list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Superman III 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_III/33645/default.aspx Title: Superman III
Year: 1983
Director: Richard Lester
Plot: In a major departure from the tone of the preceding two Superman adventure films, this mix of vile deeds and fantasy heroics drops the "S" out of cosmic and goes for comic instead. Right at the starting gate, Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor) and a subsequent slapstick sequence upstage (Christopher Reeves again), who later develops an identity crisis. Gorman, newly trained as a computer whiz, starts working for a conglomerate run by the corporate nemesis Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn), intent on world domination. Gorman is sent to Superman's small town of Smallville to wipe out Columbia's coffee crop by fiddling with the computer side of a weather satellite. Clark Kent is in town for his class reunion, leading Superman to clash with Gorman, which in turn, leads Gorman to develop a hybrid red Kryptonite. Unwittingly, since Gorman's wits are always in doubt, the Red Kryptonite causes Superman to split into a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde schizophrenia -- but in two separate bodies. As the evil Superman swaggers around town, megalomaniac Ross Webster has other tricks in mind -- and in one of the more memorable action scenes (interspersed with a video game sequence), Superman is chased through the Grand Canyon by a fast-flying, very determined missile. Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) is on hand for romantic interest (Margot Kidder only appears briefly -- she was growing tired of Lois Lane). ~ Eleanor Mannikka, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 8
Number of Lists: 20
Number of blog posts: 4
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Fri, 15 May 2009 17:43:00 GMTSuperman III1983Richard LesterIn a major departure from the tone of the preceding two Superman adventure films, this mix of vile deeds and fantasy heroics drops the "S" out of cosmic and goes for comic instead. Right at the starting gate, Gus Gorman (<a href="/players/P___107177/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Pryor</a>) and a subsequent slapstick sequence upstage (Christopher Reeves again), who later develops an identity crisis. Gorman, newly trained as a computer whiz, starts working for a conglomerate run by the corporate nemesis Ross Webster (<a href="/players/P____73149/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Vaughn</a>), intent on world domination. Gorman is sent to Superman's small town of Smallville to wipe out Columbia's coffee crop by fiddling with the computer side of a weather satellite. Clark Kent is in town for his class reunion, leading Superman to clash with Gorman, which in turn, leads Gorman to develop a hybrid red Kryptonite. Unwittingly, since Gorman's wits are always in doubt, the Red Kryptonite causes Superman to split into a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde schizophrenia -- but in two separate bodies. As the evil Superman swaggers around town, megalomaniac Ross Webster has other tricks in mind -- and in one of the more memorable action scenes (interspersed with a video game sequence), Superman is chased through the Grand Canyon by a fast-flying, very determined missile. Lana Lang (<a href="/players/P____53676/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Annette O'Toole</a>) is on hand for romantic interest (<a href="/players/P____38064/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Margot Kidder</a> only appears briefly -- she was growing tired of Lois Lane). ~ Eleanor Mannikka, All Movie Guide8Taggedy Taggged (6-10)20462http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t87495fws0k.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Superman_III/33645/default.aspxFilm 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/2008/5/14/29089.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/14/2008 12:41:52 AM
Body: The first line of my review of Full Frontal said that the film was "so bad it's hard to beleive." I wish I had saved that for this movie. The idea is so wrong it never, ever should have got past a story treatment somebody should have thrown in the garbage can. Okay, it does make sense on a basic level that for the third Superman film they would want to go for a lighter tone, as the first couple films were so serious and "big". But the way they did went horribly wrong. I can see the meeting between the producers and the studio execs. "Hey, Richard Pryor is really popular, and Superman is really popular. If we just put them in the same film, it's be really, really popular!" No, it just means the movie fails twice. It's not a good comic vehicle for Pyror, and it's not a good Superman movie. The scenes with Pryor fail because the comedians best matieral involves social satire, this film gives him only slapstick. The Superman scenes fail beacuse Richard Lester adopts such a campy, redicoulous tone that you can't get involved with the story or care very much what happens, as good as Christopher Reeve is, as usual. The premise involves Pryor, as Gus Gorman, an out of work loser who discovers that he is a computer genious, and can manipulate computers to do what ever we want (this is unintentioally funny, as the film is from the 80's, and the premitive computers do things we can't do with today's technology). He gets caught by mean billioanre Ross Webster (Robert Vaugn) manipulatibg his paycheck, so Webster blachmails Gorman into programming a US Weather satilite to change cause a tornoado in Columbia. Meanwhile, Clark Kent returns to his home town of Smallville to attend his class reunion, where he meets his high school crush (Annette O'Toole, who is very good). Later, Superman gets turned into an evil version of himself because of some phony Kryptonite Gorman developed. To say that the movie is not funny is an understatement. The slapstick tone that Lester uses is completley inappropraite for this material. I found only one seen intentioally funny, the scene where Gorman impersonates an Army General (I don't know why, I just did). Often I laughed at the fact that it was intended to be funny. The movie is kind of pathetic in this way. Often I literally was amazed at how misconcieved some scenes were. The Superman story is more interesting, but the Henny Youngman tone kills any chance of suspense. I actually did buy the relationship between Reeve and O'Toole. This movie is more proof as to just how good Reeve is- he plays three parts, Clark Kent, the good Superman, and the bad Superman, masterfully. All in all, this is a movie that never should have been made. Richard Lester is a fine director, but heis just wrong for this material. The first movie was great, the second was okay, this is awful. I wonder what part four will behold. Superman III (1983)
]]>Wed, 14 May 2008 04:41:52 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/14/2008 12:41:52 AMThe first line of my review of Full Frontal said that the film was "so bad it's hard to beleive." I wish I had saved that for this movie. The idea is so wrong it never, ever should have got past a story treatment somebody should have thrown in the garbage can. Okay, it does make sense on a basic level that for the third Superman film they would want to go for a lighter tone, as the first couple films were so serious and "big". But the way they did went horribly wrong. I can see the meeting between the producers and the studio execs. "Hey, Richard Pryor is really popular, and Superman is really popular. If we just put them in the same film, it's be really, really popular!" No, it just means the movie fails twice. It's not a good comic vehicle for Pyror, and it's not a good Superman movie. The scenes with Pryor fail because the comedians best matieral involves social satire, this film gives him only slapstick. The Superman scenes fail beacuse Richard Lester adopts such a campy, redicoulous tone that you can't get involved with the story or care very much what happens, as good as Christopher Reeve is, as usual. The premise involves Pryor, as Gus Gorman, an out of work loser who discovers that he is a computer genious, and can manipulate computers to do what ever we want (this is unintentioally funny, as the film is from the 80's, and the premitive computers do things we can't do with today's technology). He gets caught by mean billioanre Ross Webster (Robert Vaugn) manipulatibg his paycheck, so Webster blachmails Gorman into programming a US Weather satilite to change cause a tornoado in Columbia. Meanwhile, Clark Kent returns to his home town of Smallville to attend his class reunion, where he meets his high school crush (Annette O'Toole, who is very good). Later, Superman gets turned into an evil version of himself because of some phony Kryptonite Gorman developed. To say that the movie is not funny is an understatement. The slapstick tone that Lester uses is completley inappropraite for this material. I found only one seen intentioally funny, the scene where Gorman impersonates an Army General (I don't know why, I just did). Often I laughed at the fact that it was intended to be funny. The movie is kind of pathetic in this way. Often I literally was amazed at how misconcieved some scenes were. The Superman story is more interesting, but the Henny Youngman tone kills any chance of suspense. I actually did buy the relationship between Reeve and O'Toole. This movie is more proof as to just how good Reeve is- he plays three parts, Clark Kent, the good Superman, and the bad Superman, masterfully. All in all, this is a movie that never should have been made. Richard Lester is a fine director, but heis just wrong for this material. The first movie was great, the second was okay, this is awful. I wonder what part four will behold. Superman III (1983) http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/2/28109.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/2/2008 2:01:01 PM
Body: I’ve been on the fence about Hancock from the beginning. Sure, it’s a Will Smith blockbuster and it co-stars Jason Bateman, both typically prime selling points for me, but it also seems a bit one-note and silly. Upon first hearing about the concept of a drunken has-been superhero, I immediately thought about drunken Superman in Superman III. After seeing the teaser trailer, I felt the exaggerated special effects (including the rather funny whale toss) were a little too over the top. Now comes a full trailer (Quicktime version here) that reveals a lot more action and a lot more plot points. The former seems to have everyone on the Internet suddenly more excited about the movie. But what about those new story reveals? Aside from the usual problem of giving too much away, the trailer exposes the overdone concept of a world without its under-appreciated hero(es) — think Ghostbusters, any one of a thousand comic book titles (the hero is in jail, or half-defeated, or in an alternate state such as in Superman III) — and makes it seem as though screenwriters Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan based the rest of the movie around that single, simple recycled idea. Of course, mainstream moviegoers like familiar concepts, so the trailer should work in that regard. And it’s interesting that Sony isn’t actually revealing too much of the plot, since we still haven’t seen any indication of the storyline involving an affair between Hancock (Smith) and the wife (Charlize Theron) of his new PR man (Bateman). In fact most moviegoers are probably wondering why Theron seems to have such an insignificant role. Anyway, it seems the buzz on Hancock is building quickly today thanks to the new trailer, which means most people are responding differently than me. I can’t remember the last time I saw a movie’s anticipation level rise so suddenly. Here, a sampling of quotes from the newly excited blogosphere: Empire asks: “Is this summer’s surprise super hit?” John at The Movie Blog says it clearly: “I have to admit that my interest in this movie went from “That looks ok” to “Holy shit! How many days until this comes out??” in less than 3 minutes. Eugene at Cinematical highlights the appeal of the movie’s “focus on what it’s like to be a superhero not in a universe where you can do whatever you want, but in the American bureaucratic state.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 02 May 2008 18:01:01 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/2/2008 2:01:01 PM I’ve been on the fence about Hancock from the beginning. Sure, it’s a Will Smith blockbuster and it co-stars Jason Bateman, both typically prime selling points for me, but it also seems a bit one-note and silly. Upon first hearing about the concept of a drunken has-been superhero, I immediately thought about drunken Superman in Superman III. After seeing the teaser trailer, I felt the exaggerated special effects (including the rather funny whale toss) were a little too over the top. Now comes a full trailer (Quicktime version here) that reveals a lot more action and a lot more plot points. The former seems to have everyone on the Internet suddenly more excited about the movie. But what about those new story reveals? Aside from the usual problem of giving too much away, the trailer exposes the overdone concept of a world without its under-appreciated hero(es) — think Ghostbusters, any one of a thousand comic book titles (the hero is in jail, or half-defeated, or in an alternate state such as in Superman III) — and makes it seem as though screenwriters Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan based the rest of the movie around that single, simple recycled idea. Of course, mainstream moviegoers like familiar concepts, so the trailer should work in that regard. And it’s interesting that Sony isn’t actually revealing too much of the plot, since we still haven’t seen any indication of the storyline involving an affair between Hancock (Smith) and the wife (Charlize Theron) of his new PR man (Bateman). In fact most moviegoers are probably wondering why Theron seems to have such an insignificant role. Anyway, it seems the buzz on Hancock is building quickly today thanks to the new trailer, which means most people are responding differently than me. I can’t remember the last time I saw a movie’s anticipation level rise so suddenly. Here, a sampling of quotes from the newly excited blogosphere: Empire asks: “Is this summer’s surprise super hit?” John at The Movie Blog says it clearly: “I have to admit that my interest in this movie went from “That looks ok” to “Holy shit! How many days until this comes out??” in less than 3 minutes. Eugene at Cinematical highlights the appeal of the movie’s “focus on what it’s like to be a superhero not in a universe where you can do whatever you want, but in the American bureaucratic state.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/12/28/23280.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/28/2007 3:00:38 PM
Body: I’d like to still say that I’ll watch Will Smith in anything, but as I still haven’t gotten around to seeing I Am Legend (and because of friends’ responses, I may not anytime soon), such a statement would be egregious. Besides, after watching the new tweaked trailer for Hancock??(courtesy of Chris at Movie Marketing Madness, who points out that it’s pretty much the same as the first Hancock trailer), Smith’s summer blockbuster for 2008 , I don’t know if I’m going to see that one either. As if there aren’t enough worthy comic books to adapt, Hollywood has been giving us way too many gimmicky superhero movies — superheroes in a high school! superhero who’s your ex-girlfriend! superhero who has fallen out of favor and drinks his life away! — and??the superhero concept has??become the easiest pitch since that whole Die Hard in a ____ thing. The thing is, the idea behind Hancock, that of a public that’s pissed off about??heroes that are more destructive than helpful,??has already been alluded to enough in Watchmen (the graphic novel, which is also on its way to the big screen) and The Incredibles, which will never be equalled as far as non-adaptation superhero movies go. I guess Hancock??is kind of like evil, drunk Superman in Superman III. But it’s Will Smith, so it’s … funnier? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:00:38 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/28/2007 3:00:38 PM I’d like to still say that I’ll watch Will Smith in anything, but as I still haven’t gotten around to seeing I Am Legend (and because of friends’ responses, I may not anytime soon), such a statement would be egregious. Besides, after watching the new tweaked trailer for Hancock??(courtesy of Chris at Movie Marketing Madness, who points out that it’s pretty much the same as the first Hancock trailer), Smith’s summer blockbuster for 2008 , I don’t know if I’m going to see that one either. As if there aren’t enough worthy comic books to adapt, Hollywood has been giving us way too many gimmicky superhero movies — superheroes in a high school! superhero who’s your ex-girlfriend! superhero who has fallen out of favor and drinks his life away! — and??the superhero concept has??become the easiest pitch since that whole Die Hard in a ____ thing. The thing is, the idea behind Hancock, that of a public that’s pissed off about??heroes that are more destructive than helpful,??has already been alluded to enough in Watchmen (the graphic novel, which is also on its way to the big screen) and The Incredibles, which will never be equalled as far as non-adaptation superhero movies go. I guess Hancock??is kind of like evil, drunk Superman in Superman III. But it’s Will Smith, so it’s … funnier? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_top_five_movies_that_scared_the_crap_out_of_yo/190/4170/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Jymkata
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 12/10/2006 11:00:44 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] I didn't think about TV shows, but there was a two part episode of Punky Brewster that totally gave me the creeps. I wish I could find screen snaps of these episodes titled "The Perils of Punky". I'm not sure if anyone ever watched this show as a kid, but in these episodes the kids go on some camping trip, get lost and go into some cave. There's all kinds of freaky shit in the cave. I'm not sure what else to say, but people also get possessed and their eyes go weird as I remember, kind of like the same kind of thing that freaked me out in Superman III. [/quote] Here's a link to some screen shots. That does look like the creepiest Punky Brewster ever, it's even got the always odd Vincent Schiavelli in it! http://www.angelfire.com/80s/punkysplacestills/
]]>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 04:00:44 GMTJymkataTop 512/10/2006 11:00:44 PM[quote user="Risselada"] I didn't think about TV shows, but there was a two part episode of Punky Brewster that totally gave me the creeps. I wish I could find screen snaps of these episodes titled "The Perils of Punky". I'm not sure if anyone ever watched this show as a kid, but in these episodes the kids go on some camping trip, get lost and go into some cave. There's all kinds of freaky shit in the cave. I'm not sure what else to say, but people also get possessed and their eyes go weird as I remember, kind of like the same kind of thing that freaked me out in Superman III. [/quote] Here's a link to some screen shots. That does look like the creepiest Punky Brewster ever, it's even got the always odd Vincent Schiavelli in it! http://www.angelfire.com/80s/punkysplacestills/ http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_top_five_movies_that_scared_the_crap_out_of_yo/190/4168/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 12/10/2006 10:24:42 PM
Body: I didn't think about TV shows, but there was a two part episode of Punky Brewster that totally gave me the creeps. I wish I could find screen snaps of these episodes titled "The Perils of Punky". I'm not sure if anyone ever watched this show as a kid, but in these episodes the kids go on some camping trip, get lost and go into some cave. There's all kinds of freaky shit in the cave. I'm not sure what else to say, but people also get possessed and their eyes go weird as I remember, kind of like the same kind of thing that freaked me out in Superman III.
]]>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:24:42 GMTRisseladaTop 512/10/2006 10:24:42 PMI didn't think about TV shows, but there was a two part episode of Punky Brewster that totally gave me the creeps. I wish I could find screen snaps of these episodes titled "The Perils of Punky". I'm not sure if anyone ever watched this show as a kid, but in these episodes the kids go on some camping trip, get lost and go into some cave. There's all kinds of freaky shit in the cave. I'm not sure what else to say, but people also get possessed and their eyes go weird as I remember, kind of like the same kind of thing that freaked me out in Superman III. http://www.spout.com/groups/Grew_up_in_the_80_s/Welcome_new_members/38/3683/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: Grew up in the 80's
Post Date: 11/14/2006 11:10:04 AM
Body: So, a group on the eighties is really nothing more than a chance to remember nostalgic movies (and movie experiences) we've forgotten. How many of us were totally freaked out when that lady was turned into a robot by the giant computer in Superman 3? Quite a few. I know because it's been a traumatic film discussed in the Top 5 group. Why does remebering that stuff bring cuddly, fuzzy feelings? Maybe because we share a point in history, however unnotable, that we define with Garbage Pail Kids, Richard Pryor's worst movies, and the unsung genius of Huey Lewis and The News. It may not be the 60's, but it's ours damnit!A recent request into this group from Indie reminded me why I love our silly little gathering around crap movies of the 80's. Enjoy...I grew up in the 80's. I anxiously watched Back to the Future on VHS and then repeatedly smacked my head off the floor when it stated ... to be continued. I waited what seemed to be an eternity only to be dissapointed by the sequal. I wanted to be a Goonie and religiously watched Date with an Angel because Pheobe Cates said "tushy". I loved Space Camp and consequently will never step inside a real rocket, even if its on a guided tour. I watch I love the 80's and I love the 80's strikes back. I've feared the Cobra Kai. I've played with small plastic replicas of Gizmo; I've been hit in the face with the plastic end of a cabbage patch kid(I've two older sisters who came of age in the 80's too). I actually watch the Bionic Woman 1,000,000 $ Man reunion show, and if that is not 80's, I don't know what is!
]]>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:10:04 GMTpaulGrew up in the 80's11/14/2006 11:10:04 AMSo, a group on the eighties is really nothing more than a chance to remember nostalgic movies (and movie experiences) we've forgotten. How many of us were totally freaked out when that lady was turned into a robot by the giant computer in Superman 3? Quite a few. I know because it's been a traumatic film discussed in the Top 5 group. Why does remebering that stuff bring cuddly, fuzzy feelings? Maybe because we share a point in history, however unnotable, that we define with Garbage Pail Kids, Richard Pryor's worst movies, and the unsung genius of Huey Lewis and The News. It may not be the 60's, but it's ours damnit!A recent request into this group from Indie reminded me why I love our silly little gathering around crap movies of the 80's. Enjoy...I grew up in the 80's. I anxiously watched Back to the Future on VHS and then repeatedly smacked my head off the floor when it stated ... to be continued. I waited what seemed to be an eternity only to be dissapointed by the sequal. I wanted to be a Goonie and religiously watched Date with an Angel because Pheobe Cates said "tushy". I loved Space Camp and consequently will never step inside a real rocket, even if its on a guided tour. I watch I love the 80's and I love the 80's strikes back. I've feared the Cobra Kai. I've played with small plastic replicas of Gizmo; I've been hit in the face with the plastic end of a cabbage patch kid(I've two older sisters who came of age in the 80's too). I actually watch the Bionic Woman 1,000,000 $ Man reunion show, and if that is not 80's, I don't know what is! http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_My_Top_5/190/3644/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Indie
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 11/10/2006 2:26:05 PM
Body: 1. Superman 3- I didn't think that would end up being a common fear but yeah the machine swallowing the old woman and making her freaky about did me in. 2.Willy Wonka- The nervous breakdown on the boat- too out of left field. Thats when I figured Willy was messing with stuff I didn't want to know about. 3. Evil Dead 2- I watched it when I was 11or 12 because at that point I thought I was impervious, but the laughing deer head got me bad. 4.Mr. Boogedy (sp)- it was a Disney thing on ABC when I was very small. My parents let me watch it after they made me promise it wouldn't scare me. I don't think I've ever told anyone that it actually freaked me out. 5. Dark Crystal- Eye-popping old lady + Giant Beetles= one squirming kid close 6. The Secret of Nimh- because the great owl for some reason has wierd demon eyes and crunches on live animals (I know owls do that, but come on!)
]]>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:26:05 GMTIndieTop 511/10/2006 2:26:05 PM1. Superman 3- I didn't think that would end up being a common fear but yeah the machine swallowing the old woman and making her freaky about did me in. 2.Willy Wonka- The nervous breakdown on the boat- too out of left field. Thats when I figured Willy was messing with stuff I didn't want to know about. 3. Evil Dead 2- I watched it when I was 11or 12 because at that point I thought I was impervious, but the laughing deer head got me bad. 4.Mr. Boogedy (sp)- it was a Disney thing on ABC when I was very small. My parents let me watch it after they made me promise it wouldn't scare me. I don't think I've ever told anyone that it actually freaked me out. 5. Dark Crystal- Eye-popping old lady + Giant Beetles= one squirming kid close 6. The Secret of Nimh- because the great owl for some reason has wierd demon eyes and crunches on live animals (I know owls do that, but come on!) http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_top_five_movies_that_scared_the_crap_out_of_yo/190/3429/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 10/25/2006 10:59:39 AM
Body: I suppose I should explain links since the question was raised. While writing your post, highlight a film title, click the button that has a little chainlink graphic with a globe behind it (what does that mean?), then copy and paste the URL of the film's page on Spout into the box that drops down. Whenever you link to a film in a discussion or a blog post, it will show an excerpt of what you wrote on the film's page. Nice, eh?Alright, I take my Spout Customer Care shirt off. Scary as shit movies....1) Dreamscape with Dennis Quaid. There's just nothing more scary than truly being stuck in a nightmare. A nightmare with a Snake-man.2) The trailer for House. A skull with bat wings flew right at me from the TV late one night and I couldn't sleep for two days. I really couldn't. I cried.3) E.T. - The screeching in the cornfield and crane neck was bad enough, what when he passed out next to that stream and turned into a raw slab of beef, I couldn't take anymore.4) Superman III - ditto on the giant computer wrapping people in wires and turning them into robots. Robots with SILVER EYES!!!5) The Wiz - Oh yay! Michael Jackson in a movie! (This is shortly after the Thriller album came out.) That flick was messed up. The creepy tiled parking garage where the support columns break out with arms and start chasing Diana Ross and MJ. Freaky deaky.
]]>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:59:39 GMTpaulTop 510/25/2006 10:59:39 AMI suppose I should explain links since the question was raised. While writing your post, highlight a film title, click the button that has a little chainlink graphic with a globe behind it (what does that mean?), then copy and paste the URL of the film's page on Spout into the box that drops down. Whenever you link to a film in a discussion or a blog post, it will show an excerpt of what you wrote on the film's page. Nice, eh?Alright, I take my Spout Customer Care shirt off. Scary as shit movies....1) Dreamscape with Dennis Quaid. There's just nothing more scary than truly being stuck in a nightmare. A nightmare with a Snake-man.2) The trailer for House. A skull with bat wings flew right at me from the TV late one night and I couldn't sleep for two days. I really couldn't. I cried.3) E.T. - The screeching in the cornfield and crane neck was bad enough, what when he passed out next to that stream and turned into a raw slab of beef, I couldn't take anymore.4) Superman III - ditto on the giant computer wrapping people in wires and turning them into robots. Robots with SILVER EYES!!!5) The Wiz - Oh yay! Michael Jackson in a movie! (This is shortly after the Thriller album came out.) That flick was messed up. The creepy tiled parking garage where the support columns break out with arms and start chasing Diana Ross and MJ. Freaky deaky. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_top_five_movies_that_scared_the_crap_out_of_yo/190/3420/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 10/24/2006 1:53:59 PM
Body: Yeah Willy Wonka, the part where they ride that boat through the tunnel and Wilder sings that freaky song and there's all kinds of disturbings images projected up on the wall. I remember when I was a kid, Judge Doom scared the crap out of me when he turned into a cartoon as well. Now Roger Rabbit is one of my all time favorite films. Tmoney, I just read your blog on The Peanut Butter Solution. That does sounds like one of the freakiest things around. I was totally frightened of black wolves in movies. So I would always run out of the room when the wolf parts would come on in Benji the Hunted or The Neverending Story. The most chilling part of Benji was when Benji tricks the wolf into running off of that cliff to his demise. The wolf howl haunted my nightmares. I think it was Superman III. There was some part with a giant computer that would grab people and turn them into evil androids. I caught that on TV once and couldn't get the terrifying image out of my head. I think I was fairly young when I saw the Jaws movies as well. The part in Jaws 3 when all the people get sealed in that transparent underwater tube system was the most unsettling part.
]]>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:53:59 GMTRisseladaTop 510/24/2006 1:53:59 PMYeah Willy Wonka, the part where they ride that boat through the tunnel and Wilder sings that freaky song and there's all kinds of disturbings images projected up on the wall. I remember when I was a kid, Judge Doom scared the crap out of me when he turned into a cartoon as well. Now Roger Rabbit is one of my all time favorite films. Tmoney, I just read your blog on The Peanut Butter Solution. That does sounds like one of the freakiest things around. I was totally frightened of black wolves in movies. So I would always run out of the room when the wolf parts would come on in Benji the Hunted or The Neverending Story. The most chilling part of Benji was when Benji tricks the wolf into running off of that cliff to his demise. The wolf howl haunted my nightmares. I think it was Superman III. There was some part with a giant computer that would grab people and turn them into evil androids. I caught that on TV once and couldn't get the terrifying image out of my head. I think I was fairly young when I saw the Jaws movies as well. The part in Jaws 3 when all the people get sealed in that transparent underwater tube system was the most unsettling part. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/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/horrible/MemberTagFilms.aspxhorrible
Number of films tagged: 72

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 73

]]>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:19:31 GMT724273Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/journalism/MemberTagFilms.aspxjournalism
Number of films tagged: 1146

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 65

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT11464165Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/computers/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomputers
Number of films tagged: 395

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 30

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:02:23 GMT3951830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disguise/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisguise
Number of films tagged: 568

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 32

]]>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:47:24 GMT5681432Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/unfunny/MemberTagFilms.aspxunfunny
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 13

]]>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:02:33 GMT131113Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bad-sequel/MemberTagFilms.aspxbad-sequel
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 19

]]>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:14:50 GMT13819Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comicbookmovie/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomicbookmovie
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 36

]]>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 00:06:44 GMT27536Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/clark/MemberTagFilms.aspxclark
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 79

]]>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:25:48 GMT77479Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/oldflame/MemberTagFilms.aspxoldflame
Number of films tagged: 208

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 5

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT20845Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/badsequel/MemberTagFilms.aspxbadsequel
Number of films tagged: 17

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 19

]]>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:34:03 GMT17319Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/worlddomination/MemberTagFilms.aspxworlddomination
Number of films tagged: 278

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 11

]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:02:48 GMT278311Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/embarrassing/MemberTagFilms.aspxembarrassing
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 4

]]>Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:08:11 GMT424Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pryor/MemberTagFilms.aspxpryor
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:22:48 GMT111Tag