey Weinstein hadn’t rushed it for a release date that would be best at acquiring Academy recognition. And the rest of 2008’s titles could have benefited as well. Hollywood needs to go a couple years without handing out a single Oscar to any Holocaust film (even if Spielberg makes Schindler’s List 2 and it’s even better than the first) to break free of the genre’s reputation for Oscar favoritism. 9. Music Cues That Stress Tragedy There are a few Holocaust movie clichés that are fine to stick around. Trains carrying Jews to their doom is an easy symbol for any WWII-set film that doesn’t directly involve concentration camps yet wants to remind the audience that it’s going on. Bleak cinematography and production design and costuming limited to a cold color scheme, particularly blues and grays, just fits the history and the tone of these films too well to eliminate (a bright, colorful Holocaust movie is so wrong that it goes passed the point of breaking conventions to instead demolish recognized truths). However, music cues in Holocaust movie scores (such as Marius Ruhland’s for The Counterfeiters) that are used to stress specific tragedies or emphasize especially harrowing moments are unnecessary and distracting. After all, these are Holocaust movies, and nothing will ever be more tragic or harrowing in the Western consciousness than the extermination of 6 million Jews. So there’s no need to enunciate the melodrama of a single character being shot or a certain event occurring, because the audience should already be feeling emotional and, unless they are robots, will respond appropriately to what’s shown rather than from what’s cued. This is of course an issue to be had with many Hollywood movies, but applies especially to their Holocaust films. 8. The Child’s Perspective While it makes sense for a lot of Holocaust films to be seen through the eyes of a child, because those children grow up to ultimately tell their Survivor story, it’s also a major cliché of any film about intolerance to involve a children’s perspective merely for the sake of having an innocent, naive and possibly precocious view of what’s happening. Certainly no youth has ever abstained from asking, “Why are they being mean to that black man, Mommy?” or “When will the Russians rescue us, Daddy?” However, such characters are more often mere narrative tools useful to filmmakers who prefer to pander to the audience, via other characters’ pandering to these children. Even a film that has the guts to have a prominent child character die in the death camps will counter with a child on the other side of the fence who has to ask the unnecessary question of, “Why are we killing the striped pajama boy, Father?” 7. The Happy-Go-Lucky Concentration Camp Prisoner Fortunately, there hasn’t been much to this trend since Robin Williams tried his shtick in the ghetto in the Jakob the Liar remake, but it’s enough that it existed. And enough that Life is Beautiful was actually quite popular. And should have been enough when Jerry Lewis tried bringing comedy to the concentration camps in The Day the Clown Cried. But Hollywood will probably resurrect the death camp comic relief for some film or other, because there’s just so much desire to lift the tension and actually entertain audiences. Yet Holocaust movies aren’t for entertainment, no matter if there were indeed some prisoners in real life that told a joke or goofed around once in awhile in order to remain positive. So Hollywood, Roberto Benigni and everyone else need to knock it off with this trend and keep the stories sad. It’s not like they put harrowing concentration camp scenes in broad comedies, after all. So why do the opposite? 6. The Good Nazi As with the happy-go-lucky prisoner, good Nazis may have existed in real life. But cinema is not supposed to be a complete representation of real life anyway, and everyone is better off just holding on to the idea that all Nazis were bad guys. The very word “Nazi” is forever equated with evil, and for eternity it will be easy to involve Nazis as villains, even in fantasy films set in modern times, without the audience questioning whether or not this one or that one was really a kindhearted man who was just doing his job or being forced to be a Nazi by his government. Good Nazis have turned up recently in the varied forms of the not-quite-Schindlerific Bernhard Kruger (Devid Striesow, pictured above) in The Counterfeiters, the relatively saintly and sexy Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch) in Black Book and, of course, the half-blind, wannabe Hitler assassin Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) in Valkyrie. 5. The Morally Ambiguous Nazi Supporter Even more prevalent lately than the good Nazi is the morally ambiguous or ambivalent character who is either a Nazi or working for the Nazis in order to survive and/or because he or she will later claim ignorance to the evils being committed. Examples include Kate Winslet’s character in The Reader, to an extent, as well as Ronnie (Halina Reijn, pictured above) in Black Book and the protagonist of The Counterfeiters, Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics). Again, it might have been a common reality for such persons to exist, but they shouldn’t be so populous in every Holocaust film made nowadays, because then it seems more excusable to believe that a good percentage of opportunist Nazi supporters weren’t all that bad. 4. The Really, Really Bad Nazi It seems that this stereotype has become a modern Holocaust movie cliché due to the increased employment of both good Nazis and morally ambiguous Nazi supporters. In Black Book, for instance, the sadistic Gunther Franken (Waldemar Kobus) is the yang to Muntze’s yin, and similarly in The Counterfeiters, Hauptscharführer Holst (Martin Bramback, highlighted in the picture above) contrasts against Kruger. As a counter-trend, though, it’s even worse than the initial clichés. Sure, it makes sense on some narrative level for there to be a really, really bad Nazi, one who’d go so far as to literally piss on the head of a protagonist (a la Holst), to make up for the fact that there’s a likable Nazi character. But why not just do away with the good Nazi trend and either return to having all Nazi characters assumed evil or merely act like three-dimensional human beings — that is, if they must be humanized? Once again, it’s best just to keep to the Nazis=evil convention, because it’s tried and true and doesn’t complicate things or cause controversies. 3. The Holocaust As Weight in Non-Holocaust Movies The fact that X-Men’s Magneto is a Holocaust survivor enriches his character, but that’s a back-story that existed and has been developed in comics long before making an appearance in the movie adaptations. But non-adapted films, particularly horror flicks, attempting to be taken more seriously due to a Holocaust subplot or back-story just seems exploitative. Take the recent movie The Unborn, for example. In her review for Tiger Online, Melissa Kim makes a good point regarding the misguided intent to give a movie more weight by involving the Holocaust, noting that the tragedy is much too important to be cast in a bit part. “The Unborn is so ridiculous,” she writes, “it actually diminishes the prestige of the Holocaust, reducing it to little more than the weak punch line in a wholly un-funny joke.” 2. The Desire to Kill Hitler This isn’t so much of a movie trend, since aside from Valkyrie the only other Hitler assassination plot movies are others based on the same 20 July plot, but it’s still something of a cliché. Really it has to do with the typical response and discussion people have regarding the possibilities and ethics of time travel. Everyone’s first realistic idea is to go back and kill Hitler before he can come to power and exterminate the Jews, right? Well, it’s quite a futile hypothetical, because there is no time travel. But, filmmakers have the power to at least visualize the hypothetical a little more by, time and time again, adapting the 20 July story for the screen. Of course, it does no good, either, because the plot was unsuccessful and no film version, even with a changed ending, will change that. And anything else would simply be wishful thinking. However, there is at least Downfall, which was surprisingly not as popular despite this idea. Viewers can take pleasure in the literal downfall and demise of Hitler in the film. It doesn’t erase what happened with the Holocaust, but there is some satisfaction to be had. 1. Claiming a Holocaust Film Isn’t a Holocaust Film Harvey Weinstein attempted to have his cake and eat it too this past awards season. He marketed The Reader to certain groups under the assumption that it is a Holocaust movie, but he also attempted to sell it off as not a Holocaust movie by including this Elie Wiesel quote in the well-distributed Reader-defense statement: “it is not about the Holocaust; it is about what Germany did to itself and its future generations.” And many critics and journalists were in agreement, that the movie doesn’t belong grouped in with the others. In a way, the film actually is and isn’t a Holocaust movie, but attempting to deny that it’s one in order to escape the genre’s inaccessibility is still misleading and somewhat dishonest marketing. Anyone going in expecting not to see a concentration camp or survivors or Nazis will be greatly disappointed. A few of 2008’s Holocaust films were also more marketable as other kinds of films than Holocaust films, probably to detach from the stigma attached to them. And at least one, Valkyrie, is for the most part not a Holocaust film at all. But it seemed to work for Weinstein, both with Academy favor and box office success. So this could be a continued trend, even with films that are clearly Holocaust Oscar-bait or films attempting to gain weight through slight Holocaust connections. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:01:13 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/9/2009 10:01:13 AMThere are those who think it’s time for a moratorium on Holocaust movies, and there are those who stand by the belief that there won’t be enough until there’s been 6 million produced and released. As of 2003, we were up to at least 442 titles, according to Annette Insdorf’s book Indelible Shadows. And due to last year’s boom of Holocaust-related features, it seems as though Insdorf could easily add another 100 more to the list in her next edition. But there’s no need to put an end to Holocaust films, anymore than there’s a need to cease making any genre of movie. A good film is a good film, no matter if it’s set in a concentration camp, features Nazis or merely alludes to the Shoah. And a bad movie is a bad movie, an exploitative movie is an exploitative movie and Oscar bait is Oscar bait. Beginning this Tuesday, when The Boy in the Striped Pajamas arrives on DVD, those hungering for more Holocaust movies will get another shot at seeing 2008’s contributions to the genre, but they’ll also start to see why critics were getting tired of these films. It wasn’t the subject matter, though, and it wasn’t necessarily the quantity so much as it was the quality. These days, Holocaust films are more dependent on clichés and are adversely affected by trends than ever before, even when they appear to be intent on breaking with conventions. Here is an excellent bit from a Mr.Cranky review of Defiance: Here’s the thing: the more bad Holocaust films you make, the more Holocaust clichés you employ, the more the Holocaust itself becomes a cliché. The first few Holocaust films had a message and were probably intended to be meaningful. The last hundred were commercial vehicles designed to play on audience sympathies and line the producers’ pockets with money. Ultimately, Hollywood has done what every Jew on the planet pleas desperately to never happen: made the Holocaust meaningless on a pop culture scale. As soon as filmmakers can completely abandon all ten of the following problems with the Holocaust genre, the better off we’ll be in getting to those 6 million titles without further protest. 10. The Academy Awards Cliché “The fact that it was recently nominated for a best picture Oscar offers stunning proof that Hollywood seems to believe that if it’s a ‘Holocaust film,’ it must be worthy of approbation, end of story,” wrote Ron Rosenbaum in a Slate piece earlier this year requesting that the Academy not to honor The Reader. Not every Holocaust film has a shot at winning or even being nominated for an Oscar, though. Notice the lack of Academy love this year for The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Adam Resurrected, Good, Valkyrie and, most surprisingly, the documentary Blessed is the Match. But there is nonetheless continued reason to believe that Holocaust=Oscars. The Reader snuck in with some shocking nominations, and Defiance managed a single nod, while Kate Winslet proved her own Extras gag by winning one. And then there was the predicable honoring of live-action short Spielzeugland. Why is this tradition negative? Because it encourages too many safe, conventional, mediocre contributions to the genre produced solely and clearly as Oscar bait. It’s possible The Reader might have been better if Harvey Weinstein hadn’t rushed it for a release date that would be best at acquiring Academy recognition. And the rest of 2008’s titles could have benefited as well. Hollywood needs to go a couple years without handing out a single Oscar to any Holocaust film (even if Spielberg makes Schindler’s List 2 and it’s even better than the first) to break free of the genre’s reputation for Oscar favoritism. 9. Music Cues That Stress Tragedy There are a few Holocaust movie clichés that are fine to stick around. Trains carrying Jews to their doom is an easy symbol for any WWII-set film that doesn’t directly involve concentration camps yet wants to remind the audience that it’s going on. Bleak cinematography and production design and costuming limited to a cold color scheme, particularly blues and grays, just fits the history and the tone of these films too well to eliminate (a bright, colorful Holocaust movie is so wrong that it goes passed the point of breaking conventions to instead demolish recognized truths). However, music cues in Holocaust movie scores (such as Marius Ruhland’s for The Counterfeiters) that are used to stress specific tragedies or emphasize especially harrowing moments are unnecessary and distracting. After all, these are Holocaust movies, and nothing will ever be more tragic or harrowing in the Western consciousness than the extermination of 6 million Jews. So there’s no need to enunciate the melodrama of a single character being shot or a certain event occurring, because the audience should already be feeling emotional and, unless they are robots, will respond appropriately to what’s shown rather than from what’s cued. This is of course an issue to be had with many Hollywood movies, but applies especially to their Holocaust films. 8. The Child’s Perspective While it makes sense for a lot of Holocaust films to be seen through the eyes of a child, because those children grow up to ultimately tell their Survivor story, it’s also a major cliché of any film about intolerance to involve a children’s perspective merely for the sake of having an innocent, naive and possibly precocious view of what’s happening. Certainly no youth has ever abstained from asking, “Why are they being mean to that black man, Mommy?” or “When will the Russians rescue us, Daddy?” However, such characters are more often mere narrative tools useful to filmmakers who prefer to pander to the audience, via other characters’ pandering to these children. Even a film that has the guts to have a prominent child character die in the death camps will counter with a child on the other side of the fence who has to ask the unnecessary question of, “Why are we killing the striped pajama boy, Father?” 7. The Happy-Go-Lucky Concentration Camp Prisoner Fortunately, there hasn’t been much to this trend since Robin Williams tried his shtick in the ghetto in the Jakob the Liar remake, but it’s enough that it existed. And enough that Life is Beautiful was actually quite popular. And should have been enough when Jerry Lewis tried bringing comedy to the concentration camps in The Day the Clown Cried. But Hollywood will probably resurrect the death camp comic relief for some film or other, because there’s just so much desire to lift the tension and actually entertain audiences. Yet Holocaust movies aren’t for entertainment, no matter if there were indeed some prisoners in real life that told a joke or goofed around once in awhile in order to remain positive. So Hollywood, Roberto Benigni and everyone else need to knock it off with this trend and keep the stories sad. It’s not like they put harrowing concentration camp scenes in broad comedies, after all. So why do the opposite? 6. The Good Nazi As with the happy-go-lucky prisoner, good Nazis may have existed in real life. But cinema is not supposed to be a complete representation of real life anyway, and everyone is better off just holding on to the idea that all Nazis were bad guys. The very word “Nazi” is forever equated with evil, and for eternity it will be easy to involve Nazis as villains, even in fantasy films set in modern times, without the audience questioning whether or not this one or that one was really a kindhearted man who was just doing his job or being forced to be a Nazi by his government. Good Nazis have turned up recently in the varied forms of the not-quite-Schindlerific Bernhard Kruger (Devid Striesow, pictured above) in The Counterfeiters, the relatively saintly and sexy Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch) in Black Book and, of course, the half-blind, wannabe Hitler assassin Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) in Valkyrie. 5. The Morally Ambiguous Nazi Supporter Even more prevalent lately than the good Nazi is the morally ambiguous or ambivalent character who is either a Nazi or working for the Nazis in order to survive and/or because he or she will later claim ignorance to the evils being committed. Examples include Kate Winslet’s character in The Reader, to an extent, as well as Ronnie (Halina Reijn, pictured above) in Black Book and the protagonist of The Counterfeiters, Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics). Again, it might have been a common reality for such persons to exist, but they shouldn’t be so populous in every Holocaust film made nowadays, because then it seems more excusable to believe that a good percentage of opportunist Nazi supporters weren’t all that bad. 4. The Really, Really Bad Nazi It seems that this stereotype has become a modern Holocaust movie cliché due to the increased employment of both good Nazis and morally ambiguous Nazi supporters. In Black Book, for instance, the sadistic Gunther Franken (Waldemar Kobus) is the yang to Muntze’s yin, and similarly in The Counterfeiters, Hauptscharführer Holst (Martin Bramback, highlighted in the picture above) contrasts against Kruger. As a counter-trend, though, it’s even worse than the initial clichés. Sure, it makes sense on some narrative level for there to be a really, really bad Nazi, one who’d go so far as to literally piss on the head of a protagonist (a la Holst), to make up for the fact that there’s a likable Nazi character. But why not just do away with the good Nazi trend and either return to having all Nazi characters assumed evil or merely act like three-dimensional human beings — that is, if they must be humanized? Once again, it’s best just to keep to the Nazis=evil convention, because it’s tried and true and doesn’t complicate things or cause controversies. 3. The Holocaust As Weight in Non-Holocaust Movies The fact that X-Men’s Magneto is a Holocaust survivor enriches his character, but that’s a back-story that existed and has been developed in comics long before making an appearance in the movie adaptations. But non-adapted films, particularly horror flicks, attempting to be taken more seriously due to a Holocaust subplot or back-story just seems exploitative. Take the recent movie The Unborn, for example. In her review for Tiger Online, Melissa Kim makes a good point regarding the misguided intent to give a movie more weight by involving the Holocaust, noting that the tragedy is much too important to be cast in a bit part. “The Unborn is so ridiculous,” she writes, “it actually diminishes the prestige of the Holocaust, reducing it to little more than the weak punch line in a wholly un-funny joke.” 2. The Desire to Kill Hitler This isn’t so much of a movie trend, since aside from Valkyrie the only other Hitler assassination plot movies are others based on the same 20 July plot, but it’s still something of a cliché. Really it has to do with the typical response and discussion people have regarding the possibilities and ethics of time travel. Everyone’s first realistic idea is to go back and kill Hitler before he can come to power and exterminate the Jews, right? Well, it’s quite a futile hypothetical, because there is no time travel. But, filmmakers have the power to at least visualize the hypothetical a little more by, time and time again, adapting the 20 July story for the screen. Of course, it does no good, either, because the plot was unsuccessful and no film version, even with a changed ending, will change that. And anything else would simply be wishful thinking. However, there is at least Downfall, which was surprisingly not as popular despite this idea. Viewers can take pleasure in the literal downfall and demise of Hitler in the film. It doesn’t erase what happened with the Holocaust, but there is some satisfaction to be had. 1. Claiming a Holocaust Film Isn’t a Holocaust Film Harvey Weinstein attempted to have his cake and eat it too this past awards season. He marketed The Reader to certain groups under the assumption that it is a Holocaust movie, but he also attempted to sell it off as not a Holocaust movie by including this Elie Wiesel quote in the well-distributed Reader-defense statement: “it is not about the Holocaust; it is about what Germany did to itself and its future generations.” And many critics and journalists were in agreement, that the movie doesn’t belong grouped in with the others. In a way, the film actually is and isn’t a Holocaust movie, but attempting to deny that it’s one in order to escape the genre’s inaccessibility is still misleading and somewhat dishonest marketing. Anyone going in expecting not to see a concentration camp or survivors or Nazis will be greatly disappointed. A few of 2008’s Holocaust films were also more marketable as other kinds of films than Holocaust films, probably to detach from the stigma attached to them. And at least one, Valkyrie, is for the most part not a Holocaust film at all. But it seemed to work for Weinstein, both with Academy favor and box office success. So this could be a continued trend, even with films that are clearly Holocaust Oscar-bait or films attempting to gain weight through slight Holocaust connections. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/27/39965.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/27/2009 1:01:20 PM
Body: In 10 out of 14 years, the winner of the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role has gone on to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. If this year marks the 11th such congruence, Meryl Streep will take home the Oscar. Yet there is an odd circumstance with the Academy’s nominations that hurts Streep’s chances. Another one of the Academy’s Best Actress contenders also received a SAG Award Sunday night: Kate Winslet, who won the supporting actress trophy for The Reader. At the Oscars, this role has been recognized as a lead performance, one that is likely a favorite to win. Yes, it is a strange situation, one that shocked and confused Oscar prognosticators (especially this writer) on Thursday morning. Winslet’s Reader performance was campaigned as a supporting role, and she was recognized as such by the Golden Globes, the Broadcast Film Critics Association, the Chicago Film Critics Association and of course the Screen Actors Guild. A few organizations did nominate her for a lead award for The Reader, though few people take the Satellites seriously, and the BAFTA Awards are different than most in that they permit Winslet to compete against herself in the same category (she is also nominated for Best Leading Actress for Revolutionary Road). Some now believe the Academy’s deviation will in fact cost Winslet the Oscar she could have won in the supporting field. Either voters will be confused about what film she’s nominated for (unless I’m simply less observant than elderly Academy members, which may indeed be the case), or she will now split the majority vote with Streep and thus allow Anne Hathaway or Melissa Leo to slip ahead (Angelina Jolie is believed to have no shot). Another idea is that voters will dismiss Winslet due to doubts over which category the performance belongs in. But since enough members of the Academy made it a point to nominate her as lead actress in the first place, this is hardly a reasonable theory. Also potentially without merit is the Holocaust factor, which seems to be the most popular argument for why Winslet is now a shoo-in to win the Oscar. This is an old favorite for Oscar oddsmakers, but it may not actually apply here. Still, when The Reader made surprise appearances in the Best Picture and Best Director categories last Thursday, one of the first familiar quotes to show up online was “there’s no business like Shoah business.” Yet the Academy already failed to nominate shortlisted documentary Blessed Is the Match, despite its Holocaust subject matter, and they also ignored related features such as The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Adam Resurrected, Good and Valkyrie (meanwhile Defiance was only recognized by the music branch). So, certainly the Holocaust fetish thing is not a sure thing. It doesn’t even necessarily carry over to Israeli Oscar nominee Waltz With Bashir, as much as people may try to tie that documentary’s favorable odds to its association with the oft-mocked trend (actually could the doc now suffer with pro-Israel Academy members if it makes them think too much about war crimes committed against Palestinians?). Also, Winslet’s role as a sympathetic concentration camp guard should be as exclusive to the fetish as was (her Reader co-star) Bruno Ganz’s brilliant, Oscar-worthy portrayal of Hitler in Downfall. Even if she has told press that she neither liked nor sympathized with her character. So, then, what are plausible factors in Winslet’s likelihood of winning the Oscar? Well, there is the damage caused by Streep, who has certain advantage in the race for winning the lead SAG Award (which she apparently expected to lose to Winslet), as well as for winning kudos from critic circles, such as the Broadcast Film Critics Association (where she tied with Hathaway). Yet on the other hand, there are all those supporting wins in Winslet and The Reader’s favor, not to mention the triumph she had over Streep at the Golden Globes, even if it was recognition for another performance. There is also the belief that this is simply Winslet’s year to win after losing five previous Oscar races. However, as much as it seems Streep doesn’t need another Academy Award, she has in fact lost her last ten Oscar bids and hasn’t won in more than 25 years. Meanwhile, Winslet has plenty of great years left in her and will surely have more chances in the future. One additional factor could put Winslet’s odds just past Streep’s, and that factor’s name is Harvey Weinstein. Whether the Oscar-hungry exec is simply holding his high ground with the Academy or he’s making a greater push for his company’s film in order to spite Scott Rudin (producer of Streep’s film, Doubt, and a former producer of The Reader) is unclear and beside the point. Many people immediately cursed his name when they saw The Reader make its surprise appearances in the top categories (Nikki Finke believes the film partly prevailed because the Academy wanted to honor Rudin, Winslet and Daldry for having to put up with “that nasty oaf”). Even better than the Harvey factor, though, is the actual quality of Winslet’s work. Sure, worth of talent is all but dead in the modern Hollywood, particularly where the Oscars are concerned, but as a deal breaker in a race between two actresses who are truly brilliant thespians, it could very well be consequential. And between Winslet and Streep, this year the former has the advantage. Streep’s Oscar-nominated role has been viewed by some as overdone, and her other performance in 2008 was in a musical comedy. Winslet, on the other hand, will benefit for giving two Oscar-worthy lead performances, only one of which was nominated. And any voters who initially made the attempt to nominate her for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road may surely choose Winslet with that other unrecognized performance in mind (Anne Thompson agrees she’ll win for both films). With another neck-and-neck race in the Best Actor category and (also thanks to the Academy’s unpredictable deviation from the Winslet campaigns) a lack of a frontrunner in the Best Supporting Actress race, this year’s Oscars are shaping up to be a difficult game to bet on. Knowing that the Academy can be counted on for surprises, it’s possible that Streep will win. Even Hathaway may have a shot (though her time will more likely come from a future supporting role). But if you’re a gambling man who hates to lose, I’d recommend putting your chips on Winslet for Best Actress. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:01:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/27/2009 1:01:20 PMIn 10 out of 14 years, the winner of the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role has gone on to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. If this year marks the 11th such congruence, Meryl Streep will take home the Oscar. Yet there is an odd circumstance with the Academy’s nominations that hurts Streep’s chances. Another one of the Academy’s Best Actress contenders also received a SAG Award Sunday night: Kate Winslet, who won the supporting actress trophy for The Reader. At the Oscars, this role has been recognized as a lead performance, one that is likely a favorite to win. Yes, it is a strange situation, one that shocked and confused Oscar prognosticators (especially this writer) on Thursday morning. Winslet’s Reader performance was campaigned as a supporting role, and she was recognized as such by the Golden Globes, the Broadcast Film Critics Association, the Chicago Film Critics Association and of course the Screen Actors Guild. A few organizations did nominate her for a lead award for The Reader, though few people take the Satellites seriously, and the BAFTA Awards are different than most in that they permit Winslet to compete against herself in the same category (she is also nominated for Best Leading Actress for Revolutionary Road). Some now believe the Academy’s deviation will in fact cost Winslet the Oscar she could have won in the supporting field. Either voters will be confused about what film she’s nominated for (unless I’m simply less observant than elderly Academy members, which may indeed be the case), or she will now split the majority vote with Streep and thus allow Anne Hathaway or Melissa Leo to slip ahead (Angelina Jolie is believed to have no shot). Another idea is that voters will dismiss Winslet due to doubts over which category the performance belongs in. But since enough members of the Academy made it a point to nominate her as lead actress in the first place, this is hardly a reasonable theory. Also potentially without merit is the Holocaust factor, which seems to be the most popular argument for why Winslet is now a shoo-in to win the Oscar. This is an old favorite for Oscar oddsmakers, but it may not actually apply here. Still, when The Reader made surprise appearances in the Best Picture and Best Director categories last Thursday, one of the first familiar quotes to show up online was “there’s no business like Shoah business.” Yet the Academy already failed to nominate shortlisted documentary Blessed Is the Match, despite its Holocaust subject matter, and they also ignored related features such as The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Adam Resurrected, Good and Valkyrie (meanwhile Defiance was only recognized by the music branch). So, certainly the Holocaust fetish thing is not a sure thing. It doesn’t even necessarily carry over to Israeli Oscar nominee Waltz With Bashir, as much as people may try to tie that documentary’s favorable odds to its association with the oft-mocked trend (actually could the doc now suffer with pro-Israel Academy members if it makes them think too much about war crimes committed against Palestinians?). Also, Winslet’s role as a sympathetic concentration camp guard should be as exclusive to the fetish as was (her Reader co-star) Bruno Ganz’s brilliant, Oscar-worthy portrayal of Hitler in Downfall. Even if she has told press that she neither liked nor sympathized with her character. So, then, what are plausible factors in Winslet’s likelihood of winning the Oscar? Well, there is the damage caused by Streep, who has certain advantage in the race for winning the lead SAG Award (which she apparently expected to lose to Winslet), as well as for winning kudos from critic circles, such as the Broadcast Film Critics Association (where she tied with Hathaway). Yet on the other hand, there are all those supporting wins in Winslet and The Reader’s favor, not to mention the triumph she had over Streep at the Golden Globes, even if it was recognition for another performance. There is also the belief that this is simply Winslet’s year to win after losing five previous Oscar races. However, as much as it seems Streep doesn’t need another Academy Award, she has in fact lost her last ten Oscar bids and hasn’t won in more than 25 years. Meanwhile, Winslet has plenty of great years left in her and will surely have more chances in the future. One additional factor could put Winslet’s odds just past Streep’s, and that factor’s name is Harvey Weinstein. Whether the Oscar-hungry exec is simply holding his high ground with the Academy or he’s making a greater push for his company’s film in order to spite Scott Rudin (producer of Streep’s film, Doubt, and a former producer of The Reader) is unclear and beside the point. Many people immediately cursed his name when they saw The Reader make its surprise appearances in the top categories (Nikki Finke believes the film partly prevailed because the Academy wanted to honor Rudin, Winslet and Daldry for having to put up with “that nasty oaf”). Even better than the Harvey factor, though, is the actual quality of Winslet’s work. Sure, worth of talent is all but dead in the modern Hollywood, particularly where the Oscars are concerned, but as a deal breaker in a race between two actresses who are truly brilliant thespians, it could very well be consequential. And between Winslet and Streep, this year the former has the advantage. Streep’s Oscar-nominated role has been viewed by some as overdone, and her other performance in 2008 was in a musical comedy. Winslet, on the other hand, will benefit for giving two Oscar-worthy lead performances, only one of which was nominated. And any voters who initially made the attempt to nominate her for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road may surely choose Winslet with that other unrecognized performance in mind (Anne Thompson agrees she’ll win for both films). With another neck-and-neck race in the Best Actor category and (also thanks to the Academy’s unpredictable deviation from the Winslet campaigns) a lack of a frontrunner in the Best Supporting Actress race, this year’s Oscars are shaping up to be a difficult game to bet on. Knowing that the Academy can be counted on for surprises, it’s possible that Streep will win. Even Hathaway may have a shot (though her time will more likely come from a future supporting role). But if you’re a gambling man who hates to lose, I’d recommend putting your chips on Winslet for Best Actress. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Coming_Soon/New_Movies_1_23_Babes_vs_Vikings/216/39679/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: spout
Post To: Coming Soon
Post Date: 1/19/2009 5:16:06 PM
Body: 1. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans -- Watch the trailer. In the much-awaited sequel Underwear: Rise of the Lycra, we learn that a wicked wedgie has taken the life of Kate Beckinsale. Replacing Beckinsale is Rhona Mitra, one of the toughest chicks I've ever seen in film. (Fans of post-apocalyptic horror should check out Neil Marshal's Doomsday. Watch the trailer.) Fleshing out the cast are Martin Sheen and the excellent Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Valkyrie). Nighy gave a hint about his role at the Comic-Con preview: "I’m a vampire, I’m a zombie, and I’m a squid. How many people do you know who can make that claim?" I don't know, but I've eaten those three kinds of meat at one sitting. How many can make that claim? Rise of the Lycra was preceded by Underwear: Elle Macpherson (watch trailer) and the original Underwear (watch trailer). Now, onto the next movie: 2. Inkheart -- Watch the trailer. Hey, speaking of Brendan Fraser, recast Encino Man to win a t-shirt. 3. Killshot -- Watch the trailer. What's more mysterious: when untalented people make a good film, or when talented people make a bad film? Since Killshot's release was bumped five times and was almost a direct-to-DVD release, it seems producer Harvey Weinstein just wants the film to go away. Read more. Still, there might be some potential here since it came from an Elmore Leonard novel. 4. Outlander (limited release) -- Watch the trailer. Wow, Vikings vs. aliens! I want this to be good, but since it's another film that Harvey Weinstein wanted to disappear, it's probably not. And darn it, why do they have to show the monster in the trailer? Outlander looks about as good as Pathfinder (2007), which was Vikings vs. Native Americans, or The 13th Warrior, which was Vikings vs. a Middle Eastern scholar. What kind of Viking match-ups would you like to see? How about Vikings vs. Predator? P.S., I really dug that Vikings vs. Tomb Raider movie, Beowulf (2006).
]]>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:16:06 GMTspoutComing Soon1/19/2009 5:16:06 PM 1. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans -- Watch the trailer. In the much-awaited sequel Underwear: Rise of the Lycra, we learn that a wicked wedgie has taken the life of Kate Beckinsale. Replacing Beckinsale is Rhona Mitra, one of the toughest chicks I've ever seen in film. (Fans of post-apocalyptic horror should check out Neil Marshal's Doomsday. Watch the trailer.) Fleshing out the cast are Martin Sheen and the excellent Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Valkyrie). Nighy gave a hint about his role at the Comic-Con preview: "I&rsquo;m a vampire, I&rsquo;m a zombie, and I&rsquo;m a squid. How many people do you know who can make that claim?" I don't know, but I've eaten those three kinds of meat at one sitting. How many can make that claim? Rise of the Lycra was preceded by Underwear: Elle Macpherson (watch trailer) and the original Underwear (watch trailer). Now, onto the next movie: 2. Inkheart -- Watch the trailer. Hey, speaking of Brendan Fraser, recast Encino Man to win a t-shirt. 3. Killshot -- Watch the trailer. What's more mysterious: when untalented people make a good film, or when talented people make a bad film? Since Killshot's release was bumped five times and was almost a direct-to-DVD release, it seems producer Harvey Weinstein just wants the film to go away. Read more. Still, there might be some potential here since it came from an Elmore Leonard novel. 4. Outlander (limited release) -- Watch the trailer. Wow, Vikings vs. aliens! I want this to be good, but since it's another film that Harvey Weinstein wanted to disappear, it's probably not. And darn it, why do they have to show the monster in the trailer? Outlander looks about as good as Pathfinder (2007), which was Vikings vs. Native Americans, or The 13th Warrior, which was Vikings vs. a Middle Eastern scholar. What kind of Viking match-ups would you like to see? How about Vikings vs. Predator? P.S., I really dug that Vikings vs. Tomb Raider movie, Beowulf (2006). http://www.spout.com/blogs/mikeegogo/archive/2009/1/10/39337.aspx Post By: mikeegogo
Post To: mikeegogo Blog
Post Date: 1/10/2009 12:01:46 AM
Body: But how could we have known what a complete snooz the whole movie could be. From the opening dubbed over German w English subtitles to when thankfully Tom Cruise (at least the character he played) gets killed at the end (MGM and Tom Cruise deserve the same fateful death ) High hopes, Not so much
]]>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:01:46 GMTmikeegogomikeegogo Blog1/10/2009 12:01:46 AMBut how could we have known what a complete snooz the whole movie could be. From the opening dubbed over German w English subtitles to when thankfully Tom Cruise (at least the character he played) gets killed at the end (MGM and Tom Cruise deserve the same fateful death ) High hopes, Not so much http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2009/1/2/39032.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 1/2/2009 5:03:54 AM
Body: The immediate appeal of Valkyrie is its apparent camp value, demonstrated byits awful, inappropriate trailer- Tom Cruise as a Nazi with an eye patch. The fact that the movie is by Brian Singer, a commercially successful filmmaker whose pictures I have always found lacking in heart meant that I did not exactly bound into the theatre (My friend and I were supposed to see another film but we arrived late). I expected a boring, empty movie and pleasantly surprised to find that Valkyrie is an effective piece of cinema. Fans of Cruise (which will probably make up most of the audience) will probably be disappointed that he abandons his usual charmingly arrogant persona and gives perhaps the most understated performance of his career. He’s good in the role and wears the eyepatch without looking ridiculous, but I wouldn’t be surprised if many complain that they didn’t get what they expect from a Cruise picture. It’s proof that sometimes being a movie star gets in the way of an audience’s inability to see an actor. Set Cruise’s persona and bizarre personal behavior aside, and you’ll believe that you are looking at Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Stauffenberg was an instrumental figure in the German resistance to the Third Reich and came painfully close to assassinating Hitler in 1944, the subject for the film. The idea was brave, heroic, and somewhat ingenious – after Stauffenberg plants a bomb that should kill the Fuhrer, accomplices will institute Operation Valkyrie- a backstop employed by Hitler to prevent a coup by the SS, meaning that the military will overturn his government while thinking they are supporting it. Although the film has a few scenes with Stauffenberg’s wife (Carice van Houten), Valkyrie is essentially a heist film, albeit a very, very serious one. I liked, however, that the plan was so complex and intricately detailed, which gives the film an air of plausibility that a lot WWII films lack. To a degree, however, this is also a flaw of the picture, as I wanted to know why these particular officers realized that the Third Reich’s evil policies must be stopped, when so many Germans at the time did not. Whatever the reasoning, they must be given credit for it. The movie ends with a quote from the German resistance memorial, stating that these men did not bear the shame that so many in the rest of the country did. There story deserves to be told, and while not a great film, Valkyrie does a good job in telling part of it.
]]>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:03:54 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog1/2/2009 5:03:54 AMThe immediate appeal of Valkyrie is its apparent camp value, demonstrated byits awful, inappropriate trailer- Tom Cruise as a Nazi with an eye patch. The fact that the movie is by Brian Singer, a commercially successful filmmaker whose pictures I have always found lacking in heart meant that I did not exactly bound into the theatre (My friend and I were supposed to see another film but we arrived late). I expected a boring, empty movie and pleasantly surprised to find that Valkyrie is an effective piece of cinema. Fans of Cruise (which will probably make up most of the audience) will probably be disappointed that he abandons his usual charmingly arrogant persona and gives perhaps the most understated performance of his career. He&rsquo;s good in the role and wears the eyepatch without looking ridiculous, but I wouldn&rsquo;t be surprised if many complain that they didn&rsquo;t get what they expect from a Cruise picture. It&rsquo;s proof that sometimes being a movie star gets in the way of an audience&rsquo;s inability to see an actor. Set Cruise&rsquo;s persona and bizarre personal behavior aside, and you&rsquo;ll believe that you are looking at Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Stauffenberg was an instrumental figure in the German resistance to the Third Reich and came painfully close to assassinating Hitler in 1944, the subject for the film. The idea was brave, heroic, and somewhat ingenious &ndash; after Stauffenberg plants a bomb that should kill the Fuhrer, accomplices will institute Operation Valkyrie- a backstop employed by Hitler to prevent a coup by the SS, meaning that the military will overturn his government while thinking they are supporting it. Although the film has a few scenes with Stauffenberg&rsquo;s wife (Carice van Houten), Valkyrie is essentially a heist film, albeit a very, very serious one. I liked, however, that the plan was so complex and intricately detailed, which gives the film an air of plausibility that a lot WWII films lack. To a degree, however, this is also a flaw of the picture, as I wanted to know why these particular officers realized that the Third Reich&rsquo;s evil policies must be stopped, when so many Germans at the time did not. Whatever the reasoning, they must be given credit for it. The movie ends with a quote from the German resistance memorial, stating that these men did not bear the shame that so many in the rest of the country did. There story deserves to be told, and while not a great film, Valkyrie does a good job in telling part of it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2009/1/1/39022.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 1/1/2009 5:17:44 PM
Body: Valkyrie (2008, USA, Brian Singer) ** Clearly, there is something entertaining about trying to kill the world’s best movie villain- Hitler, leader of the (dare I say?) NAZIS!!! Yes, the same Nazi’s that grace Indiana Jones. And now in Valkyrie American icon Tom Cruise plays Claus von Stauffenberg- a Nazi who attempts to assassinate Hitler. Fortunately, Stauffenberg is not the villain Nazi we American’s know so well. He is the leader of American dreams- our dreams to stop an unstoppable evil force. Stauffenberg’s mission then is to show American’s that, contrary to what the movies tell us, not all Germans are evil Jew killing Nazis. Cruise reprises his iconic role as a confident to the point of arrogant, unswerving individual, headstrong hero (as best seen in Top Gun and Mission Impossible). The historical Stauffenberg tells a fellow conspirator in their first meeting "Let's be blunt, I am committing high treason with all my might and main...." Such boldness from the historical person gives a fair clue into the (slightly odd) casting choice of Cruise as a German Nazi (Who thought Cruise could convincingly portray a German?). Though Cruise will always be American, his strength as Stauffenberg is this shared confidence in themselves and in their missions. Cruise’s natural intensity on screen fits the character needed to assassinate the ultimate villain. Only in this movie, Cruise is so powerful that he intimidates Hitler. What kind of villain is this Hitler? This pale, meek Hitler bends at the knee at the sight of Cruise then lavishes him with the highest praise. This Hitler loves Cruise so much that he jumps at the chance to sign any document Cruise brings him. This trust seems most inspired by worship. Cruise has all the power but unfortunately, Hitler has all the luck. Luck, the element Gen. Ludwig Beck (Terrence Stamp) warns Stauffenberg of when he reminds, “Nothing ever goes according to plan”. Why is it that the gods seem to be on the side of evil? How could God protect the man who most deserves to die? These men have done all that’s humanly possible to do what’s right and yet they fail. However, because of the form of the movie, this tragedy is overlooked. Bryan Singer transforms history into a heist movie (of the conspiracy thriller kind). As typical of heist movies, Valkyrie has a three-act plot. In the first act the team comes together, the originators find their main conspirator Stauffenberg, and together they begin preparations for the coup. In heist fashion, the movie explains the type of bomb being used, explores the details of the room where the bomb will be detonated, and emphasizes the danger and shortage of time they will have to complete the assassination plot and initiate Operation Valkyrie. In the second act, Cruise plays mission impossible. He carries out the plan and puts Operation Valkyrie into effect. In the third act, things go wrong. Hopefully people know that Hitler does not die (he poisoned and shot himself). Though life does not go according to plan, Stauffenberg heroically proclaims, “Long live our Holy Germany!”. The heist movie formula does not support tragedy because characters are traded for plot details. Character motivations are lost. The movie never explores why a member of Hitler’s party would turn on his leader? What conflicts would Stauffenberg have in putting his family at risk? Why is this mission so essential to their moral fiber? And the tragedy of the failed mission is not felt. Why was Hitler so lucky? Is there any justice in the world? Most people know how Hitler died and so there is no suspense. Bryan Singer creates a false suspense by only revealing what Stauffenberg and the other conspirators’ think happened to Hitler, but we already know what they don’t. In the end, Singer tries to heighten the suspense but he should have heighted the sense of tragedy.
]]>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:17:44 GMTkristenkristen Blog1/1/2009 5:17:44 PM Valkyrie (2008, USA, Brian Singer) ** Clearly, there is something entertaining about trying to kill the world&rsquo;s best movie villain- Hitler, leader of the (dare I say?) NAZIS!!! Yes, the same Nazi&rsquo;s that grace Indiana Jones. And now in Valkyrie American icon Tom Cruise plays Claus von Stauffenberg- a Nazi who attempts to assassinate Hitler. Fortunately, Stauffenberg is not the villain Nazi we American&rsquo;s know so well. He is the leader of American dreams- our dreams to stop an unstoppable evil force. Stauffenberg&rsquo;s mission then is to show American&rsquo;s that, contrary to what the movies tell us, not all Germans are evil Jew killing Nazis. Cruise reprises his iconic role as a confident to the point of arrogant, unswerving individual, headstrong hero (as best seen in Top Gun and Mission Impossible). The historical Stauffenberg tells a fellow conspirator in their first meeting "Let's be blunt, I am committing high treason with all my might and main...." Such boldness from the historical person gives a fair clue into the (slightly odd) casting choice of Cruise as a German Nazi (Who thought Cruise could convincingly portray a German?). Though Cruise will always be American, his strength as Stauffenberg is this shared confidence in themselves and in their missions. Cruise&rsquo;s natural intensity on screen fits the character needed to assassinate the ultimate villain. Only in this movie, Cruise is so powerful that he intimidates Hitler. What kind of villain is this Hitler? This pale, meek Hitler bends at the knee at the sight of Cruise then lavishes him with the highest praise. This Hitler loves Cruise so much that he jumps at the chance to sign any document Cruise brings him. This trust seems most inspired by worship. Cruise has all the power but unfortunately, Hitler has all the luck. Luck, the element Gen. Ludwig Beck (Terrence Stamp) warns Stauffenberg of when he reminds, &ldquo;Nothing ever goes according to plan&rdquo;. Why is it that the gods seem to be on the side of evil? How could God protect the man who most deserves to die? These men have done all that&rsquo;s humanly possible to do what&rsquo;s right and yet they fail. However, because of the form of the movie, this tragedy is overlooked. Bryan Singer transforms history into a heist movie (of the conspiracy thriller kind). As typical of heist movies, Valkyrie has a three-act plot. In the first act the team comes together, the originators find their main conspirator Stauffenberg, and together they begin preparations for the coup. In heist fashion, the movie explains the type of bomb being used, explores the details of the room where the bomb will be detonated, and emphasizes the danger and shortage of time they will have to complete the assassination plot and initiate Operation Valkyrie. In the second act, Cruise plays mission impossible. He carries out the plan and puts Operation Valkyrie into effect. In the third act, things go wrong. Hopefully people know that Hitler does not die (he poisoned and shot himself). Though life does not go according to plan, Stauffenberg heroically proclaims, &ldquo;Long live our Holy Germany!&rdquo;. The heist movie formula does not support tragedy because characters are traded for plot details. Character motivations are lost. The movie never explores why a member of Hitler&rsquo;s party would turn on his leader? What conflicts would Stauffenberg have in putting his family at risk? Why is this mission so essential to their moral fiber? And the tragedy of the failed mission is not felt. Why was Hitler so lucky? Is there any justice in the world? Most people know how Hitler died and so there is no suspense. Bryan Singer creates a false suspense by only revealing what Stauffenberg and the other conspirators&rsquo; think happened to Hitler, but we already know what they don&rsquo;t. In the end, Singer tries to heighten the suspense but he should have heighted the sense of tragedy. http://www.spout.com/blogs/mciocco/archive/2008/12/28/38898.aspx Post By: mciocco
Post To: mciocco Blog
Post Date: 12/28/2008 8:59:23 PM
Body: In no particular order, some movies I saw during my Christmas vacation: Paranoid Park - Apparently high school is just as boring and arbitrary as I remember it, even if you've killed someone and are trying to evade the police. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Probably didn't need to be as long as it was, but it was far better than what the preview lead me to believe. On the other hand, it's not something I can picture myself watching over and over again like I can with some of Fincher's other films. Will probably earn a top 10 slot whenever I get around to compiling such a list for 2008. Milk - I guess I'm the only person in the world to think that it's possible that Milk doesn't do a body good. I just couldn't connect with this movie. While it's well made and Penn's performance is great, I can't get over the usual biopic lameness. I guess I just don't like biopics in general, and this one is no different. It seems to me that this subject is much more ideally suited to a documentary (which was already made 25 years ago). Valkyrie - Not nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but not particularly good either. It's a perfectly serviceable thriller and there is some tension despite the fact that everyone knows how it will turn out. However, like Milk, I think I might have rather watched a documentary on the subject. Man on Wire - Finally caught up with this documentary and wasn't disappointed. Perhaps not as great as the reviews would have you believe, but still interesting and entertaining doc about a high wire walker who did a daring show between the two towers in NY. Plays out a little like a heist film, but without the blatant theft. Also refreshing to see a movie about the WTC without having the filmmakers make some sort of tired political statement. Frost/Nixon - A bit meandering, but the whole thing builds to a climax that delivers. I kinda wish more attention was paid to the preparation and the actual mechanics of the interview, rather than constantly harping on the fact that the interview didn't have solid financial backing. I realize that the financial situation was probably foremost on Frost's mind during the interviews, but while it needs to be part of the story, I thought it took up too much time and brought down an otherwise pretty good film. It also makes the last interview session come off more as luck than anything else... but then, perhaps that's actually true... I know, perhaps a documen... alright, fine, I'll stop with that particular refrain.
]]>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:59:23 GMTmcioccomciocco Blog12/28/2008 8:59:23 PMIn no particular order, some movies I saw during my Christmas vacation: Paranoid Park - Apparently high school is just as boring and arbitrary as I remember it, even if you've killed someone and are trying to evade the police. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Probably didn't need to be as long as it was, but it was far better than what the preview lead me to believe. On the other hand, it's not something I can picture myself watching over and over again like I can with some of Fincher's other films. Will probably earn a top 10 slot whenever I get around to compiling such a list for 2008. Milk - I guess I'm the only person in the world to think that it's possible that Milk doesn't do a body good. I just couldn't connect with this movie. While it's well made and Penn's performance is great, I can't get over the usual biopic lameness. I guess I just don't like biopics in general, and this one is no different. It seems to me that this subject is much more ideally suited to a documentary (which was already made 25 years ago). Valkyrie - Not nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but not particularly good either. It's a perfectly serviceable thriller and there is some tension despite the fact that everyone knows how it will turn out. However, like Milk, I think I might have rather watched a documentary on the subject. Man on Wire - Finally caught up with this documentary and wasn't disappointed. Perhaps not as great as the reviews would have you believe, but still interesting and entertaining doc about a high wire walker who did a daring show between the two towers in NY. Plays out a little like a heist film, but without the blatant theft. Also refreshing to see a movie about the WTC without having the filmmakers make some sort of tired political statement. Frost/Nixon - A bit meandering, but the whole thing builds to a climax that delivers. I kinda wish more attention was paid to the preparation and the actual mechanics of the interview, rather than constantly harping on the fact that the interview didn't have solid financial backing. I realize that the financial situation was probably foremost on Frost's mind during the interviews, but while it needs to be part of the story, I thought it took up too much time and brought down an otherwise pretty good film. It also makes the last interview session come off more as luck than anything else... but then, perhaps that's actually true... I know, perhaps a documen... alright, fine, I'll stop with that particular refrain. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/24/38807.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/24/2008 10:02:49 AM
Body: We’ve known for months that absolutely nothing was wrong with Valkyrie, and now we’re just a few days away from watching this tiny independent feature storm the box office, redeem United Artists as a production entity and make Tom Cruise a respectable household name again. Of course, there is the slight problem: he’s portraying Nazi Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who may have disagreed with the party politics, but still rocked the swastika and straight salute.  How exactly did Cruise, one of the great symbols of the “Blockbuster Film” and American culture, wind up so perfectly suited as a crippled, over-zealous Nazi embroiled in conspiracy? We’ve excavated evidence from his filmography to track the transformation. Taps As resident wide-eyed reactionary Cadet Captain David Shawn, Cruise is always ready to go out guns blazing. After their coup to keep the Bunker Hill military school, the boy soldiers are dwindling, tired and worn-out after playing pretend guerillas costs a few lives.  As they finally give up when the real Army threatens to come in with a tank, Cadet Captain Cruise gets to showcase his suicidal genius: take on a tank with an M60 Machine Gun from his “fortified bunker” (read: dorm room) after everyone else has surrendered.  Later, he’d still have the right idea (use a suitcase bomb to kill Hitler) but wrong way to do it (placing said suitcase under heavy oak table, killing others but leaving Hitler with a few minor injuries.) Magnolia If there’s one necessity over all others to be a convincing Nazi, it is possessing the ability to brainwash the masses with the most general of terms.  Cruise’s Frank Mackey is slimy, misogynistic and has a loyal cadre of slobs who’d do anything he commands. Why? Because they all have cocks and that means they’re pre-destined to rule their homes/relationships/beds and women must respect them thanks to “Seduce and Destroy.”  Stalking around the stage, Cruise perfects the magnetism for converting those of weak minds to do his bidding. Mackey plays brilliantly on inadequacy and makes further strategic choices to disarm those around him (ie: doing press in his underwear, breaking down when he realizes his persona is cracking.) Born on the Fourth of July Of course, when considering ideology, one must also take into account copious baby killing and twisted politics. Ron Kovic (Cruise) starts out a patriot ready to die for his country, but becomes horrified by the haphazard war he’s been thrown into: opening fire on a defenseless village, accidently murdering one of his own in friendly-fire and then being shoved away into a decrepit facility in the Bronx where he may as well be dead.  Kovic drifts into miserable alcoholism and tries to recover from being the victim, but not before this scene with Charlie (Willem Dafoe) as his veneer shatters.   The quiet dread here would lead to Kovic would going forth and fighting for Veterans’ rights, and can be paralleled to von Stauffenberg’s own break-down that lead to leading the insurrection. Minority Report Nothing says “Nazi Training” like teaming up with Steven Spielberg on a film wedding crazed government officials, secret police and Max von Sydow.  As the head of the “Precrime” unit in Washington, D.C., Tom Cruise expertly knows how to find untrustworthy scum and black-market organs—especially when he’s on the run for a crime he didn’t commit (yet.)  Spielberg is a fan of the chase, whether it be by dinosaur or Ralph Fiennes. And you don’t get much more training in “how to run from authority figures” than when they use jetpacks. Of course, later, Cruise would likely ask Bryan Singer if the whole “metaphorical” sense of cat-and-mouse could be replaced with jetpacks.  Bryan Singer probably broke down sobbing at that point. We assume. Endless Love Spinning information may be one of the most important assets to the Nazi Party, but especially if you’re in the middle of high treason and an assassination attempt. Fitting then that Cruise’s first role got him into this right from the start, as a guy in cut-offs named Billy who recommends to David (Martin Hewitt) try out arson.  “I lit a whole pile of newspapers, you ever try to light a whole pile of wet newspapers? Geeze, it smokes like crazy” he shrieks in nasal tones.  “Do you want to hear the wild part? It’s like I’m a hero or something! They thought I saved the whole block! To this day, my mother thinks I’m a hero!” David leaves, inspired to mimic this same act and eventually wind up in a mental institution. Cruise cackles off-screen, having taken the first steps toward Valkyrie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:02:49 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/24/2008 10:02:49 AMWe’ve known for months that absolutely nothing was wrong with Valkyrie, and now we’re just a few days away from watching this tiny independent feature storm the box office, redeem United Artists as a production entity and make Tom Cruise a respectable household name again. Of course, there is the slight problem: he’s portraying Nazi Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who may have disagreed with the party politics, but still rocked the swastika and straight salute.  How exactly did Cruise, one of the great symbols of the “Blockbuster Film” and American culture, wind up so perfectly suited as a crippled, over-zealous Nazi embroiled in conspiracy? We’ve excavated evidence from his filmography to track the transformation. Taps As resident wide-eyed reactionary Cadet Captain David Shawn, Cruise is always ready to go out guns blazing. After their coup to keep the Bunker Hill military school, the boy soldiers are dwindling, tired and worn-out after playing pretend guerillas costs a few lives.  As they finally give up when the real Army threatens to come in with a tank, Cadet Captain Cruise gets to showcase his suicidal genius: take on a tank with an M60 Machine Gun from his “fortified bunker” (read: dorm room) after everyone else has surrendered.  Later, he’d still have the right idea (use a suitcase bomb to kill Hitler) but wrong way to do it (placing said suitcase under heavy oak table, killing others but leaving Hitler with a few minor injuries.) Magnolia If there’s one necessity over all others to be a convincing Nazi, it is possessing the ability to brainwash the masses with the most general of terms.  Cruise’s Frank Mackey is slimy, misogynistic and has a loyal cadre of slobs who’d do anything he commands. Why? Because they all have cocks and that means they’re pre-destined to rule their homes/relationships/beds and women must respect them thanks to “Seduce and Destroy.”  Stalking around the stage, Cruise perfects the magnetism for converting those of weak minds to do his bidding. Mackey plays brilliantly on inadequacy and makes further strategic choices to disarm those around him (ie: doing press in his underwear, breaking down when he realizes his persona is cracking.) Born on the Fourth of July Of course, when considering ideology, one must also take into account copious baby killing and twisted politics. Ron Kovic (Cruise) starts out a patriot ready to die for his country, but becomes horrified by the haphazard war he’s been thrown into: opening fire on a defenseless village, accidently murdering one of his own in friendly-fire and then being shoved away into a decrepit facility in the Bronx where he may as well be dead.  Kovic drifts into miserable alcoholism and tries to recover from being the victim, but not before this scene with Charlie (Willem Dafoe) as his veneer shatters.   The quiet dread here would lead to Kovic would going forth and fighting for Veterans’ rights, and can be paralleled to von Stauffenberg’s own break-down that lead to leading the insurrection. Minority Report Nothing says “Nazi Training” like teaming up with Steven Spielberg on a film wedding crazed government officials, secret police and Max von Sydow.  As the head of the “Precrime” unit in Washington, D.C., Tom Cruise expertly knows how to find untrustworthy scum and black-market organs—especially when he’s on the run for a crime he didn’t commit (yet.)  Spielberg is a fan of the chase, whether it be by dinosaur or Ralph Fiennes. And you don’t get much more training in “how to run from authority figures” than when they use jetpacks. Of course, later, Cruise would likely ask Bryan Singer if the whole “metaphorical” sense of cat-and-mouse could be replaced with jetpacks.  Bryan Singer probably broke down sobbing at that point. We assume. Endless Love Spinning information may be one of the most important assets to the Nazi Party, but especially if you’re in the middle of high treason and an assassination attempt. Fitting then that Cruise’s first role got him into this right from the start, as a guy in cut-offs named Billy who recommends to David (Martin Hewitt) try out arson.  “I lit a whole pile of newspapers, you ever try to light a whole pile of wet newspapers? Geeze, it smokes like crazy” he shrieks in nasal tones.  “Do you want to hear the wild part? It’s like I’m a hero or something! They thought I saved the whole block! To this day, my mother thinks I’m a hero!” David leaves, inspired to mimic this same act and eventually wind up in a mental institution. Cruise cackles off-screen, having taken the first steps toward Valkyrie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Coming_Soon/Holiday_movies_pt_II_Brad_Pitt_ages_backwards/216/38731/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: spout
Post To: Coming Soon
Post Date: 12/22/2008 4:49:21 PM
Body: Looks like Frost/Nixon finally opens wide on Christmas, but I'm still eagerly awaiting a wide release of The Wrestler. Meanwhile, here are some films that'll be everywhere on Christmas day: New Movies 12/25 Wide release 1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button -- Watch the trailer. Read the review. The Curious Case of Mork and Mindy, er, Benjamin Button, headed Karina's list of The Most Disappointing Movies of 2008. That surprised me a little, considering the excellent cast. By the way, the studio tried to get Karina to take her review down. Hear the story in FilmCouch 98. 2. Valkyrie -- Watch the trailer. Based on a true story, Tom Cruise plays a German colonel who became part of a plot to assassinate Hitler. Cruise can play "intense" well enough, and he looks great in his eyepatch, but I've never been very interested in watching him play a hero. I think he's better suited to play suave villains (Collateral) and total creeps (Magnolia). 3. The Spirit -- Watch the trailer. Frank Miller gives Will Eisner's classic comic strip the Frank Miller treatment. My friend Kevin Buist (porcupine)saw it, and he thought it was extraordinarily bad. While most will agree that Miller's reinvention of Batman was inspired (I recommend the 1986 graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns), porcupine says Miller's mojo failed him in this re-imagining of the Spirit. Porcupine's review will appear this week on blog.spout.com. 4. Marley & Me -- Watch the trailer. Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston raise a troublesome golden retriever. What can I say? If you like dogs, you'll probably like this movie. 5. Bedtime Stories -- Watch the trailer. This Disney flick is the latest family comedy from Adam Sandler. It looks kind of like a more broadly comic Stranger Than Fiction (two kids are the authors of Sandler's life), but the trailer still makes me laugh some. Limited release 12/25 6. Revolutionary Road -- Watch the trailer. Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio together again, only this time it's the 1950s, they're married, and they feel stifled by their ordinary suburban lives. Looks really depressing and, just maybe...really good? 7. Waltz With Bashir -- Watch the trailer. Read the review. Based on true events, Ari Folman finds that he has almost no memories from Lebanon's 1982 invasion of Israel. Kevin Buist says in his review that it's like one part Waking Life, one part Schindler's List. I'm looking forward to it. 8. Last Chance Harvey -- Watch the trailer. Dustin Hoffman plays "Last Chance Harvey," a tired and desperate man. Then he meets Emma Thompson...
]]>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:49:21 GMTspoutComing Soon12/22/2008 4:49:21 PMLooks like Frost/Nixon finally opens wide on Christmas, but I'm still eagerly awaiting a wide release of The Wrestler. Meanwhile, here are some films that'll be everywhere on Christmas day: New Movies 12/25 Wide release 1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button -- Watch the trailer. Read the review. The Curious Case of Mork and Mindy, er, Benjamin Button, headed Karina's list of The Most Disappointing Movies of 2008. That surprised me a little, considering the excellent cast. By the way, the studio tried to get Karina to take her review down. Hear the story in FilmCouch 98. 2. Valkyrie -- Watch the trailer. Based on a true story, Tom Cruise plays a German colonel who became part of a plot to assassinate Hitler. Cruise can play "intense" well enough, and he looks great in his eyepatch, but I've never been very interested in watching him play a hero. I think he's better suited to play suave villains (Collateral) and total creeps (Magnolia). 3. The Spirit -- Watch the trailer. Frank Miller gives Will Eisner's classic comic strip the Frank Miller treatment. My friend Kevin Buist (porcupine)saw it, and he thought it was extraordinarily bad. While most will agree that Miller's reinvention of Batman was inspired (I recommend the 1986 graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns), porcupine says Miller's mojo failed him in this re-imagining of the Spirit. Porcupine's review will appear this week on blog.spout.com. 4. Marley &amp; Me -- Watch the trailer. Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston raise a troublesome golden retriever. What can I say? If you like dogs, you'll probably like this movie. 5. Bedtime Stories -- Watch the trailer. This Disney flick is the latest family comedy from Adam Sandler. It looks kind of like a more broadly comic Stranger Than Fiction (two kids are the authors of Sandler's life), but the trailer still makes me laugh some. Limited release 12/25 6. Revolutionary Road -- Watch the trailer. Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio together again, only this time it's the 1950s, they're married, and they feel stifled by their ordinary suburban lives. Looks really depressing and, just maybe...really good? 7. Waltz With Bashir -- Watch the trailer. Read the review. Based on true events, Ari Folman finds that he has almost no memories from Lebanon's 1982 invasion of Israel. Kevin Buist says in his review that it's like one part Waking Life, one part Schindler's List. I'm looking forward to it. 8. Last Chance Harvey -- Watch the trailer. Dustin Hoffman plays "Last Chance Harvey," a tired and desperate man. Then he meets Emma Thompson... http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/assassination/MemberTagFilms.aspxassassination
Number of films tagged: 1052

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 90

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:14 GMT10524490Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nazi/MemberTagFilms.aspxnazi
Number of films tagged: 428

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 67

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:50:17 GMT4283667Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/germany/MemberTagFilms.aspxgermany
Number of films tagged: 873

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 53

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT8733153Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Nazis/MemberTagFilms.aspxNazis
Number of films tagged: 24

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 27

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:50:17 GMT241927Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hitler/MemberTagFilms.aspxhitler
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 20

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:58:04 GMT161420Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/plot/MemberTagFilms.aspxplot
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 14

]]>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:36:00 GMT141014Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/berlin/MemberTagFilms.aspxberlin
Number of films tagged: 10

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 10

]]>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:59:42 GMT10910Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/general/MemberTagFilms.aspxgeneral
Number of films tagged: 316

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 14

]]>Thu, 07 May 2009 17:20:16 GMT316814Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mission/MemberTagFilms.aspxmission
Number of films tagged: 12

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 13

]]>Wed, 06 May 2009 05:22:47 GMT12613Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tom-cruise/MemberTagFilms.aspxtom-cruise
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:57:16 GMT244Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/2009/MemberTagFilms.aspx2009
Number of films tagged: 71

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 83

]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:47:40 GMT71383Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adolf-hitler/MemberTagFilms.aspxadolf-hitler
Number of films tagged: 3

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:54:36 GMT333Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/assasination/MemberTagFilms.aspxassasination
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 7

]]>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:35:59 GMT727Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Impossible/MemberTagFilms.aspxImpossible
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:12:25 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adolf/MemberTagFilms.aspxadolf
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:36:00 GMT111Tag