list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Superman II 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/Superman_II/33644/default.aspx Title: Superman II
Year: 1980
Director: Richard Lester
Plot: Between giving up his super powers, confronting criminals from outer space, and having problems with his girlfriend, it's a bad time to be the Man of Steel in this sequel to the 1978 blockbuster. When terrorists threaten to destroy Paris with a thermonuclear device as they hold reporter Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) hostage, Superman (Christopher Reeve) comes to the rescue and flings the weapon into space. However, its blast outside the earth's orbit awakens Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O'Halloran), three villains from Superman's home planet of Krypton who were exiled to outer space for their crimes. Zod and his partners arrive on Earth and use their powers in a bid to take over the U.S., and then the world. However, when Lois realizes that mild mannered Clark Kent and Superman are actually the same person, he brings her to his Fortress of Solitude, where his decision to marry Lois costs him his remarkable strength. Without his super powers, how can Superman vanquish Zod and save the world? Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty, Susannah York, and Jackie Cooper return from the first film, which was shot at the same time as parts of the sequel. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 17
Number of Lists: 34
Number of blog posts: 7
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 15 May 2009 17:42:59 GMTSuperman II1980Richard LesterBetween giving up his super powers, confronting criminals from outer space, and having problems with his girlfriend, it's a bad time to be the Man of Steel in this sequel to the 1978 blockbuster. When terrorists threaten to destroy Paris with a thermonuclear device as they hold reporter Lois Lane (<a href="/players/P____38064/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Margot Kidder</a>) hostage, Superman (<a href="/players/P____59343/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christopher Reeve</a>) comes to the rescue and flings the weapon into space. However, its blast outside the earth's orbit awakens Zod (<a href="/players/P____67541/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Terence Stamp</a>), Ursa (<a href="/players/P____19885/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sarah Douglas</a>), and Non (<a href="/players/P____53455/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack O'Halloran</a>), three villains from Superman's home planet of Krypton who were exiled to outer space for their crimes. Zod and his partners arrive on Earth and use their powers in a bid to take over the U.S., and then the world. However, when Lois realizes that mild mannered Clark Kent and Superman are actually the same person, he brings her to his Fortress of Solitude, where his decision to marry Lois costs him his remarkable strength. Without his super powers, how can Superman vanquish Zod and save the world? <a href="/players/P____29486/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gene Hackman</a>, <a href="/players/P_____4810/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ned Beatty</a>, <a href="/players/P____78084/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Susannah York</a>, and <a href="/players/P____14823/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jackie Cooper</a> return from the first film, which was shot at the same time as parts of the sequel. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide17Tag Target (>10)34743http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t87485fjvqj.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Superman_II/33644/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/1/41934.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/1/2009 3:44:31 PM
Body: Years ago, on the planet of "Krypton", three master-criminals (Terrance Stamp, Sarah Douglas and Jack O'Halloran) were trapped and sentenced to the "Phantom Zone" for all eternity. Years later, on the planet Earth, one of the greatest criminals known, one "Lex Luthor" (Gene Hackman) escapes from prison with his dimwitted assistant "Otis" (Ned Beaty), whom eventually is left behind at the prison and is immediately captured by prison guards. "Luthor" and "Miss Teschmacher" (Valerie Perrine) go by a hot air balloon to the North Pole and discovers the "Fortress of Solitude", the secret base of "Superman" (Christopher Reeve). Meanwhile, in Paris, France, "Lois Lane" is covering a hostage situation at the Eiffel Tower, and, like always, she gets herself in trouble. "Superman" swoops in from the sky and saves her, and she informs the "Man of Steel" that the hostage takers have a nuclear bomb. "Superman" then launches the elevator that the bomb is attached to into outer space and saves the day. However, when the bomb explodes, the energy wave it causes strikes the "Phantom Zone" releasing the three prisoners who first make it to the Earth's moon where they kill astronauts who are investigating the lunar surface. The three, "General Zod" (Stamp), "Ursa" (Douglas) and the mute "Non" (O'Halloran), make their way to Earth and eventually take over the White House in Washington, DC. However, "Superman" has no clue of the escape of the criminals from his home planet, because he is starting a romance with "Lois Lane (Margot Kidder), who accidentally discovers that "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are actually the same person. When he discovers that the three criminals are causing terror around the United States, it appears that he is unable for him to do anything. This is because he had his "abilities far beyond those of mortal men" which are powered by Earth's yellow sun have been removed so he can spend the rest of his life with "Lois". The biggest problem with this movie is the two directors with totally different views of the movie. However, what we get is still a good film. Another problem is powers revealed in this movie. Why haven't we seen them in the first movie and the two later films? In my opinion, the only powers we should have seen are the ones that only appear in the original DC Comics publications. Christopher Reeve does a much better performance as "Clark Kent" in this film. In my opinion, he made "Clark" way too wimpy in the first film. In this one, "Clark" is portrayed more campy. Kidder's performance is also slightly better in this film. Hackman appears more like one of the good guys in this film due to the fact of the performances of Stamp, Douglas and O'Halloran seemed even more evil than his version of "Luthor" was in the first film. I personally would have liked to have seen more of "Perry White" (Jackie Cooper) and "Jimmy Olsen" (Marc McClure) since they were fairly large roles in the comic books. Despite their length on screen, those in minor roles help advance the storyline. On a visual stand point, there are many special effects which have not held up well over the years. For example, in the scenes in the hot air balloon, it is quite evident that Hackman and Perrine are in front of a blue screen. Also, a lot of the scenes where the "Kryptonians" use their super-strength is good, but it's very evident that what or who they are throwing are being guided by wires. Also, if you look quickly and closely, you can see that the "heat vision beams" do not quite match-up with the eyes they are suppose to be coming from. Like I said earlier, the three super-villains are performed very well, especially "Zod" and "Ursa". "Non" is more of comic relief and "muscle" than anything else. "Lex Luthor" is more of a second-banana to these three, whom we never see or hear from again, and is not as evil. The character development in this film is also good. The characters are expanded upon nicely, with exception of "White" and "Olsen", who have been relegated to minor characters. In fact, the characters are improved in this movie. Despite the plot holes, which include how "Superman" gets his powers back specifically, Superman 2 is a good follow-up to Superman: The Movie.
]]>Fri, 01 May 2009 19:44:31 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/1/2009 3:44:31 PMYears ago, on the planet of "Krypton", three master-criminals (Terrance Stamp, Sarah Douglas and Jack O'Halloran) were trapped and sentenced to the "Phantom Zone" for all eternity. Years later, on the planet Earth, one of the greatest criminals known, one "Lex Luthor" (Gene Hackman) escapes from prison with his dimwitted assistant "Otis" (Ned Beaty), whom eventually is left behind at the prison and is immediately captured by prison guards. "Luthor" and "Miss Teschmacher" (Valerie Perrine) go by a hot air balloon to the North Pole and discovers the "Fortress of Solitude", the secret base of "Superman" (Christopher Reeve). Meanwhile, in Paris, France, "Lois Lane" is covering a hostage situation at the Eiffel Tower, and, like always, she gets herself in trouble. "Superman" swoops in from the sky and saves her, and she informs the "Man of Steel" that the hostage takers have a nuclear bomb. "Superman" then launches the elevator that the bomb is attached to into outer space and saves the day. However, when the bomb explodes, the energy wave it causes strikes the "Phantom Zone" releasing the three prisoners who first make it to the Earth's moon where they kill astronauts who are investigating the lunar surface. The three, "General Zod" (Stamp), "Ursa" (Douglas) and the mute "Non" (O'Halloran), make their way to Earth and eventually take over the White House in Washington, DC. However, "Superman" has no clue of the escape of the criminals from his home planet, because he is starting a romance with "Lois Lane (Margot Kidder), who accidentally discovers that "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are actually the same person. When he discovers that the three criminals are causing terror around the United States, it appears that he is unable for him to do anything. This is because he had his "abilities far beyond those of mortal men" which are powered by Earth's yellow sun have been removed so he can spend the rest of his life with "Lois". The biggest problem with this movie is the two directors with totally different views of the movie. However, what we get is still a good film. Another problem is powers revealed in this movie. Why haven't we seen them in the first movie and the two later films? In my opinion, the only powers we should have seen are the ones that only appear in the original DC Comics publications. Christopher Reeve does a much better performance as "Clark Kent" in this film. In my opinion, he made "Clark" way too wimpy in the first film. In this one, "Clark" is portrayed more campy. Kidder's performance is also slightly better in this film. Hackman appears more like one of the good guys in this film due to the fact of the performances of Stamp, Douglas and O'Halloran seemed even more evil than his version of "Luthor" was in the first film. I personally would have liked to have seen more of "Perry White" (Jackie Cooper) and "Jimmy Olsen" (Marc McClure) since they were fairly large roles in the comic books. Despite their length on screen, those in minor roles help advance the storyline. On a visual stand point, there are many special effects which have not held up well over the years. For example, in the scenes in the hot air balloon, it is quite evident that Hackman and Perrine are in front of a blue screen. Also, a lot of the scenes where the "Kryptonians" use their super-strength is good, but it's very evident that what or who they are throwing are being guided by wires. Also, if you look quickly and closely, you can see that the "heat vision beams" do not quite match-up with the eyes they are suppose to be coming from. Like I said earlier, the three super-villains are performed very well, especially "Zod" and "Ursa". "Non" is more of comic relief and "muscle" than anything else. "Lex Luthor" is more of a second-banana to these three, whom we never see or hear from again, and is not as evil. The character development in this film is also good. The characters are expanded upon nicely, with exception of "White" and "Olsen", who have been relegated to minor characters. In fact, the characters are improved in this movie. Despite the plot holes, which include how "Superman" gets his powers back specifically, Superman 2 is a good follow-up to Superman: The Movie. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/26/41266.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/26/2009 10:01:24 AM
Body: Next week, Vin Diesel returns (along with Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez and Jordanna Brewster) to the Fast and the Furious franchise, which he’d abandoned after the first movie (he did have a cameo in part 3). When news first hit that he’d be reprising the role of Dominic Toretto for the fourth installment, simply titled Fast & Furious, most of us saw the actor as returning under a veil of shame. Because he initially departed the series with an inflated ego — and with it unrealistic salary demands — it does seem obvious that Diesel is now only desperately crawling back because his career failed to take off the way he’d hoped it would. This is quite sad considering not even Steve Guttenberg ever crawled back to the Police Academy movies, nor did Burt Reynolds ever get dragged back for a fourth Smokey and the Bandit. But there have been other shameful returns by stars to franchises they’d previously sat out of (whether the hiatus was of their own choosing or not). Only one of these may have been as desperate as Diesel now appears, but it’s worth looking at four additional actors and actresses who should be very embarrassed of their delayed reprisals. Karen Allen Returned to: Indiana Jones franchise with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Karen Allen’s absence from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade after playing the female lead in Raiders of the Lost Ark was not because she believed herself above those sequels. Her character, Marion Ravenwood, simply wasn’t written into them. And her return to the series was surely not because her career needed a boost. Her relative disappearance from films after 1990 was actually for personal reasons (she wanted to devote time to raising her son), not necessarily because she could no longer garner significant roles. So why is she on this list? Because even though it must have been quite tempting to again work with Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford, especially in a role that is beloved by fans, she should have had a little more reserve, because she ended up looking like an easily employed, easily exploited actress. At least she didn’t have to swing through trees, and at least she didn’t receive the brunt of criticism with the film, but the latter fortune is also mostly because she’s given so little to do in the movie. Her participation in the film is largely forgettable, yet her association with the film is not. Instead of bothering with this very disappointing sequel, Allen should have held out for the more necessary Starman follow-up (continuing from where the TV series left off, of course). Sean Connery Returned to: James Bond franchise with Never Say Never Again (1983) Officially, it wasn’t exactly the James Bond franchise, because Never Say Never Again wasn’t made by EON Productions, though this clarification makes Sean Connery’s return to the role of 007 even more shameful. After Diamonds Are Forever, which had already marked his first delayed return as Bond (after the quick interruption of George Lazenby in the part with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service), the actor claimed he’d never return to the role he’d originated onscreen (this led to the film’s title), but obviously he was offered enough money to not only reprise the character but also to slap EON’s Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman in the face by agreeing to appear in an unofficial installment initially meant to directly compete head to head with EON’s own Octopussy, which starred Roger Moore as Bond. In agreeing to the film, Connery cemented his reputation for questionable career choices, most clearly influenced by big paychecks. Though he’d previously been enticed by huge offers, including the astonishing $2 million he demanded to come back to Bond for Diamonds, this time he showed a great lack of concern for fans of the Bond franchise through his apparent greediness. Given his love for big money, it’s surprising that he never sold himself out of retirement for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Maybe his asking price has just gotten so out of hand that even Lucas and Spielberg couldn’t afford him. Lorraine Gary Returned to: Jaws franchise with Jaws: The Revenge (1987) She hadn’t been onscreen in eight years, but Lorraine Gary’s absence from films following her appearance in Spielberg’s 1941 was reportedly her choice. Certainly with a husband as powerful as Sid Sheinberg (President of MCA, Inc. for more than 30 years), she didn’t really need to work, and yet for some odd reason she came out of retirement to reprise her role as Ellen Brody for the dreadful fourth installment of Jaws. According to a press release for the movie, Gary claims she was drawn to the script because of how well it explored her character, which deserved more development than Jaws and Jaws II had allowed for. Gary has also admitted that she was partly lured back with the appeal of playing opposite Michael Caine, romantically. But again, with a husband as powerful as Sheinberg, she probably could have been given a better film with which to come back and with which to make out with Caine. Now, she’s unfortunately more memorable for having starred in Jaws: The Revenge than for originating the role in the first film. Gene Hackman Returned to: Superman franchise with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) Somewhat like Connery (his A Bridge Too Far costar), Gene Hackman ended up returning to a character thanks to a change in producers. He abandoned the Superman franchise after the first film — though he’d shot some scenes for Superman II, so he does appear in the sequel — because Alexander and Ilya Salkind fired Richard Donner as the director of the second installment. So, when new producers Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus took over the series, Hackman was fine with reprising his portrayal of Lex Luthor. Surely there was a big paycheck involved in addition to the appeal of new management, but with an ultimate budget of only $17 million (slashed from the planned $40 million), he couldn’t have gotten away with much. At least Christopher Reeve, in his deal to return to the series, was given the opportunity to star in a pet project, Street Smart. All Hackman ended up with was an embarrassing addition to his resume, one that displayed a lack of concern for Superman fans and a disappointing preference for pay over prestige. Peter Sellers Returned to: Pink Panther franchise with The Return of the Pink Panther (1975) Following The Pink Panther and its sequel, A Shot in the Dark, Peter Sellers declined to return to the series, and Alan Arkin took over the role for part 3, Inspector Clouseau. It made sense at the time, as Sellers was still doing quite well through the late 1960s. But after a number of flops in the early ‘70s, Sellers was wooed back to the franchise, obviously with the promise of a lot of money. And another two installments came about with reportedly increased paychecks. In fact, he was set to play Inspector Clouseau in another installment (the series’ seventh, his sixth), but he died before it went into production. Fortunately for his legacy, he also made the wonderful Being There before his death, so he didn’t go out completely on a desperation downturn. Like Sellers’ last few Pink Panther movies, the new Fast and the Furious installment will be a huge hit, but there is a cost of reputation and an increase of shame that comes with the returned wealth and popularity. Then again, Diesel probably isn’t sinking any lower than he did for The Pacifier, right? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:01:24 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/26/2009 10:01:24 AMNext week, Vin Diesel returns (along with Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez and Jordanna Brewster) to the Fast and the Furious franchise, which he’d abandoned after the first movie (he did have a cameo in part 3). When news first hit that he’d be reprising the role of Dominic Toretto for the fourth installment, simply titled Fast & Furious, most of us saw the actor as returning under a veil of shame. Because he initially departed the series with an inflated ego — and with it unrealistic salary demands — it does seem obvious that Diesel is now only desperately crawling back because his career failed to take off the way he’d hoped it would. This is quite sad considering not even Steve Guttenberg ever crawled back to the Police Academy movies, nor did Burt Reynolds ever get dragged back for a fourth Smokey and the Bandit. But there have been other shameful returns by stars to franchises they’d previously sat out of (whether the hiatus was of their own choosing or not). Only one of these may have been as desperate as Diesel now appears, but it’s worth looking at four additional actors and actresses who should be very embarrassed of their delayed reprisals. Karen Allen Returned to: Indiana Jones franchise with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Karen Allen’s absence from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade after playing the female lead in Raiders of the Lost Ark was not because she believed herself above those sequels. Her character, Marion Ravenwood, simply wasn’t written into them. And her return to the series was surely not because her career needed a boost. Her relative disappearance from films after 1990 was actually for personal reasons (she wanted to devote time to raising her son), not necessarily because she could no longer garner significant roles. So why is she on this list? Because even though it must have been quite tempting to again work with Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford, especially in a role that is beloved by fans, she should have had a little more reserve, because she ended up looking like an easily employed, easily exploited actress. At least she didn’t have to swing through trees, and at least she didn’t receive the brunt of criticism with the film, but the latter fortune is also mostly because she’s given so little to do in the movie. Her participation in the film is largely forgettable, yet her association with the film is not. Instead of bothering with this very disappointing sequel, Allen should have held out for the more necessary Starman follow-up (continuing from where the TV series left off, of course). Sean Connery Returned to: James Bond franchise with Never Say Never Again (1983) Officially, it wasn’t exactly the James Bond franchise, because Never Say Never Again wasn’t made by EON Productions, though this clarification makes Sean Connery’s return to the role of 007 even more shameful. After Diamonds Are Forever, which had already marked his first delayed return as Bond (after the quick interruption of George Lazenby in the part with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service), the actor claimed he’d never return to the role he’d originated onscreen (this led to the film’s title), but obviously he was offered enough money to not only reprise the character but also to slap EON’s Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman in the face by agreeing to appear in an unofficial installment initially meant to directly compete head to head with EON’s own Octopussy, which starred Roger Moore as Bond. In agreeing to the film, Connery cemented his reputation for questionable career choices, most clearly influenced by big paychecks. Though he’d previously been enticed by huge offers, including the astonishing $2 million he demanded to come back to Bond for Diamonds, this time he showed a great lack of concern for fans of the Bond franchise through his apparent greediness. Given his love for big money, it’s surprising that he never sold himself out of retirement for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Maybe his asking price has just gotten so out of hand that even Lucas and Spielberg couldn’t afford him. Lorraine Gary Returned to: Jaws franchise with Jaws: The Revenge (1987) She hadn’t been onscreen in eight years, but Lorraine Gary’s absence from films following her appearance in Spielberg’s 1941 was reportedly her choice. Certainly with a husband as powerful as Sid Sheinberg (President of MCA, Inc. for more than 30 years), she didn’t really need to work, and yet for some odd reason she came out of retirement to reprise her role as Ellen Brody for the dreadful fourth installment of Jaws. According to a press release for the movie, Gary claims she was drawn to the script because of how well it explored her character, which deserved more development than Jaws and Jaws II had allowed for. Gary has also admitted that she was partly lured back with the appeal of playing opposite Michael Caine, romantically. But again, with a husband as powerful as Sheinberg, she probably could have been given a better film with which to come back and with which to make out with Caine. Now, she’s unfortunately more memorable for having starred in Jaws: The Revenge than for originating the role in the first film. Gene Hackman Returned to: Superman franchise with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) Somewhat like Connery (his A Bridge Too Far costar), Gene Hackman ended up returning to a character thanks to a change in producers. He abandoned the Superman franchise after the first film — though he’d shot some scenes for Superman II, so he does appear in the sequel — because Alexander and Ilya Salkind fired Richard Donner as the director of the second installment. So, when new producers Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus took over the series, Hackman was fine with reprising his portrayal of Lex Luthor. Surely there was a big paycheck involved in addition to the appeal of new management, but with an ultimate budget of only $17 million (slashed from the planned $40 million), he couldn’t have gotten away with much. At least Christopher Reeve, in his deal to return to the series, was given the opportunity to star in a pet project, Street Smart. All Hackman ended up with was an embarrassing addition to his resume, one that displayed a lack of concern for Superman fans and a disappointing preference for pay over prestige. Peter Sellers Returned to: Pink Panther franchise with The Return of the Pink Panther (1975) Following The Pink Panther and its sequel, A Shot in the Dark, Peter Sellers declined to return to the series, and Alan Arkin took over the role for part 3, Inspector Clouseau. It made sense at the time, as Sellers was still doing quite well through the late 1960s. But after a number of flops in the early ‘70s, Sellers was wooed back to the franchise, obviously with the promise of a lot of money. And another two installments came about with reportedly increased paychecks. In fact, he was set to play Inspector Clouseau in another installment (the series’ seventh, his sixth), but he died before it went into production. Fortunately for his legacy, he also made the wonderful Being There before his death, so he didn’t go out completely on a desperation downturn. Like Sellers’ last few Pink Panther movies, the new Fast and the Furious installment will be a huge hit, but there is a cost of reputation and an increase of shame that comes with the returned wealth and popularity. Then again, Diesel probably isn’t sinking any lower than he did for The Pacifier, right? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_films_from_your_childhood/190/38803/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: stacey042
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 12/24/2008 3:54:17 AM
Body: This is so hard; they're are so many it seems. Here goes: Dirty Dancing "Nobody puts baby in the corner." This was a super favorite movie of mine growing up. I loved this movie and would watch it every single day around the time when our laserdisc player was breaking. I'd ask my parents to watch it everyday until my mom hid the movie from me and lied to me saying that my uncle took it with him when he moved. I continued to believe this lie until my high school years, which was when my mom told me that we had it the whole time. Drop Dead Fred Also a favorite. I'd watch this over and over again, and it even made me wish I had an imaginary friend like Fred growing up. The Princess Bride I remember watching this all the time when I was really young. Despite my crazy fear of some old lady in the movie (I associated that characted as being a scary witch), I still liked watching this. Superman II Let's just say that I watched this movie religiously -- everyday after I'd come home from elementary school until the VCR broke. I was so bummed. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze Nothing like the teenage mutant ninja turtles facing against Shredder and a mutant dog and turtle. Oh yeah and the random role of Vanilla Ice in one of the scenes. TMNT were cool growing up. I even played the video game. "Aw, shell-shocked!"
]]>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:54:17 GMTstacey042Top 512/24/2008 3:54:17 AMThis is so hard; they're are so many it seems. Here goes: Dirty Dancing "Nobody puts baby in the corner." This was a super favorite movie of mine growing up. I loved this movie and would watch it every single day around the time when our laserdisc player was breaking. I'd ask my parents to watch it everyday until my mom hid the movie from me and lied to me saying that my uncle took it with him when he moved. I continued to believe this lie until my high school years, which was when my mom told me that we had it the whole time. Drop Dead Fred Also a favorite. I'd watch this over and over again, and it even made me wish I had an imaginary friend like Fred growing up. The Princess Bride I remember watching this all the time when I was really young. Despite my crazy fear of some old lady in the movie (I associated that characted as being a scary witch), I still liked watching this. Superman II Let's just say that I watched this movie religiously -- everyday after I'd come home from elementary school until the VCR broke. I was so bummed. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze Nothing like the teenage mutant ninja turtles facing against Shredder and a mutant dog and turtle. Oh yeah and the random role of Vanilla Ice in one of the scenes. TMNT were cool growing up. I even played the video game. "Aw, shell-shocked!" http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_films_from_your_childhood/190/36252/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: benthams_head
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 10/13/2008 12:16:16 PM
Body: 1. Back to the Future - Anyone who has seen "Son of Rambow" knows the impact that a movie character can have on an impressionable youth (especially one with an over-active imagination). For a brief period in 1985-86, I WAS Marty McFly. I actually had designs on riding my skateboard to school every day by tailgating cars. Then (in typical 1980s fashion) there was a story about some kid who died trying the same thing. Back to the Future (1985)). 2. Rocky IV - This one embodied every cliche about bad 80s cinema: synth-driven montage scenes, cold war paranoia, Reagan-era hyper-patriotism, and a bizarre obsession with the titilating possibilities of robotic technology. I ate up every morsel of it. Heck, I probably had every line of dialogue memorized for awhile.Rocky IV (1985) 3. Down and Out in Beverly Hills/Ruthless People- For awhile there in the mid-80s, I couldn't get enough of the Bette Midler screwball comedies. My best friend's mom is befuddled to this day that I grew up to be straight.Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986) Ruthless People (1986) 4. Superman II - One of my first moviegoing memories. To this day, Terrence Stamp scares the living sh** out of me.Superman II (1980) 5. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - This one also belongs on my personal "having divorced parents is not without benefits" list. My mom adamently refused to take me to this movie; citing its violence and demonic themes. My dad was none the wiser and even bought me the vintage hat and whip toy set after we saw it. You can imagine the heated phone call that ensued. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
]]>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:16:16 GMTbenthams_headTop 510/13/2008 12:16:16 PM1. Back to the Future - Anyone who has seen "Son of Rambow" knows the impact that a movie character can have on an impressionable youth (especially one with an over-active imagination). For a brief period in 1985-86, I WAS Marty McFly. I actually had designs on riding my skateboard to school every day by tailgating cars. Then (in typical 1980s fashion) there was a story about some kid who died trying the same thing. Back to the Future (1985)). 2. Rocky IV - This one embodied every cliche about bad 80s cinema: synth-driven montage scenes, cold war paranoia, Reagan-era hyper-patriotism, and a bizarre obsession with the titilating possibilities of robotic technology. I ate up every morsel of it. Heck, I probably had every line of dialogue memorized for awhile.Rocky IV (1985) 3. Down and Out in Beverly Hills/Ruthless People- For awhile there in the mid-80s, I couldn't get enough of the Bette Midler screwball comedies. My best friend's mom is befuddled to this day that I grew up to be straight.Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986) Ruthless People (1986) 4. Superman II - One of my first moviegoing memories. To this day, Terrence Stamp scares the living sh** out of me.Superman II (1980) 5. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - This one also belongs on my personal "having divorced parents is not without benefits" list. My mom adamently refused to take me to this movie; citing its violence and demonic themes. My dad was none the wiser and even bought me the vintage hat and whip toy set after we saw it. You can imagine the heated phone call that ensued. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/28/33192.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/28/2008 6:00:54 PM
Body: The third part in Universal’s rebooted Mummy franchise takes the series in a new direction. Rather than set in Egypt and dealing again with the same old villain, Imhotep, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor brings us to China and gives us a different sort of preserved corpse baddie. And it looks like the change could actually add some freshness to the franchise. Of course, history would hint that such a move for the Mummy movies is a bad idea. While it seems beneficial in theory to redirect the focus of a series with the third installment, especially if the first sequel was too much a repetition of the original (a la The Mummy Returns), in practice many threequels mistakenly alter things for the worse. These aren’t necessarily the worst threequels ever made (*cough* X-Men: The Last Stand); they’re just some movies that took their series in a completely wrong turn. Halloween III: Season of the Witch - Now viewed as an unfortunate detour in a long series involving the slasher Michael Myers, this misstep can apparently be blamed on John Carpenter and co-writer/producer Debra Hill, who agreed to a second sequel to Halloween only if it didn’t involve Myers. But what was the point? Sure, a franchise can work with unrelated sequels, but after two movies dealing with the same villain, it seems odd to switch it up so late in the game. Still, if this wasn’t such a terrible movie in general, it’s possible Halloween III could have worked as an intended beginning to an anthology franchise. Batman Forever - I typically like to consider Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies a separate series from Tim Burton’s, but the few returning cast members (Michael Gough, Pat Hingle) are evidence that this is indeed a threequel to the 1989 Batman. Not that you’d otherwise know it from the complete change in tone from dark to candy colored (never mind the recast Batman/Bruce Wayne). Hopefully Christopher Nolan will continue with the latest run so someone like Shawn Levy doesn’t take over and make the caped crusader silly again. Another Thin Man - Honestly, I could watch all of the Thin Man movies over and over until I die (Nora Charles is the most perfect woman ever written into creation), but this third installment of the alcohol-happy detective series commits one of the cardinal sins of sequels: it introduces a child. What fun is a couple of bickering, drunken lovers who also solve murders with a baby along for the ride? Even if the kid does end up being played by a very young Dean Stockwell by the fifth installment. The Mummy movies committed the same annoyance/error with the second movie (for Tomb of the Dragon Emperor the son is now thankfully an adult). Look Who’s Talking Now - While the Thin Man movies were good enough with a cute dog and didn’t need to add in a cute kid, the Look Who’s Talking movies were inversely just fine with cute, talking babies and didn’t need to add in talking animals. Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles - Yet another threequel guilty of having a kid add-on. But it also commits the other annoying sin of relocating the franchise to a new setting. The rural meets urban fish out of water stuff doesn’t work nearly as much in L.A. as it does in NYC. Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 - No threequel is going to be good if the main star drops out of the series and the sidekick attempts to take the place of the leading man. Well, maybe it would be okay if Iron Man 3 starred Terrence Howard only as War Machine, and maybe this movie would have actually worked if Jerry Reed stayed in the big rig and it was titled Smokey and the Trucker. But as it went down, the substitution just made us miss Burt Reynolds more. Home Alone 3 - As far as replacements go, I don’t know what is worse, changing up the whole character and family, as was done with Home Alone 3, which basically just repeated the storyline of the original movie, or the made-for-TV Home Alone 4, which recast characters from the first two movies. Either way, Fox should have just continued the series with Macauley Culkin, despite the fact that he was growing way out of his cute years by the end of the second movie. Home Alone 3 should have brought John Hughes back to focusing on high school kids and made it like a mix of Home Alone and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, in which a teenage Kevin throws a wild house party when accidentally left home alone. Again. Ghostbusters: The Video Game - I know that video games are surpassing the movies in terms of favored entertainment, but I’m pretty bummed that the third Ghostbusters movie has become a video game rather than an actual threequel. Superman III - Some of us may have a soft spot for both Richard Pryor’s appearance and the selfish Superman, but otherwise this threequel suffers dearly from having such lame villains. Especially after the awesomeness of General Zod and friends in part II. The wrong turn, though, is not just lame villains but the complete lack of Lex Luthor, a necessity for Superman movies for those of us who never read the comics and can’t get behind a pseudo Luthor like Robert Vaughn’s “Ross Webster”. Actually, I guess it’s not so much the lack of Luthor as it is the blatant substitution for him, as well as for the diminished use of Lois Lane. The franchise didn’t exactly get back on course by bringing Gene Hackman’s Luthor in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Friday the 13th Part 3 - It’s perfectly debatable whether or not this slasher series took a misstep when it gave Jason a hockey mask and made him an icon. Like a number of other horror franchises, this one became less scary and more amusing beginning with the third installment. Entertaining, sure, but a wrong turn for some horror franchises. It certainly didn’t help matters having that laugh track: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:00:54 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/28/2008 6:00:54 PM The third part in Universal’s rebooted Mummy franchise takes the series in a new direction. Rather than set in Egypt and dealing again with the same old villain, Imhotep, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor brings us to China and gives us a different sort of preserved corpse baddie. And it looks like the change could actually add some freshness to the franchise. Of course, history would hint that such a move for the Mummy movies is a bad idea. While it seems beneficial in theory to redirect the focus of a series with the third installment, especially if the first sequel was too much a repetition of the original (a la The Mummy Returns), in practice many threequels mistakenly alter things for the worse. These aren’t necessarily the worst threequels ever made (*cough* X-Men: The Last Stand); they’re just some movies that took their series in a completely wrong turn. Halloween III: Season of the Witch - Now viewed as an unfortunate detour in a long series involving the slasher Michael Myers, this misstep can apparently be blamed on John Carpenter and co-writer/producer Debra Hill, who agreed to a second sequel to Halloween only if it didn’t involve Myers. But what was the point? Sure, a franchise can work with unrelated sequels, but after two movies dealing with the same villain, it seems odd to switch it up so late in the game. Still, if this wasn’t such a terrible movie in general, it’s possible Halloween III could have worked as an intended beginning to an anthology franchise. Batman Forever - I typically like to consider Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies a separate series from Tim Burton’s, but the few returning cast members (Michael Gough, Pat Hingle) are evidence that this is indeed a threequel to the 1989 Batman. Not that you’d otherwise know it from the complete change in tone from dark to candy colored (never mind the recast Batman/Bruce Wayne). Hopefully Christopher Nolan will continue with the latest run so someone like Shawn Levy doesn’t take over and make the caped crusader silly again. Another Thin Man - Honestly, I could watch all of the Thin Man movies over and over until I die (Nora Charles is the most perfect woman ever written into creation), but this third installment of the alcohol-happy detective series commits one of the cardinal sins of sequels: it introduces a child. What fun is a couple of bickering, drunken lovers who also solve murders with a baby along for the ride? Even if the kid does end up being played by a very young Dean Stockwell by the fifth installment. The Mummy movies committed the same annoyance/error with the second movie (for Tomb of the Dragon Emperor the son is now thankfully an adult). Look Who’s Talking Now - While the Thin Man movies were good enough with a cute dog and didn’t need to add in a cute kid, the Look Who’s Talking movies were inversely just fine with cute, talking babies and didn’t need to add in talking animals. Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles - Yet another threequel guilty of having a kid add-on. But it also commits the other annoying sin of relocating the franchise to a new setting. The rural meets urban fish out of water stuff doesn’t work nearly as much in L.A. as it does in NYC. Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 - No threequel is going to be good if the main star drops out of the series and the sidekick attempts to take the place of the leading man. Well, maybe it would be okay if Iron Man 3 starred Terrence Howard only as War Machine, and maybe this movie would have actually worked if Jerry Reed stayed in the big rig and it was titled Smokey and the Trucker. But as it went down, the substitution just made us miss Burt Reynolds more. Home Alone 3 - As far as replacements go, I don’t know what is worse, changing up the whole character and family, as was done with Home Alone 3, which basically just repeated the storyline of the original movie, or the made-for-TV Home Alone 4, which recast characters from the first two movies. Either way, Fox should have just continued the series with Macauley Culkin, despite the fact that he was growing way out of his cute years by the end of the second movie. Home Alone 3 should have brought John Hughes back to focusing on high school kids and made it like a mix of Home Alone and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, in which a teenage Kevin throws a wild house party when accidentally left home alone. Again. Ghostbusters: The Video Game - I know that video games are surpassing the movies in terms of favored entertainment, but I’m pretty bummed that the third Ghostbusters movie has become a video game rather than an actual threequel. Superman III - Some of us may have a soft spot for both Richard Pryor’s appearance and the selfish Superman, but otherwise this threequel suffers dearly from having such lame villains. Especially after the awesomeness of General Zod and friends in part II. The wrong turn, though, is not just lame villains but the complete lack of Lex Luthor, a necessity for Superman movies for those of us who never read the comics and can’t get behind a pseudo Luthor like Robert Vaughn’s “Ross Webster”. Actually, I guess it’s not so much the lack of Luthor as it is the blatant substitution for him, as well as for the diminished use of Lois Lane. The franchise didn’t exactly get back on course by bringing Gene Hackman’s Luthor in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Friday the 13th Part 3 - It’s perfectly debatable whether or not this slasher series took a misstep when it gave Jason a hockey mask and made him an icon. Like a number of other horror franchises, this one became less scary and more amusing beginning with the third installment. Entertaining, sure, but a wrong turn for some horror franchises. It certainly didn’t help matters having that laugh track: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/13/28831.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 4:13:12 AM
Body: Those of you who have faithfully read this blog from the beginning (both of you) will remember my original review of Superman II, where I complained that replacement director Richard Lester had diminished Richard Donner's mythical treatment of the Superman story with cartoonish camp, mostly played for laughs. You will also note that I explained the complicated production history of the film- that Superman I and II were supposed to be shot simulatanously, but II was abandodned in order to get I finished. When it came to complete the unfinished scenes for sequel, Donner was fired and Marlon Brando was completly cut out of the movie (his scenes were reshot with Susannah York) among many other changes. Due to a fan internet campaign and renewed interest in the series caused by the release of Superman Returns, Warner Brothers allowed Donner comeback and complete his version of the film. And you have to give them credit: they spared no expense in the restoration, with new special effects, cleaning up the print, and even bringing back John Williams to write a new score. If Donner had been allowed shoot the whole thing, this would easily be a four star film a long side the original, but there are inevitable problems with the reconstuction. First, some of the Richard Lester scenes that couldn't be replaced (such as most of the Niagra Falls subplot and the initial appearance of the three villians in Texas) are cheesy and standout from the rest of the footage. Second, there are some structural and continunity problems, particuarly in the first half of the film (Donner cuts Lester's footage to the bare minimum so Superman rarely appears in this part of his own story). But that's little comparison to what is added by this reconstruction. The film is a lot more intelligent and becomes- and I mean this seriously- a sort of spirtual experince. The cut scenes between Brando and Christopher Reeve clearly establish a Christ metaphor. I had never thought about it this way, but Superman must be a very lonley guy- he exists to help everyone but can have no life himself- what he wants most is just to be normal. The film's interesting idea is that Superman has no right to a normal life- because he can do what no one else can, he must. There is a lot of dialouge about the Father sacrificing his spirit to reedeem the sings of the Son's humanity and, well you see where it's going. The fact that Jor-El looks a lot like the traditional Western image of God and General Zod (Terrence Stamp) looks to a degree like the Devil adds creedence to this. I am not hallucinating. The new ending is also much better than Lester's lame resolution and kind of sad, but it connects the films togethr so that they seem like one work, instead of two different stories. But the movie still makes a mistake towards the end- there's a long action sequence, set in New York that isn't very thrilling in either version. The movie is about spiritual conflict, not an intergalatic wresting match. But the rest of the film so good that the flaws are minor problems. Taken together, this and its precessor form the best superhero movie ever made, heads and tails above nearest competitor. The movie trancesends the boundries comic books and actions films and enters the realm of conciousness shared by modern myth. Superman II (1980)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 08:13:12 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/13/2008 4:13:12 AMThose of you who have faithfully read this blog from the beginning (both of you) will remember my original review of Superman II, where I complained that replacement director Richard Lester had diminished Richard Donner's mythical treatment of the Superman story with cartoonish camp, mostly played for laughs. You will also note that I explained the complicated production history of the film- that Superman I and II were supposed to be shot simulatanously, but II was abandodned in order to get I finished. When it came to complete the unfinished scenes for sequel, Donner was fired and Marlon Brando was completly cut out of the movie (his scenes were reshot with Susannah York) among many other changes. Due to a fan internet campaign and renewed interest in the series caused by the release of Superman Returns, Warner Brothers allowed Donner comeback and complete his version of the film. And you have to give them credit: they spared no expense in the restoration, with new special effects, cleaning up the print, and even bringing back John Williams to write a new score. If Donner had been allowed shoot the whole thing, this would easily be a four star film a long side the original, but there are inevitable problems with the reconstuction. First, some of the Richard Lester scenes that couldn't be replaced (such as most of the Niagra Falls subplot and the initial appearance of the three villians in Texas) are cheesy and standout from the rest of the footage. Second, there are some structural and continunity problems, particuarly in the first half of the film (Donner cuts Lester's footage to the bare minimum so Superman rarely appears in this part of his own story). But that's little comparison to what is added by this reconstruction. The film is a lot more intelligent and becomes- and I mean this seriously- a sort of spirtual experince. The cut scenes between Brando and Christopher Reeve clearly establish a Christ metaphor. I had never thought about it this way, but Superman must be a very lonley guy- he exists to help everyone but can have no life himself- what he wants most is just to be normal. The film's interesting idea is that Superman has no right to a normal life- because he can do what no one else can, he must. There is a lot of dialouge about the Father sacrificing his spirit to reedeem the sings of the Son's humanity and, well you see where it's going. The fact that Jor-El looks a lot like the traditional Western image of God and General Zod (Terrence Stamp) looks to a degree like the Devil adds creedence to this. I am not hallucinating. The new ending is also much better than Lester's lame resolution and kind of sad, but it connects the films togethr so that they seem like one work, instead of two different stories. But the movie still makes a mistake towards the end- there's a long action sequence, set in New York that isn't very thrilling in either version. The movie is about spiritual conflict, not an intergalatic wresting match. But the rest of the film so good that the flaws are minor problems. Taken together, this and its precessor form the best superhero movie ever made, heads and tails above nearest competitor. The movie trancesends the boundries comic books and actions films and enters the realm of conciousness shared by modern myth. Superman II (1980) http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/5/5/28177.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 5/5/2008 8:57:23 AM
Body: While watching the season’s first stab at a blockbuster, “Iron Man,” I kept wondering to myself: “How long did it take lead Robert Downey Jr. to say ‘yes’ to the lead role?” “Hmmm…” Downey said in my internal monologue. “Let’s see here. The character of Tony Stark is a motor-mouthed superhero in his 40s who is a reformed substance abusing, womanizing multi-millionaire… yeah, I think I can swing that.” For the record, the total time for the above ellipses? Three seconds. Regardless of past demons, the film is what it is solely because of what Downey brings to the table. I have always pitied the poor directors who decide to sign on to a superhero comic-book adaptation. They face pressure and scrutiny from more than the average release audience. Their end product has to pass through the judging eyes of: 1) The fanboys (and girls): A group that obsesses over the film’s minutiae (“Flames on Optimus Prime?! Inconceivable!”) in attempts to verify if the director is a true fan and to justify their own existence. (Dude, they are two-dimensional cartoons, even though you may comfort yourself in calling it a graphic novel). 2) The critics: A haughty bunch who look forward to summer action films as much as kidney stones and will bestow upon even the best of the films faint, condescending praise. 3) The newbies: Those who don’t know shinola about the characters involved and demand their hands be held through some of the more complex plot expositions. Director Jon Favreau made sure to approach the film locked and loaded in an attempt to address all concerned parties. He creates a solid origin that is relatively easy to follow, tosses in a few nods to story arcs that have been featured in the comic throughout the years, and enlisted no fewer than four Oscar-nominated actors in the lead roles. Downey is joined by Gwenyth Paltrow as his faithful assistant Pepper Potts, Terrance Howard as his best friend Jim Rhoads, and Jeff Bridges as mentor Obadiah Stane. While Howard and Paltrow do not have sizeable roles this go-round, both allude to a stronger storyline in the presumable sequels (given the film’s $100-plus million opening weekend, it’s a safe bet they’ll be more). Favreau was helped even further by securing screenwriters Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby, the dynamic duo responsible for the brilliant-but-critically-underseen “Children of Men.” Their part is particularly relevant when the film grapples with Tony Stark’s attitude adjustment from a cocky arms dealer to humbled servant of those forced to live on the receiving end of his weaponry. As common with most origin stories, the screenwriters treat us to many awkward test runs of Stark’s newfound powers, which are perhaps the film’s best scenes. His videotaped trial-and-error montages are a high point, punctuated by Downey’s charismatic snark and crackerjack wit. Once Stark masters flight in his new robo-suit, Favreau provides some of the most exhilarating footage since Christopher Reeves first took to the sky 30 years ago in 1978’s “Superman.” All these scenes, which occur about halfway through the picture, end up as the film’s leaden Achilles heel. For the final showdown can’t compare to the fanciful ride Downey has commandeered earlier in the film. It’s a rather rote Rockem-Sockem robot battle that momentarily dulls “Iron Man’s” otherwise polished sheen. While it does not eclipse anticipation for the summer’s upcoming films featuring a certain nocturnal crimefighter or a geriatric, whip-sporting treasure hunter, “Iron Man” does kick the season off to a rousing start. And it certainly holds the promise of greater, better-oiled adventures of its cast to follow.
]]>Mon, 05 May 2008 12:57:23 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog5/5/2008 8:57:23 AMWhile watching the season&rsquo;s first stab at a blockbuster, &ldquo;Iron Man,&rdquo; I kept wondering to myself: &ldquo;How long did it take lead Robert Downey Jr. to say &lsquo;yes&rsquo; to the lead role?&rdquo; &ldquo;Hmmm&hellip;&rdquo; Downey said in my internal monologue. &ldquo;Let&rsquo;s see here. The character of Tony Stark is a motor-mouthed superhero in his 40s who is a reformed substance abusing, womanizing multi-millionaire&hellip; yeah, I think I can swing that.&rdquo; For the record, the total time for the above ellipses? Three seconds. Regardless of past demons, the film is what it is solely because of what Downey brings to the table. I have always pitied the poor directors who decide to sign on to a superhero comic-book adaptation. They face pressure and scrutiny from more than the average release audience. Their end product has to pass through the judging eyes of: 1) The fanboys (and girls): A group that obsesses over the film&rsquo;s minutiae (&ldquo;Flames on Optimus Prime?! Inconceivable!&rdquo;) in attempts to verify if the director is a true fan and to justify their own existence. (Dude, they are two-dimensional cartoons, even though you may comfort yourself in calling it a graphic novel). 2) The critics: A haughty bunch who look forward to summer action films as much as kidney stones and will bestow upon even the best of the films faint, condescending praise. 3) The newbies: Those who don&rsquo;t know shinola about the characters involved and demand their hands be held through some of the more complex plot expositions. Director Jon Favreau made sure to approach the film locked and loaded in an attempt to address all concerned parties. He creates a solid origin that is relatively easy to follow, tosses in a few nods to story arcs that have been featured in the comic throughout the years, and enlisted no fewer than four Oscar-nominated actors in the lead roles. Downey is joined by Gwenyth Paltrow as his faithful assistant Pepper Potts, Terrance Howard as his best friend Jim Rhoads, and Jeff Bridges as mentor Obadiah Stane. While Howard and Paltrow do not have sizeable roles this go-round, both allude to a stronger storyline in the presumable sequels (given the film&rsquo;s $100-plus million opening weekend, it&rsquo;s a safe bet they&rsquo;ll be more). Favreau was helped even further by securing screenwriters Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby, the dynamic duo responsible for the brilliant-but-critically-underseen &ldquo;Children of Men.&rdquo; Their part is particularly relevant when the film grapples with Tony Stark&rsquo;s attitude adjustment from a cocky arms dealer to humbled servant of those forced to live on the receiving end of his weaponry. As common with most origin stories, the screenwriters treat us to many awkward test runs of Stark&rsquo;s newfound powers, which are perhaps the film&rsquo;s best scenes. His videotaped trial-and-error montages are a high point, punctuated by Downey&rsquo;s charismatic snark and crackerjack wit. Once Stark masters flight in his new robo-suit, Favreau provides some of the most exhilarating footage since Christopher Reeves first took to the sky 30 years ago in 1978&rsquo;s &ldquo;Superman.&rdquo; All these scenes, which occur about halfway through the picture, end up as the film&rsquo;s leaden Achilles heel. For the final showdown can&rsquo;t compare to the fanciful ride Downey has commandeered earlier in the film. It&rsquo;s a rather rote Rockem-Sockem robot battle that momentarily dulls &ldquo;Iron Man&rsquo;s&rdquo; otherwise polished sheen. While it does not eclipse anticipation for the summer&rsquo;s upcoming films featuring a certain nocturnal crimefighter or a geriatric, whip-sporting treasure hunter, &ldquo;Iron Man&rdquo; does kick the season off to a rousing start. And it certainly holds the promise of greater, better-oiled adventures of its cast to follow. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/3/27/26663.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2008 5:00:28 PM
Body: This morning I was watching Billy Wilder’s One, Two, Three (see, readers, I do know movies before 1990), and it made me wonder if Coca-Cola is the most cinematic commercial product in the history of film. Not the most prominent in film, necessarily (in terms of either direct product placement or more casual indirect appearance,) but at least the most significant to film. After all, Coca-Cola did own a movie studio (Columbia Pictures) for the greater part of a decade (the 1980s). In addition to One, Two, Three, which is about a Coca-Cola executive in West Berlin, the soft drink figures specifically in and fundamentally to the plots of The Gods Must Be Crazy, Good Bye Lenin! and, obviously, The Coca-Cola Kid. But primarily, such direct incorporations of the brand are more about their connection to the U.S. and capitalism than they are to the actual product of soda. Even when Superman throws a bad guy at a giant Coca-Cola billboard in Superman II, the brand comes with a connotation of Americanism that overshadows any intent to market a beverage. And certainly the title in Godard’s Masculin, Feminin that says “The Children of Marx and Coca-Cola” means Coca-Cola in its non-product definition of being a metaphor for capitalist America. And is the joke in Dr. Strangelove (in the video above) that the head of Coca-Cola is analogous to the President of the United States? (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:00:28 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/27/2008 5:00:28 PM This morning I was watching Billy Wilder’s One, Two, Three (see, readers, I do know movies before 1990), and it made me wonder if Coca-Cola is the most cinematic commercial product in the history of film. Not the most prominent in film, necessarily (in terms of either direct product placement or more casual indirect appearance,) but at least the most significant to film. After all, Coca-Cola did own a movie studio (Columbia Pictures) for the greater part of a decade (the 1980s). In addition to One, Two, Three, which is about a Coca-Cola executive in West Berlin, the soft drink figures specifically in and fundamentally to the plots of The Gods Must Be Crazy, Good Bye Lenin! and, obviously, The Coca-Cola Kid. But primarily, such direct incorporations of the brand are more about their connection to the U.S. and capitalism than they are to the actual product of soda. Even when Superman throws a bad guy at a giant Coca-Cola billboard in Superman II, the brand comes with a connotation of Americanism that overshadows any intent to market a beverage. And certainly the title in Godard’s Masculin, Feminin that says “The Children of Marx and Coca-Cola” means Coca-Cola in its non-product definition of being a metaphor for capitalist America. And is the joke in Dr. Strangelove (in the video above) that the head of Coca-Cola is analogous to the President of the United States? (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/16539/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/26/2007 2:50:13 PM
Body: Wow this thread is really heating up![quote user="Jymkata"] 2. Chasing Amy - really any Kevin Smith movie fits in here for me, but this one seems so overwritten and pretentious in its own slacker/hipster way. The best actors in the world (which Affleck, Lee, and Joey Lauren Adams are clearly not) would have a hard time making that dialogue believable. I think Smith loves the sound of his own words on screen and writes accordingly. Wouldn't watch this again.[/quote]I've actually seen many Kevin Smith films, but not this one. However I used to love them a great deal. Now every time I see one again, my rating plunges further down. Maybe it was that his dialogue sounded fresh at one time to me, but now after being continually subjected to it I'm realizing it may be what you said. Although there are different characters it all seems like the words are coming out of the same person.[quote user="Jymkata"] 3. The Boondock Saints - I really don't know if this is popular everywhere or just in certain regions, but this was recommended to me by everyone and their brother. I had loads of well-intentioned, deluded souls say " Oh, you love Goodfellas, well you will really, really love The Boondock Saints". Well, I really, really hated The Boondock Saints and I think it was Willem Dafoe's worst moment. Very bizarre choices.[/quote]Oooooh, I almost said this one actually! I'd had this recommended to me by many people for a long time. I only heard a few people who said it was bad, but I didn't know who to believe. I saw it even though I think there was something deep inside that made me a bit hesitant. I was not impressed! I don't know how this mediocre crime movie managed to stand above the rest for many people. My friend Andy who uses this site from time to time has a couple tattoos from the movies. I respect his taste, but I just don't get what makes this so special. Maybe I should see that documentary about the making of it.[quote user="Jymkata"]4. Happiness - I know that a lot of people think Todd Solondz is brilliant, but I think his movies are mean-spririted, tasteless jokes. Maybe it's because I have children, but I don't find anything funny or tragic for the abuser about pedophilia, I find it repulsive. And can we finally stop on-screen ejaculation in mainstream movies? Just because you can show something on film doesn't mean you should. This and The Squid and The Whale just ruined the rest of the movie with those scenes.[/quote]Now this is one I really enjoyed. I however do not have any children, so I can't comment from that aspect. But I think I do like watching movies about the struggles of characters that the average movie going seems to consider too pathetic or degenerate to want to watch or have the possibility of having any empathy for. Even though I think those kinds of struggles are often a part of everyone, and I've suspected there may be some kind of deep denial going on there.[quote user="Jymkata"]5. Spider-man & Spider-man II - OK, "hate" is way too strong a word for these because there are plenty of films I rate lower than these, but I would never want to see either of these again. I like Sam Raimi's lower budgeted films, but these are way too popular - I got really tired of hearing how they represented the best superhero movies ever. I like the genre when the directors catch some of the wonder and magic of superheros and Raimi missed it. Some of it has to do with casting Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst (neither of whom I think are good actors or even embody the characteristics of Peter Parker and Mary Jane), but a lot of it is because of the non-magical CGI scenes. See Superman & Superman II for examples of great casting and a sense of wonder.[/quote]I can pretty much agree with you completely on this one. Don't "hate" it, but probably won't see it again and for all the same reasons.Although as for the Superman movies, I actually rate those even less. I'll talk about it later maybe if you'd like, but I feel I've written enough for now.
]]>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:50:13 GMTRisseladaTop 57/26/2007 2:50:13 PMWow this thread is really heating up![quote user="Jymkata"] 2. Chasing Amy - really any Kevin Smith movie fits in here for me, but this one seems so overwritten and pretentious in its own slacker/hipster way. The best actors in the world (which Affleck, Lee, and Joey Lauren Adams are clearly not) would have a hard time making that dialogue believable. I think Smith loves the sound of his own words on screen and writes accordingly. Wouldn&#39;t watch this again.[/quote]I&#39;ve actually seen many Kevin Smith films, but not this one. However I used to love them a great deal. Now every time I see one again, my rating plunges further down. Maybe it was that his dialogue sounded fresh at one time to me, but now after being continually subjected to it I&#39;m realizing it may be what you said. Although there are different characters it all seems like the words are coming out of the same person.[quote user="Jymkata"] 3. The Boondock Saints - I really don&#39;t know if this is popular everywhere or just in certain regions, but this was recommended to me by everyone and their brother. I had loads of well-intentioned, deluded souls say " Oh, you love Goodfellas, well you will really, really love The Boondock Saints". Well, I really, really hated The Boondock Saints and I think it was Willem Dafoe&#39;s worst moment. Very bizarre choices.[/quote]Oooooh, I almost said this one actually! I&#39;d had this recommended to me by many people for a long time. I only heard a few people who said it was bad, but I didn&#39;t know who to believe. I saw it even though I think there was something deep inside that made me a bit hesitant. I was not impressed! I don&#39;t know how this mediocre crime movie managed to stand above the rest for many people. My friend Andy who uses this site from time to time has a couple tattoos from the movies. I respect his taste, but I just don&#39;t get what makes this so special. Maybe I should see that documentary about the making of it.[quote user="Jymkata"]4. Happiness - I know that a lot of people think Todd Solondz is brilliant, but I think his movies are mean-spririted, tasteless jokes. Maybe it&#39;s because I have children, but I don&#39;t find anything funny or tragic for the abuser about pedophilia, I find it repulsive. And can we finally stop on-screen ejaculation in mainstream movies? Just because you can show something on film doesn&#39;t mean you should. This and The Squid and The Whale just ruined the rest of the movie with those scenes.[/quote]Now this is one I really enjoyed. I however do not have any children, so I can&#39;t comment from that aspect. But I think I do like watching movies about the struggles of characters that the average movie going seems to consider too pathetic or degenerate to want to watch or have the possibility of having any empathy for. Even though I think those kinds of struggles are often a part of everyone, and I&#39;ve suspected there may be some kind of deep denial going on there.[quote user="Jymkata"]5. Spider-man &amp; Spider-man II - OK, "hate" is way too strong a word for these because there are plenty of films I rate lower than these, but I would never want to see either of these again. I like Sam Raimi&#39;s lower budgeted films, but these are way too popular - I got really tired of hearing how they represented the best superhero movies ever. I like the genre when the directors catch some of the wonder and magic of superheros and Raimi missed it. Some of it has to do with casting Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst (neither of whom I think are good actors or even embody the characteristics of Peter Parker and Mary Jane), but a lot of it is because of the non-magical CGI scenes. See Superman &amp; Superman II for examples of great casting and a sense of wonder.[/quote]I can pretty much agree with you completely on this one. Don&#39;t "hate" it, but probably won&#39;t see it again and for all the same reasons.Although as for the Superman movies, I actually rate those even less. I&#39;ll talk about it later maybe if you&#39;d like, but I feel I&#39;ve written enough for now. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/16262/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Jymkata
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/25/2007 8:06:12 PM
Body: I know it's very polite on internet message boards to act like there are no standards or experts, and that subjectivity is the only way to judge a film, but sometimes subjectivity can be wrong and although you may not personally like a piece of art you need to be able to appreciate its qualities. I know this whole topic is subjective, but some of these should not be up for debate as to whether they are good or bad. The two I take exception with are Citizen Kane and Vertigo. I don't even know where to start and whether it's worth it, but I can't understand how someone couldn't fathom the mixed opinions of lesser works like Crash or the Lord of the Rings trilogy ( I guess some people love overlong, CGI-overkilled films that are long on scope and short on character), but not see enough of value in certified masterpieces like these two by Orson and Alfred at their peak. Plus, Kane had the exceptional camerawork of Gregg Toland (that alone is worth the price of admission) and they both had the amazing orchestration of Bernard Herrmann that is much superior to Howard Shore's sappy and repetitive score for LOTR. Anyway, that is my rant and I hope it's not too rude but this is my list:1.) LOTR trilogy - I seriously believe that once CGI becomes a laughable, obvious device like the rear projection in car-driving scenes in older movies these overpopular geek films will be seen for what they are. Shallow, overlong, and badly paced films that were marketed at the right time to reach a very receptive audience. I really feel that there are a lot of scenes where I am watching an actor read lines off a cue card in front of a green screen. I read the books in my childhood, I "get" the genre, but I feel like half the cast sucks and Peter Jackson is a hack. Just my opinion, but there are plenty like me out here and there is far from a positive consensus on these three.2. Chasing Amy - really any Kevin Smith movie fits in here for me, but this one seems so overwritten and pretentious in its own slacker/hipster way. The best actors in the world (which Affleck, Lee, and Joey Lauren Adams are clearly not) would have a hard time making that dialogue believable. I think Smith loves the sound of his own words on screen and writes accordingly. Wouldn't watch this again.3. The Boondock Saints - I really don't know if this is popular everywhere or just in certain regions, but this was recommended to me by everyone and their brother. I had loads of well-intentioned, deluded souls say " Oh, you love Goodfellas, well you will really, really love The Boondock Saints". Well, I really, really hated The Boondock Saints and I think it was Willem Dafoe's worst moment. Very bizarre choices.4. Happiness - I know that a lot of people think Todd Solondz is brilliant, but I think his movies are mean-spririted, tasteless jokes. Maybe it's because I have children, but I don't find anything funny or tragic for the abuser about pedophilia, I find it repulsive. And can we finally stop on-screen ejaculation in mainstream movies? Just because you can show something on film doesn't mean you should. This and The Squid and The Whale just ruined the rest of the movie with those scenes.5. Spider-man & Spider-man II - OK, "hate" is way too strong a word for these because there are plenty of films I rate lower than these, but I would never want to see either of these again. I like Sam Raimi's lower budgeted films, but these are way too popular - I got really tired of hearing how they represented the best superhero movies ever. I like the genre when the directors catch some of the wonder and magic of superheros and Raimi missed it. Some of it has to do with casting Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst (neither of whom I think are good actors or even embody the characteristics of Peter Parker and Mary Jane), but a lot of it is because of the non-magical CGI scenes. See Superman & Superman II for examples of great casting and a sense of wonder. Some of the above opinions I agree with are Godard's boring, pretentious films, Chungking Express, Titanic, Crash and Million Dollar Baby ( their success means Paul Haggis is going to continue to produce obvious, clumsily written, political diatribes), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind ( video geek gets to wow people with his bag of tricks and forgets to make a coherent movie), and Ocean's Eleven press junkets. I actually enjoy the first two movies but I absolutely hated the onslaught of publicity these movies got with the stars looking smug and talking (too much) about how they were all best buds and how fun every day of shooting was - with Sir George being such a funny prankster. Get over yourselves, Hollywood actors!
]]>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:06:12 GMTJymkataTop 57/25/2007 8:06:12 PMI know it&#39;s very polite on internet message boards to act like there are no standards or experts, and that subjectivity is the only way to judge a film, but sometimes subjectivity can be wrong and although you may not personally like a piece of art you need to be able to appreciate its qualities. I know this whole topic is subjective, but some of these should not be up for debate as to whether they are good or bad. The two I take exception with are Citizen Kane and Vertigo. I don&#39;t even know where to start and whether it&#39;s worth it, but I can&#39;t understand how someone couldn&#39;t fathom the mixed opinions of lesser works like Crash or the Lord of the Rings trilogy ( I guess some people love overlong, CGI-overkilled films that are long on scope and short on character), but not see enough of value in certified masterpieces like these two by Orson and Alfred at their peak. Plus, Kane had the exceptional camerawork of Gregg Toland (that alone is worth the price of admission) and they both had the amazing orchestration of Bernard Herrmann that is much superior to Howard Shore&#39;s sappy and repetitive score for LOTR. Anyway, that is my rant and I hope it&#39;s not too rude but this is my list:1.) LOTR trilogy - I seriously believe that once CGI becomes a laughable, obvious device like the rear projection in car-driving scenes in older movies these overpopular geek films will be seen for what they are. Shallow, overlong, and badly paced films that were marketed at the right time to reach a very receptive audience. I really feel that there are a lot of scenes where I am watching an actor read lines off a cue card in front of a green screen. I read the books in my childhood, I "get" the genre, but I feel like half the cast sucks and Peter Jackson is a hack. Just my opinion, but there are plenty like me out here and there is far from a positive consensus on these three.2. Chasing Amy - really any Kevin Smith movie fits in here for me, but this one seems so overwritten and pretentious in its own slacker/hipster way. The best actors in the world (which Affleck, Lee, and Joey Lauren Adams are clearly not) would have a hard time making that dialogue believable. I think Smith loves the sound of his own words on screen and writes accordingly. Wouldn&#39;t watch this again.3. The Boondock Saints - I really don&#39;t know if this is popular everywhere or just in certain regions, but this was recommended to me by everyone and their brother. I had loads of well-intentioned, deluded souls say " Oh, you love Goodfellas, well you will really, really love The Boondock Saints". Well, I really, really hated The Boondock Saints and I think it was Willem Dafoe&#39;s worst moment. Very bizarre choices.4. Happiness - I know that a lot of people think Todd Solondz is brilliant, but I think his movies are mean-spririted, tasteless jokes. Maybe it&#39;s because I have children, but I don&#39;t find anything funny or tragic for the abuser about pedophilia, I find it repulsive. And can we finally stop on-screen ejaculation in mainstream movies? Just because you can show something on film doesn&#39;t mean you should. This and The Squid and The Whale just ruined the rest of the movie with those scenes.5. Spider-man &amp; Spider-man II - OK, "hate" is way too strong a word for these because there are plenty of films I rate lower than these, but I would never want to see either of these again. I like Sam Raimi&#39;s lower budgeted films, but these are way too popular - I got really tired of hearing how they represented the best superhero movies ever. I like the genre when the directors catch some of the wonder and magic of superheros and Raimi missed it. Some of it has to do with casting Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst (neither of whom I think are good actors or even embody the characteristics of Peter Parker and Mary Jane), but a lot of it is because of the non-magical CGI scenes. See Superman &amp; Superman II for examples of great casting and a sense of wonder. Some of the above opinions I agree with are Godard&#39;s boring, pretentious films, Chungking Express, Titanic, Crash and Million Dollar Baby ( their success means Paul Haggis is going to continue to produce obvious, clumsily written, political diatribes), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind ( video geek gets to wow people with his bag of tricks and forgets to make a coherent movie), and Ocean&#39;s Eleven press junkets. I actually enjoy the first two movies but I absolutely hated the onslaught of publicity these movies got with the stars looking smug and talking (too much) about how they were all best buds and how fun every day of shooting was - with Sir George being such a funny prankster. Get over yourselves, Hollywood actors! http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12479

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1481

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT124793381481Tag 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/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:25:18 GMT7553101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fight/MemberTagFilms.aspxfight
Number of films tagged: 490

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 86

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:40:14 GMT4904786Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sequel/MemberTagFilms.aspxsequel
Number of films tagged: 126

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 171

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:25:48 GMT12646171Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rescue/MemberTagFilms.aspxrescue
Number of films tagged: 4080

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 142

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:36 GMT408031142Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criminal/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriminal
Number of films tagged: 3388

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 56

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT33882756Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/goodvsevil/MemberTagFilms.aspxgoodvsevil
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 67

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:42:51 GMT7422567Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/secretidentity/MemberTagFilms.aspxsecretidentity
Number of films tagged: 122

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 25

]]>Thu, 14 May 2009 13:03:14 GMT1221625Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superman/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperman
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 12

]]>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:36:41 GMT91012Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nuclear/MemberTagFilms.aspxnuclear
Number of films tagged: 135

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 11

]]>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:02:05 GMT135811Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nuclearweapon/MemberTagFilms.aspxnuclearweapon
Number of films tagged: 272

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT272610Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superpowers/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperpowers
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 7

]]>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:54:32 GMT767Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superpower/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperpower
Number of films tagged: 111

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 6

]]>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:06:21 GMT11156Tag