list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Push 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/Push/345365/default.aspx Title: Push
Year: 2009
Director: Paul McGuigan
Plot: Lucky Number Slevin director Paul McGuigan takes the helm for this action thriller concerning a group of telekinetic American ex-patriots who band together in an attempt to take down the clandestine government agency that's genetically transforming normal citizens into powerful psychic warriors. The Division is a shadowy government operation devoted to making humankind the ultimate weapon. Those who accept this transformation have the power to move objects with the mind, see the future before it happens, create new realities, and dispense of their enemies without so much as a single touch; those who are unwilling to participate are immediately terminated. Nick Gant (Chris Evans) is a "mover," a second-generation telekinetic who went into hiding after the Division killed his father more than a decade earlier. He lives a life of anonymity in Hong Kong, a densely populated place where fugitive psychics such as himself are safe as long as they can keep their unique gift secret. Suddenly into Nick's life comes 13-year-old "watcher" Cassie Holmes (Dakota Fanning), a clairvoyant who needs his help in tracking down escaped "pusher" Kira, who may hold the key to bringing down the Division once and for all. A "pusher" is the most powerful kind of psychic due to his or her ability to influence the actions of others by planting thoughts in their minds. Now, as Nick emerges from hiding in order to help Cassie find Kira, the Division's human bloodhounds are hot on their trail. In order to elude the authorities, they'll need to disappear into the seedy underbelly of the city while relying on a team of rogue psychics to help cover their tracks. But Division Agent Henry Carver (Djimon Hounsou) is a powerful pusher who has made it his mission to stop them at all costs, regardless of the collateral damages that may occur in the process. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 33
Number of Lists: 9
Number of blog posts: 7
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:49 GMTPush2009Paul McGuigan<a href="http://www.spout.com/films/257847/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lucky Number Slevin</a> director <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___241227/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Paul McGuigan</a> takes the helm for this action thriller concerning a group of telekinetic American ex-patriots who band together in an attempt to take down the clandestine government agency that's genetically transforming normal citizens into powerful psychic warriors. The Division is a shadowy government operation devoted to making humankind the ultimate weapon. Those who accept this transformation have the power to move objects with the mind, see the future before it happens, create new realities, and dispense of their enemies without so much as a single touch; those who are unwilling to participate are immediately terminated. Nick Gant (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___302167/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Chris Evans</a>) is a "mover," a second-generation telekinetic who went into hiding after the Division killed his father more than a decade earlier. He lives a life of anonymity in Hong Kong, a densely populated place where fugitive psychics such as himself are safe as long as they can keep their unique gift secret. Suddenly into Nick's life comes 13-year-old "watcher" Cassie Holmes (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___301579/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dakota Fanning</a>), a clairvoyant who needs his help in tracking down escaped "pusher" Kira, who may hold the key to bringing down the Division once and for all. A "pusher" is the most powerful kind of psychic due to his or her ability to influence the actions of others by planting thoughts in their minds. Now, as Nick emerges from hiding in order to help Cassie find Kira, the Division's human bloodhounds are hot on their trail. In order to elude the authorities, they'll need to disappear into the seedy underbelly of the city while relying on a team of rogue psychics to help cover their tracks. But Division Agent Henry Carver (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____33391/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Djimon Hounsou</a>) is a powerful pusher who has made it his mission to stop them at all costs, regardless of the collateral damages that may occur in the process. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide33Tag Target (>10)972http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s345365.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Push/345365/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/dibot/archive/2009/3/25/41248.aspx Post By: dibot
Post To: dibot Blog
Post Date: 3/25/2009 3:48:02 PM
Body: Taken is the most fun I've had in the theater in awhile. Liam Neeson ("The Other Man") plays a retired FBI agent who goes on a rampage when his daughter is kidnapped. The film has alot of flaws if you focus on logistics too much. Just let go and enjoy the ride.A Place in the Sun stars Montgomery Clift ("The Defector") as a poor boy trying to make a place for himself. He gets a chance at the upper crust with a young Elizabeth Taylor ("The Flintstones"), but, sadly, he's already knocked up his common girlfriend, Shelly Winters ("La Bomba"). It's enough to drive a man to murder. An interesting story, but I didn't love any of the characters. Supposedly based on actual events, it won six Oscars including Screenplay.In Heaven Can Wait, Warren Beatty ("Town & Country") plays a football player who's taken before his time. So the powers that be put him into the body of a self-centered millionaire and hijinks ensue. The story is consistently amusing, but rarely laugh-out-loud funny. Enjoyable.48 Hours pairs Nick Nolte ("Tropic Thunder")'s hot-headed cop with Eddie Murphy ("Meet Dave")'s wisecracking criminal. The story is okay. Nolte gets Murphy out of jail for two days to help catch an escaped convict who's gone on a killing spree. But Nolte's character is such an outrageous jerk that I had trouble watching the movie.Push is like a gritty version of X-Men. People with special powers like telekinesis or prophecy are categorized by the government and sometimes forced into service. But a big thing is going down, so a gangly Dakota Fanning ("The Secret Life of Bees") has to collect Chris Evans ("Street Kings") so they can save the world. Fun.
]]>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:48:02 GMTdibotdibot Blog3/25/2009 3:48:02 PMTaken is the most fun I've had in the theater in awhile. Liam Neeson ("The Other Man") plays a retired FBI agent who goes on a rampage when his daughter is kidnapped. The film has alot of flaws if you focus on logistics too much. Just let go and enjoy the ride.A Place in the Sun stars Montgomery Clift ("The Defector") as a poor boy trying to make a place for himself. He gets a chance at the upper crust with a young Elizabeth Taylor ("The Flintstones"), but, sadly, he's already knocked up his common girlfriend, Shelly Winters ("La Bomba"). It's enough to drive a man to murder. An interesting story, but I didn't love any of the characters. Supposedly based on actual events, it won six Oscars including Screenplay.In Heaven Can Wait, Warren Beatty ("Town &amp; Country") plays a football player who's taken before his time. So the powers that be put him into the body of a self-centered millionaire and hijinks ensue. The story is consistently amusing, but rarely laugh-out-loud funny. Enjoyable.48 Hours pairs Nick Nolte ("Tropic Thunder")'s hot-headed cop with Eddie Murphy ("Meet Dave")'s wisecracking criminal. The story is okay. Nolte gets Murphy out of jail for two days to help catch an escaped convict who's gone on a killing spree. But Nolte's character is such an outrageous jerk that I had trouble watching the movie.Push is like a gritty version of X-Men. People with special powers like telekinesis or prophecy are categorized by the government and sometimes forced into service. But a big thing is going down, so a gangly Dakota Fanning ("The Secret Life of Bees") has to collect Chris Evans ("Street Kings") so they can save the world. Fun. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/5/40852.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/5/2009 5:02:21 PM
Body: For what it’s worth, it’s perfect casting, but there’s still something surprising about the news that Dakota Fanning is taking on the starring role in Floria Sigismondi’s film about ’70s girl group The Runaways. As 15-year-old rocker Cherie Currie, Fanning will continue to bait stories about how quickly she’s growing up, though really the part seems both ironic and appropriate for the former child actress. Currie, who fronted the band wearing a lot of low-cut tops and lingerie on the outside (before Madonna!), may have grown up too fast thanks to her sexualized image and early abuses of drugs and alcohol, but just because Fanning will play the part doesn’t mean she’ll be similarly thrust into adulthood. If anything, her masquerade as Currie will be more effective if audiences recognize that Fanning is still a little girl. Fanning remains on track to be her generation’s Jodie Foster (who, interestingly enough, costarred with Currie in the movie Foxes), rather than her generation’s Drew Barrymore. And at best this could be her Taxi Driver (at worst, it’s actually her Foxes). Unfortunately, Fanning is a young girl in the age of creepy Internet comments and count-down clocks (not to mention the truly terrible examples of pedophilia to be found on the web), so much of the response to her casting is going to be stuck in predictably thoughtless concerns for her fading innocence and joked anticipation of her innocence lost. Here are some of the blogged expectations for how the role will impact Fanning’s age and image: “This could be the mature role that finally convinces audiences that Fanning is all grown up, and ready to be taken seriously,” writes Elisabeth Rappe at MTV Movies Blog. Ryan Parsons at CanMag goes for the obvious lead-in: “She’s all grown up. Well, sorta.” Nicole at Collider adds, “This is the latest attempt by Fanning to make us forget her adorable child-star origins… because playing a slutty, drug-addled rock star is about as far from ‘Man on Fire’ as she is likely to get.” Also, regarding the problem of Currie’s outfits making their way to the big screen: “…back in 1976 folks were a little hazy on child-pornography laws.” Mike Sampson at JoBlo.com calls this “just the next step in the ‘Dakota Fanning Is All Growns Up’ tour that includes her upcoming role a villainous vampire in NEW MOON.” But he also goes for the gold with a sex-image reference: If you’ve had some weird and slightly inappropriate dream that involved Dakota Fanning wearing a corset and thigh-high fishnet stockings, then you’re probably gonna wanna see THE RUNAWAYS (after seeking psychiatric help). “Hmm…kinda wish they got someone a little older that LOOKS young for this part. Not really ready to see Fanning as a s*x symbol sporting ripped fishnets and corsets,” writes commenter “Kevin” on Entertainment Weekly’s write-up. “Are you ready to watch Dakota Fanning shoot heroin and sing “Cherry Bomb” in a bustier?” writes Scandalist’s Anthony Miccio, who rushes Fanning’s growing up a bit in print by incorrectly stating the actress’ age as 16. Scott Von Doriak at The Screengrab goes for a cheap shot: “Screengrab instant poll: how many months before Fanning turns up in rehab?” ThePlaylist notes that Fanning has already got the drunkenness down, via her most recent film, Push, and links to a revealing quote from Fanning from The Vancouver Sun: “I don’t think there’s anything that, as I get older, I wouldn’t do for a movie.” Brendan Lemon at Lemonwade sensationally gives us Fanning’s history of aging quickly: Seems only yesterday that Dakota Fanning was America’s little sweetheart. In the past few years, though, she’s grown up onscreen with a vengeance: she’s been raped, she’s been beaten, and now it’s been announced that, in the upcoming Joan Jett biopic, Dakota will be a drugged-out rock ‘n’ roller. Progress! Brad Brevet at RopeofSilicon.com thinks she should stick to little girl parts: I don’t mean to sound negative, but I am never interested in these young stars playing these hard edged roles…Fanning is a bit too much the sweet and innocent type. As does “ilanac13,” commenting at BuzzSugar: well i think that dakota is really trying to make sure that people don’t realize that she’s all this sweet and whatever..but i think that she should realize that there are enough ‘dark’ actresses out there (i.e. Evan Rachel Wood, Kristen etc) that she could find her niche and be VERY successful in sweeter roles. And here are some of the better reactions to the news that actually have little to do with Fanning’s growing up: Vulture sticks to sarcasm regarding Fanning’s dainty (or lame) image: Public reaction to Kristen Stewart being cast as Joan Jett in The Runaways, the biopic of the all-girl seventies band, has been understandably less than enthusiastic. It’s wise, then, that producers have now slotted the most rock-and-roll person alive to play Cherrie Currie. “In other news,” jokes Richard at Defamer/Gawker, “Haley Joel Osment has just been cast as Steven Tyler and Alex D. Linz will play Bob Dylan in a highly reworked version of Tom Stoppard’s play Rock and Roll.” Fark.com’s headline makes fun by predicting Miley Cyrus will be cast as Lita Ford. But that’s not a bad idea. I also think Evan Rachel Wood would make a great addition as drummer Sandy West. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:02:21 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/5/2009 5:02:21 PMFor what it’s worth, it’s perfect casting, but there’s still something surprising about the news that Dakota Fanning is taking on the starring role in Floria Sigismondi’s film about ’70s girl group The Runaways. As 15-year-old rocker Cherie Currie, Fanning will continue to bait stories about how quickly she’s growing up, though really the part seems both ironic and appropriate for the former child actress. Currie, who fronted the band wearing a lot of low-cut tops and lingerie on the outside (before Madonna!), may have grown up too fast thanks to her sexualized image and early abuses of drugs and alcohol, but just because Fanning will play the part doesn’t mean she’ll be similarly thrust into adulthood. If anything, her masquerade as Currie will be more effective if audiences recognize that Fanning is still a little girl. Fanning remains on track to be her generation’s Jodie Foster (who, interestingly enough, costarred with Currie in the movie Foxes), rather than her generation’s Drew Barrymore. And at best this could be her Taxi Driver (at worst, it’s actually her Foxes). Unfortunately, Fanning is a young girl in the age of creepy Internet comments and count-down clocks (not to mention the truly terrible examples of pedophilia to be found on the web), so much of the response to her casting is going to be stuck in predictably thoughtless concerns for her fading innocence and joked anticipation of her innocence lost. Here are some of the blogged expectations for how the role will impact Fanning’s age and image: “This could be the mature role that finally convinces audiences that Fanning is all grown up, and ready to be taken seriously,” writes Elisabeth Rappe at MTV Movies Blog. Ryan Parsons at CanMag goes for the obvious lead-in: “She’s all grown up. Well, sorta.” Nicole at Collider adds, “This is the latest attempt by Fanning to make us forget her adorable child-star origins… because playing a slutty, drug-addled rock star is about as far from ‘Man on Fire’ as she is likely to get.” Also, regarding the problem of Currie’s outfits making their way to the big screen: “…back in 1976 folks were a little hazy on child-pornography laws.” Mike Sampson at JoBlo.com calls this “just the next step in the ‘Dakota Fanning Is All Growns Up’ tour that includes her upcoming role a villainous vampire in NEW MOON.” But he also goes for the gold with a sex-image reference: If you’ve had some weird and slightly inappropriate dream that involved Dakota Fanning wearing a corset and thigh-high fishnet stockings, then you’re probably gonna wanna see THE RUNAWAYS (after seeking psychiatric help). “Hmm…kinda wish they got someone a little older that LOOKS young for this part. Not really ready to see Fanning as a s*x symbol sporting ripped fishnets and corsets,” writes commenter “Kevin” on Entertainment Weekly’s write-up. “Are you ready to watch Dakota Fanning shoot heroin and sing “Cherry Bomb” in a bustier?” writes Scandalist’s Anthony Miccio, who rushes Fanning’s growing up a bit in print by incorrectly stating the actress’ age as 16. Scott Von Doriak at The Screengrab goes for a cheap shot: “Screengrab instant poll: how many months before Fanning turns up in rehab?” ThePlaylist notes that Fanning has already got the drunkenness down, via her most recent film, Push, and links to a revealing quote from Fanning from The Vancouver Sun: “I don’t think there’s anything that, as I get older, I wouldn’t do for a movie.” Brendan Lemon at Lemonwade sensationally gives us Fanning’s history of aging quickly: Seems only yesterday that Dakota Fanning was America’s little sweetheart. In the past few years, though, she’s grown up onscreen with a vengeance: she’s been raped, she’s been beaten, and now it’s been announced that, in the upcoming Joan Jett biopic, Dakota will be a drugged-out rock ‘n’ roller. Progress! Brad Brevet at RopeofSilicon.com thinks she should stick to little girl parts: I don’t mean to sound negative, but I am never interested in these young stars playing these hard edged roles…Fanning is a bit too much the sweet and innocent type. As does “ilanac13,” commenting at BuzzSugar: well i think that dakota is really trying to make sure that people don’t realize that she’s all this sweet and whatever..but i think that she should realize that there are enough ‘dark’ actresses out there (i.e. Evan Rachel Wood, Kristen etc) that she could find her niche and be VERY successful in sweeter roles. And here are some of the better reactions to the news that actually have little to do with Fanning’s growing up: Vulture sticks to sarcasm regarding Fanning’s dainty (or lame) image: Public reaction to Kristen Stewart being cast as Joan Jett in The Runaways, the biopic of the all-girl seventies band, has been understandably less than enthusiastic. It’s wise, then, that producers have now slotted the most rock-and-roll person alive to play Cherrie Currie. “In other news,” jokes Richard at Defamer/Gawker, “Haley Joel Osment has just been cast as Steven Tyler and Alex D. Linz will play Bob Dylan in a highly reworked version of Tom Stoppard’s play Rock and Roll.” Fark.com’s headline makes fun by predicting Miley Cyrus will be cast as Lita Ford. But that’s not a bad idea. I also think Evan Rachel Wood would make a great addition as drummer Sandy West. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/dadio/archive/2009/2/7/40336.aspx Post By: dadio
Post To: dadio Blog
Post Date: 2/7/2009 1:43:55 PM
Body: This rip-off of the popular NBC series misses the mark in virtually every aspect of the film. The special effects soon become tiresome and almost laughable. The acting is weak, leaving the viewer apathetic about the protagonsts' fate. The normally likeable Dakota Fanning is miscast as a supposedly sharp-tongued and cynical clairvoyant. Even an injection of color and music (no dout in an attempt to achieve a "music video" feel) is a waste of time. The plot is transparent, the acting borders on comic. Unless you like every sci-fi move that you see, save your money and avoid this one. For more info, check my other review at: http://blog.syracuse.com/moviereviews/
]]>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:43:55 GMTdadiodadio Blog2/7/2009 1:43:55 PMThis rip-off of the popular NBC series misses the mark in virtually every aspect of the film. The special effects soon become tiresome and almost laughable. The acting is weak, leaving the viewer apathetic about the protagonsts' fate. The normally likeable Dakota Fanning is miscast as a supposedly sharp-tongued and cynical clairvoyant. Even an injection of color and music (no dout in an attempt to achieve a "music video" feel) is a waste of time. The plot is transparent, the acting borders on comic. Unless you like every sci-fi move that you see, save your money and avoid this one. For more info, check my other review at: http://blog.syracuse.com/moviereviews/ http://www.spout.com/blogs/yinali/archive/2009/2/5/40299.aspx Post By: Yinali
Post To: Yinali Blog
Post Date: 2/5/2009 11:52:22 PM
Body: When I first saw the official trailer on appletv, I thought to myself: '"Dakota Fanning has finally broken off her usual roles as a child, or as a weird child like the movie Hide and Seek; she looks so big!" And then I glazed upon the visual effects, which seemed very convincing and cool for sci-fi affcicionados like myself, and I thought it would be a great movie, like Matrix. But overall, when I watched the first 10 minutes, it became slow...And believe me I tried to love this movie in any way I could, but the plot and the way things were supposed to combine with each other just was plain messy.
]]>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:52:22 GMTYinaliYinali Blog2/5/2009 11:52:22 PMWhen I first saw the official trailer on appletv, I thought to myself: '"Dakota Fanning has finally broken off her usual roles as a child, or as a weird child like the movie Hide and Seek; she looks so big!" And then I glazed upon the visual effects, which seemed very convincing and cool for sci-fi affcicionados like myself, and I thought it would be a great movie, like Matrix. But overall, when I watched the first 10 minutes, it became slow...And believe me I tried to love this movie in any way I could, but the plot and the way things were supposed to combine with each other just was plain messy. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/5/40279.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/5/2009 4:01:21 PM
Body: In a turn of events that recalls an infamous Sundance story of yore, Harvey Weinstein is insisting that The Weinstein Co. locked down rights to Push (not that one, the Sundance one) before Lionsgate made its deal. Fortunately for everyone in Park City, this fight waited until after the film festival ended and ol’ Harv was nowhere near making a scene in a restaurant. Instead, the rights tug-of-war is going to the courts (on both coasts), making everyone think this is the indie version of the Watchmen battle and giving the blogs something more interesting than actors’ rants and masquerades to comment on: “Harvey Weinstein constantly pleads poverty on behalf of his The Weinstein Co so that filmmakers will dig into their own wallets for re-shoots that he demands yet won’t fund. But suddenly he’s got big bucks to spend on the nation’s highest priced lawyers,” writes an almost angry Nikki Finke. “Of course what all this points up is just how informal those Sundance negotiations are,” writes Risky Biz Blog, “Back of the envelope, middle of an alley, front of a bar. That’s usually where a lot of these discussions take place. Was there enough of a discussion, or agreement, to give TWC a claim? A judge will decide. We just can’t wait until he does — it’s not everyday the judicial system parses the finer points of a night at the Riverhorse.” indieWIRE received a joint statement from Cinetic Media’s John Sloss and Bart Walker: “We respect Harvey tremendously. In this case he is over-reaching. There was never a deal with The Weinstein Company, there were numerous material unresolved points.” Also at indieWIRE, Eric Kohn discusses the Watchmen parallel: “Push is also a highly anticipated adaptation, one that will also raise the voices of unsatisfied future audience if the fate of its distribution remains in peril. Both movies have pop culture forces enhancing their commercial appeal, although we’re talking about vastly different cultures here: Watchmen has Kevin Smith and Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof, among others, while Push will supposedly get boosted by support from Oprah and Tyler Perry.” Vulture points out that, unlike Watchmen, Push is a film that won’t make a lot of money. Referencing yesterday’s NY Times piece on its marketing challenges, they have this bit of snarky inquiry: “Which studio will win the right to distribute Push in like, five theaters? How much additional money will the film lose now that its budget might include a protracted legal battle? Also, who owns the sequel rights?” Also on the marketing issue, The Playlist simply says, “Maybe Weinstein should just count his blessings and cut n’ run.” Seriously, he doesn’t need another flop and this isn’t a guaranteed film. Defamer also references the Times piece, but argues in favor of its box office appeal: “this film is poised to hit its key money demographic: not black audiences, but women. There’s no way this film won’t be enormously talked about in the press, and Mo’Nique is a sure frontrunner for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, which ensures that the film will stay in the public eye long enough to far exceed some industry watchers’ expectations.” Sticking to the “urban” demographic stance, David Poland notes that Push is better off with Lionsgate than TWC: “Unlike Lionsgate, TWC is NOT a company with a strong history of releasing films for black audiences. On the other hand, they now have Tom Ortenberg, who was probably drooling at the opportunity to top Lionsgate with TWC’s first real urban film.” Finally, Cinematical’s Peter Martin asks the big question: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Harvey Weintein was actually fighting to get the rights solely because he thought he could mastermind a better release than Oprah, Tyler Perry, and Lionsgate?” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:01:21 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/5/2009 4:01:21 PMIn a turn of events that recalls an infamous Sundance story of yore, Harvey Weinstein is insisting that The Weinstein Co. locked down rights to Push (not that one, the Sundance one) before Lionsgate made its deal. Fortunately for everyone in Park City, this fight waited until after the film festival ended and ol’ Harv was nowhere near making a scene in a restaurant. Instead, the rights tug-of-war is going to the courts (on both coasts), making everyone think this is the indie version of the Watchmen battle and giving the blogs something more interesting than actors’ rants and masquerades to comment on: “Harvey Weinstein constantly pleads poverty on behalf of his The Weinstein Co so that filmmakers will dig into their own wallets for re-shoots that he demands yet won’t fund. But suddenly he’s got big bucks to spend on the nation’s highest priced lawyers,” writes an almost angry Nikki Finke. “Of course what all this points up is just how informal those Sundance negotiations are,” writes Risky Biz Blog, “Back of the envelope, middle of an alley, front of a bar. That’s usually where a lot of these discussions take place. Was there enough of a discussion, or agreement, to give TWC a claim? A judge will decide. We just can’t wait until he does — it’s not everyday the judicial system parses the finer points of a night at the Riverhorse.” indieWIRE received a joint statement from Cinetic Media’s John Sloss and Bart Walker: “We respect Harvey tremendously. In this case he is over-reaching. There was never a deal with The Weinstein Company, there were numerous material unresolved points.” Also at indieWIRE, Eric Kohn discusses the Watchmen parallel: “Push is also a highly anticipated adaptation, one that will also raise the voices of unsatisfied future audience if the fate of its distribution remains in peril. Both movies have pop culture forces enhancing their commercial appeal, although we’re talking about vastly different cultures here: Watchmen has Kevin Smith and Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof, among others, while Push will supposedly get boosted by support from Oprah and Tyler Perry.” Vulture points out that, unlike Watchmen, Push is a film that won’t make a lot of money. Referencing yesterday’s NY Times piece on its marketing challenges, they have this bit of snarky inquiry: “Which studio will win the right to distribute Push in like, five theaters? How much additional money will the film lose now that its budget might include a protracted legal battle? Also, who owns the sequel rights?” Also on the marketing issue, The Playlist simply says, “Maybe Weinstein should just count his blessings and cut n’ run.” Seriously, he doesn’t need another flop and this isn’t a guaranteed film. Defamer also references the Times piece, but argues in favor of its box office appeal: “this film is poised to hit its key money demographic: not black audiences, but women. There’s no way this film won’t be enormously talked about in the press, and Mo’Nique is a sure frontrunner for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, which ensures that the film will stay in the public eye long enough to far exceed some industry watchers’ expectations.” Sticking to the “urban” demographic stance, David Poland notes that Push is better off with Lionsgate than TWC: “Unlike Lionsgate, TWC is NOT a company with a strong history of releasing films for black audiences. On the other hand, they now have Tom Ortenberg, who was probably drooling at the opportunity to top Lionsgate with TWC’s first real urban film.” Finally, Cinematical’s Peter Martin asks the big question: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Harvey Weintein was actually fighting to get the rights solely because he thought he could mastermind a better release than Oprah, Tyler Perry, and Lionsgate?” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/5/40271.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/5/2009 12:01:20 PM
Body: Are you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:01:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/5/2009 12:01:20 PMAre you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/24/33050.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/24/2008 5:01:23 PM
Body: 1:53 - PUSH Q&A Question #1: The first question is: “Do those screams affects the psychics? We saw them killing the fish, but does it have any effect on people with powers?” Paul McGuigan explained that it’s just an ability that interferes with hearing, and throws people off. It doesn’t damage the psychics. He’s now explaining the other kinds of powers… “Sniffers” can touch items and “see the history” of them, like a glass in a bar. Shifters can change the shape of things for a short amount of time. A person who’s a “Stitch” can heal you, and “Wipers” can erase your minds. 1:45 - PUSH clip In the clip, Dakota Fanning and Chris Evans share some noodles in a Japanese restaurant, and this is the first time I’ve had a chance to see that….not a child, not a teenager Dakota Fanning. And it’s bizarre. She’s a “Watcher” who can read people’s minds and see into the near future, and she’s trying to get Nick to help her rescue Camilla. When she has her flashes, it’s like watching a strange student film shot on 16mm, and replete with jumpcuts. They get into a bit of a scrape, and Chris uses his powers to slam people into the wall… and then this crazy eyed guy with an uber-powerful banshee wail starts screaming at them, shattering fish tanks and obliterating everything in their path. And they scream over, and over, and over. It looks really creepy (they even obliterate fish with their wails) and it is incredibly ear-piercing. And annoying. Chris Evans explains that his character is a bit of an outsider, and he only uses his powers for personal gain. He plays dice for money, and uses his ability to tweak the rolls so he wins. But he’s also laying low and living under the wire, so he’s not exactly a billionaire. 1:35 - Just seated, and they’re showing us a preview of PUSH. Eric Morrow from IGN came out to introduce the first ever Summit Pictures Comic-Con panel, which includes “a little phenomenon you may have heard of called TWILIGHT.” Literally every female in the room screamed at the top of their lungs. The trailer features an apocalyptic voice narrating how tough things are in a world where people can move things with their minds…and a lot of images that say “Getty Images” on them. They must have slapped this together last night. Now the team from PUSH has taken the stage: Djimon Hounsou, Chris Evans, Camilla Belle, and director Paul McGuigan. Dakota Fanning is sadly (or happily?) not present. Paul wanted to make this movie because it’s “set in the real world, but lets us play in the fantasy world.” Djimon Hounsou plays Henry Carver, a government agent who is in charge of recruiting people with psychic powers, and he also has the power to “alter people’s minds.” He can also tweak their powers and “make them better soldiers.” Now they’re showing a clip of how his mental prowess actually works. It looks like he’s gifted with the power of extreme persuasion, and when he uses it, his eyes turn black. He commands a footsoldier let him down to shoot himself in the mouth. Ouch. So basically he’s like an evil Jedi government agent? Spooky. He can also “Push” memories onto people, as can Camilla Belle’s character, which can come in handy. McGuigan said, “You can go up to someone and be like ‘Hey, you owe me a hundred bucks, remember?’” Now that would come in very handy. Chris Evans plays “Nick… a movie” and the crowd goes nuts before he gets any further. “Yeah! I move stuff! All right!” Basically by “mover” he means he moves things with his mind, and he’s gone into hiding. They’re setting up a new clip to show off the Chris Evans and Camilla Belel’s powers, and then the Q&A opens up, with millions of Chris Evans fans already lining up. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:01:23 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/24/2008 5:01:23 PM 1:53 - PUSH Q&A Question #1: The first question is: “Do those screams affects the psychics? We saw them killing the fish, but does it have any effect on people with powers?” Paul McGuigan explained that it’s just an ability that interferes with hearing, and throws people off. It doesn’t damage the psychics. He’s now explaining the other kinds of powers… “Sniffers” can touch items and “see the history” of them, like a glass in a bar. Shifters can change the shape of things for a short amount of time. A person who’s a “Stitch” can heal you, and “Wipers” can erase your minds. 1:45 - PUSH clip In the clip, Dakota Fanning and Chris Evans share some noodles in a Japanese restaurant, and this is the first time I’ve had a chance to see that….not a child, not a teenager Dakota Fanning. And it’s bizarre. She’s a “Watcher” who can read people’s minds and see into the near future, and she’s trying to get Nick to help her rescue Camilla. When she has her flashes, it’s like watching a strange student film shot on 16mm, and replete with jumpcuts. They get into a bit of a scrape, and Chris uses his powers to slam people into the wall… and then this crazy eyed guy with an uber-powerful banshee wail starts screaming at them, shattering fish tanks and obliterating everything in their path. And they scream over, and over, and over. It looks really creepy (they even obliterate fish with their wails) and it is incredibly ear-piercing. And annoying. Chris Evans explains that his character is a bit of an outsider, and he only uses his powers for personal gain. He plays dice for money, and uses his ability to tweak the rolls so he wins. But he’s also laying low and living under the wire, so he’s not exactly a billionaire. 1:35 - Just seated, and they’re showing us a preview of PUSH. Eric Morrow from IGN came out to introduce the first ever Summit Pictures Comic-Con panel, which includes “a little phenomenon you may have heard of called TWILIGHT.” Literally every female in the room screamed at the top of their lungs. The trailer features an apocalyptic voice narrating how tough things are in a world where people can move things with their minds…and a lot of images that say “Getty Images” on them. They must have slapped this together last night. Now the team from PUSH has taken the stage: Djimon Hounsou, Chris Evans, Camilla Belle, and director Paul McGuigan. Dakota Fanning is sadly (or happily?) not present. Paul wanted to make this movie because it’s “set in the real world, but lets us play in the fantasy world.” Djimon Hounsou plays Henry Carver, a government agent who is in charge of recruiting people with psychic powers, and he also has the power to “alter people’s minds.” He can also tweak their powers and “make them better soldiers.” Now they’re showing a clip of how his mental prowess actually works. It looks like he’s gifted with the power of extreme persuasion, and when he uses it, his eyes turn black. He commands a footsoldier let him down to shoot himself in the mouth. Ouch. So basically he’s like an evil Jedi government agent? Spooky. He can also “Push” memories onto people, as can Camilla Belle’s character, which can come in handy. McGuigan said, “You can go up to someone and be like ‘Hey, you owe me a hundred bucks, remember?’” Now that would come in very handy. Chris Evans plays “Nick… a movie” and the crowd goes nuts before he gets any further. “Yeah! I move stuff! All right!” Basically by “mover” he means he moves things with his mind, and he’s gone into hiding. They’re setting up a new clip to show off the Chris Evans and Camilla Belel’s powers, and then the Q&A opens up, with millions of Chris Evans fans already lining up. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fun/MemberTagFilms.aspxfun
Number of films tagged: 459

Number of people who tagged: 142

Number of times used: 296

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:09 GMT459142296Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 318

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 459

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:48:03 GMT318111459Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 525

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 624

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:10 GMT525102624Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/escape/MemberTagFilms.aspxescape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 279

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT286876279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/kidnapping/MemberTagFilms.aspxkidnapping
Number of films tagged: 2851

Number of people who tagged: 49

Number of times used: 172

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:42 GMT285149172Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mafia/MemberTagFilms.aspxmafia
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 65

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:47 GMT2313965Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fighting/MemberTagFilms.aspxfighting
Number of films tagged: 292

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 97

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:44 GMT2923397Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/china/MemberTagFilms.aspxchina
Number of films tagged: 603

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 36

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:48:02 GMT6032336Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/government/MemberTagFilms.aspxgovernment
Number of films tagged: 1063

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 126

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:36 GMT106321126Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gang/MemberTagFilms.aspxgang
Number of films tagged: 39

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 43

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:58:19 GMT391843Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/psychic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpsychic
Number of films tagged: 276

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 23

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:34 GMT2761523Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/telekinesis/MemberTagFilms.aspxtelekinesis
Number of films tagged: 47

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 13

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:54:43 GMT471113Tag 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