list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Reader 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/The_Reader/345698/default.aspx Title: The Reader
Year: 2008
Director: Stephen Daldry
Plot: Kate Winslet and Ralph Finnes star in The Hours director Stephen Daldry's haunting period romance tracing the complicated love affair between a German teen and a mysterious woman twice his age. Based on author Bernhard Schlink's best-selling novel of the same name, The Reader opens in post-World War II Germany, where ailing teenager Michael Berg has fallen ill with scarlet fever. Nursed back to health by Hannah, Michael eventually makes a full recovery and decides to thank his benevolent caretaker in person. Upon being reunited, Michael discovers that Hannah loves being read to and the pair quickly enters into a passionate yet clandestine affair. Later, after intense readings of The Odyssey and Huck Finn, among others, Hannah vanishes without a trace, leaving Michael heartbroken and despondent. Flash-forward nearly a decade, and Michael is a law student observing Nazi war crime trials. When Hannah wanders into the courtroom and takes a seat in the defendant's chair, her past comes into focus just as Michael uncovers the secret that will have a profound impact on both of their lives. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 72
Number of Lists: 21
Number of blog posts: 17
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:59:00 GMTThe Reader2008Stephen Daldry<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___198332/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kate Winslet</a> and Ralph Finnes star in <a href="http://www.spout.com/films/215790/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>The Hours</a> director <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___277654/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Stephen Daldry</a>'s haunting period romance tracing the complicated love affair between a German teen and a mysterious woman twice his age. Based on author Bernhard Schlink's best-selling novel of the same name, The Reader opens in post-World War II Germany, where ailing teenager Michael Berg has fallen ill with scarlet fever. Nursed back to health by Hannah, Michael eventually makes a full recovery and decides to thank his benevolent caretaker in person. Upon being reunited, Michael discovers that Hannah loves being read to and the pair quickly enters into a passionate yet clandestine affair. Later, after intense readings of The Odyssey and Huck Finn, among others, Hannah vanishes without a trace, leaving Michael heartbroken and despondent. Flash-forward nearly a decade, and Michael is a law student observing Nazi war crime trials. When Hannah wanders into the courtroom and takes a seat in the defendant's chair, her past comes into focus just as Michael uncovers the secret that will have a profound impact on both of their lives. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide72Tag Target (>10)211713http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s345698.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Reader/345698/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/dibot/archive/2009/6/1/42476.aspx Post By: dibot
Post To: dibot Blog
Post Date: 6/1/2009 10:53:43 AM
Body: The Reader was my pick for Best Picture last year. I loved the style and the stillness. Kate Winslet ("Revolutionary Road"), David Kross ("Krabat") and Ralph Fiennes ("The Duchess") broke my heart. I had read the book on which this film is based years ago, but can't remember enough to compare. The story follows a young teen who begins an affair with an older woman. Years later, he sees her on trail as a Nazi war criminal. It's thought provoking and thoroughly depressing. I loved it.Sleeping with the Enemy is one of those quick 90s thrillers we don't see much of now. Julia Roberts ("Duplicity") escapes from an abusive marriage by faking her own death. But then the husband discovers the ruse and comes looking for her. Entertaining but forgettable.My love for Jennifer Garner ("Juno") and the little bit of charm left to Matthew McConaughey ("Tropic Thunder") after learning he doesn't wear deodorant got me through the mostly routine romantic comedy, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. As my coworker said, it was nice to see the three ghosts used in a non-Christmas fashion. But, though this role calls for that age, McConaughey is getting a little to old to play this romantic comedy role over and over. McConaughey is the consummate bachelor attending his younger brother's wedding where he starts to ruin everything. Garner is the one who got away. Wait to watch this on cable.I freaking love Christian Bale ("The Dark Knight"). I don't care how many people he cusses out. Terminator Salvation is really more of a platform for Sam Worthington ("Rogue") than Bale, but Bale's still there trying to bring some seriousness to the ridiculous story. Of course, the effects are top notch and the machines look great, but the plot is so thin. And poor Bryce Dallas Howard ("The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond") just spends the whole time staring wide-eyed at the camera, barely speaking. A bit of a waste really. My husband disliked this more than I. He said this film killed the series.The Spiderwick Chronicles is based on a series of children's books about a family who finds a portal to a magical world. When they move into a new house, Freddie Highmore ("The Golden Compass") finds a book that, when read, opens the gate. Then he must convince his family it's really happening. I got sucking into this film, even while fighting against it. The family tension is believable and the creature effects turn out pretty fantastic. By the end, I couldn't look away. It is a little dark for the PG rating though, so beware of that.
]]>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:53:43 GMTdibotdibot Blog6/1/2009 10:53:43 AMThe Reader was my pick for Best Picture last year. I loved the style and the stillness. Kate Winslet ("Revolutionary Road"), David Kross ("Krabat") and Ralph Fiennes ("The Duchess") broke my heart. I had read the book on which this film is based years ago, but can't remember enough to compare. The story follows a young teen who begins an affair with an older woman. Years later, he sees her on trail as a Nazi war criminal. It's thought provoking and thoroughly depressing. I loved it.Sleeping with the Enemy is one of those quick 90s thrillers we don't see much of now. Julia Roberts ("Duplicity") escapes from an abusive marriage by faking her own death. But then the husband discovers the ruse and comes looking for her. Entertaining but forgettable.My love for Jennifer Garner ("Juno") and the little bit of charm left to Matthew McConaughey ("Tropic Thunder") after learning he doesn't wear deodorant got me through the mostly routine romantic comedy, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. As my coworker said, it was nice to see the three ghosts used in a non-Christmas fashion. But, though this role calls for that age, McConaughey is getting a little to old to play this romantic comedy role over and over. McConaughey is the consummate bachelor attending his younger brother's wedding where he starts to ruin everything. Garner is the one who got away. Wait to watch this on cable.I freaking love Christian Bale ("The Dark Knight"). I don't care how many people he cusses out. Terminator Salvation is really more of a platform for Sam Worthington ("Rogue") than Bale, but Bale's still there trying to bring some seriousness to the ridiculous story. Of course, the effects are top notch and the machines look great, but the plot is so thin. And poor Bryce Dallas Howard ("The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond") just spends the whole time staring wide-eyed at the camera, barely speaking. A bit of a waste really. My husband disliked this more than I. He said this film killed the series.The Spiderwick Chronicles is based on a series of children's books about a family who finds a portal to a magical world. When they move into a new house, Freddie Highmore ("The Golden Compass") finds a book that, when read, opens the gate. Then he must convince his family it's really happening. I got sucking into this film, even while fighting against it. The family tension is believable and the creature effects turn out pretty fantastic. By the end, I couldn't look away. It is a little dark for the PG rating though, so beware of that. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/27/40699.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/27/2009 6:01:44 PM
Body: Two more days until we find out who wins this year’s Academy Awards! Okay, so the exclamation point is more than forced. It’s been quite awhile since we’ve had even an ounce of excitement about the Oscars. But we mustn’t let predictability get us down. Sure, even the still-uncertain races (Penn vs. Rourke; Winslet vs. Streep; Man on Wire vs. Trouble the Water) are anything but interesting, because the everyman of 2009 couldn’t care less about who gave the year’s better performance and would probably be fine shrugging his shoulders at the TV screen in the event of a tie (or, better yet, irresolution). However, there’s one thing people keep forgetting about the Academy: they’re full of surprises. So, rather than just go with the easy, “predictable” predictions, we attempted to guess who and what will Crash the Oscars this year with a surprise victory — preferably the kind that adds an “ing” to “upset.” And once again, we’d like to extend the forecasting fun to you. What surprises do you expect and/or hope for? Or, if you’re down with the boring route, what “certain” winners do you truly believe in? And why? The most accurate comments will be reprinted in our final Oscar column on Monday. Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button If the Academy didn’t continually cause controversial commotion with Best Picture picks like Shakespeare in Love and Crash, we wouldn’t have very much to talk about the morning after, or years later. So, in a way it’s exciting and somewhat necessary to have the occasional baffling or infuriating upsets in the top category. The one film that would piss off more people this year than any other, even more than The Reader, is Benjamin Button, especially since it pretty much already had the (dis)honor of being an undeserving Best Picture winner 15 years ago. Best Director: Stephen Daldry (The Reader) If Benjamin Button is to win Best Picture, then Danny Boyle should probably still win Best Director, because often in the years of controversial Best Picture upsets the director’s prize still goes to the (critical) favorite. Think of Steven Spielberg in ’99 and Ang Lee in ’06. But just to prove the Oscars are completely out of touch, we have to go with the Academy favorites of Daldry and the Holocaust. Both Fincher and Boyle are Oscar newbies and may have their turn with some future, more lackluster effort. Best Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) For this category, we’re looking to the 2008 presidential election. Let’s consider Meryl Streep to be the older, more experienced, and typically well-respected candidate, who will lose to the young novice in her very first bid. Where that puts thought-to-be-a-lock Kate Winslet in the analogy is not important. As long as people keep mentioning Obama in their reasoning for why Slumdog Millionaire will win Best Picture, it’s just as fair to recognize Hathaway as the most Obama-like choice for Best Actress. Best Actor: undetermined As much as a tie in this category would be a surprising and slightly satisfying turn of events (even though it would be more appropriate in the Best Actress race, since Streep will forever be compared to Katherine Hepburn, who tied with Barbara Streisand 30 years ago), we’re looking to another political race of last year for the Best Actor decision. All we’ll know Sunday night is that it’s still down to Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. But don’t worry, we’ll find out who actually wins in a few months. Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) Just as Judy Davis probably deserved the Supporting Actress Oscar more for her performance in a Woody Allen film 16 years ago, Penelope Cruz probably deserves it more this year, also for a Woody Allen film. But Tomei is the champion of Oscar surprises, and we could very well see a repeat of 1993. At least this time she’s a little more worthy. Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) Okay, there’s no chance of a surprise here. Because if the Oscar goes to anyone but Ledger, a crazed fan will likely blow up the Kodak. And the Academy must presume that Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister won’t conveniently have access to the detonator this time. Best Adapted Screenplay:  Eric Roth and Robin Swicord (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Never mind the tremendous amount of work Roth put into expanding a very short story into a very, very long film. His and Swicord’s true triumph is in how they were able to rewrite Forrest Gump and repackage it well enough to fool $242 million-worth of moviegoers. Hollywood is surely obligated to reward the duo for pulling off such a double-tiered adaptation and such a well-played moneymaking scheme. Best Original Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Docter (WALL-E) Yes, a lot of people are predicting this to win the Oscar, and so it won’t be quite as much a surprise as a win for Frozen River would be. But the real shocker is going to be when Kung Fu Panda wins Best Animated Feature, a repeat of its glory at the Annies, and Academy logic once again goes completely out the window. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:01:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/27/2009 6:01:44 PMTwo more days until we find out who wins this year’s Academy Awards! Okay, so the exclamation point is more than forced. It’s been quite awhile since we’ve had even an ounce of excitement about the Oscars. But we mustn’t let predictability get us down. Sure, even the still-uncertain races (Penn vs. Rourke; Winslet vs. Streep; Man on Wire vs. Trouble the Water) are anything but interesting, because the everyman of 2009 couldn’t care less about who gave the year’s better performance and would probably be fine shrugging his shoulders at the TV screen in the event of a tie (or, better yet, irresolution). However, there’s one thing people keep forgetting about the Academy: they’re full of surprises. So, rather than just go with the easy, “predictable” predictions, we attempted to guess who and what will Crash the Oscars this year with a surprise victory — preferably the kind that adds an “ing” to “upset.” And once again, we’d like to extend the forecasting fun to you. What surprises do you expect and/or hope for? Or, if you’re down with the boring route, what “certain” winners do you truly believe in? And why? The most accurate comments will be reprinted in our final Oscar column on Monday. Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button If the Academy didn’t continually cause controversial commotion with Best Picture picks like Shakespeare in Love and Crash, we wouldn’t have very much to talk about the morning after, or years later. So, in a way it’s exciting and somewhat necessary to have the occasional baffling or infuriating upsets in the top category. The one film that would piss off more people this year than any other, even more than The Reader, is Benjamin Button, especially since it pretty much already had the (dis)honor of being an undeserving Best Picture winner 15 years ago. Best Director: Stephen Daldry (The Reader) If Benjamin Button is to win Best Picture, then Danny Boyle should probably still win Best Director, because often in the years of controversial Best Picture upsets the director’s prize still goes to the (critical) favorite. Think of Steven Spielberg in ’99 and Ang Lee in ’06. But just to prove the Oscars are completely out of touch, we have to go with the Academy favorites of Daldry and the Holocaust. Both Fincher and Boyle are Oscar newbies and may have their turn with some future, more lackluster effort. Best Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) For this category, we’re looking to the 2008 presidential election. Let’s consider Meryl Streep to be the older, more experienced, and typically well-respected candidate, who will lose to the young novice in her very first bid. Where that puts thought-to-be-a-lock Kate Winslet in the analogy is not important. As long as people keep mentioning Obama in their reasoning for why Slumdog Millionaire will win Best Picture, it’s just as fair to recognize Hathaway as the most Obama-like choice for Best Actress. Best Actor: undetermined As much as a tie in this category would be a surprising and slightly satisfying turn of events (even though it would be more appropriate in the Best Actress race, since Streep will forever be compared to Katherine Hepburn, who tied with Barbara Streisand 30 years ago), we’re looking to another political race of last year for the Best Actor decision. All we’ll know Sunday night is that it’s still down to Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. But don’t worry, we’ll find out who actually wins in a few months. Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) Just as Judy Davis probably deserved the Supporting Actress Oscar more for her performance in a Woody Allen film 16 years ago, Penelope Cruz probably deserves it more this year, also for a Woody Allen film. But Tomei is the champion of Oscar surprises, and we could very well see a repeat of 1993. At least this time she’s a little more worthy. Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) Okay, there’s no chance of a surprise here. Because if the Oscar goes to anyone but Ledger, a crazed fan will likely blow up the Kodak. And the Academy must presume that Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister won’t conveniently have access to the detonator this time. Best Adapted Screenplay:  Eric Roth and Robin Swicord (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Never mind the tremendous amount of work Roth put into expanding a very short story into a very, very long film. His and Swicord’s true triumph is in how they were able to rewrite Forrest Gump and repackage it well enough to fool $242 million-worth of moviegoers. Hollywood is surely obligated to reward the duo for pulling off such a double-tiered adaptation and such a well-played moneymaking scheme. Best Original Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Docter (WALL-E) Yes, a lot of people are predicting this to win the Oscar, and so it won’t be quite as much a surprise as a win for Frozen River would be. But the real shocker is going to be when Kung Fu Panda wins Best Animated Feature, a repeat of its glory at the Annies, and Academy logic once again goes completely out the window. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/27/40690.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/27/2009 6:01:30 PM
Body: Never mind all those Oscar predictions posts out there. If you really want to make some money in the office pool, look no further than a random blog created specifically to leak the winners of this year’s Academy Awards. Think it’s a hoax? I guess we just won’t know until Sunday, will we? And by then you’ll be out hundreds of dollars because you didn’t bet on The Reader for Best Adapted Screenplay. Okay, so who cares if it’s real or not, particularly in this predictable a year, anyway? The real betting should be on who the telecast producers have wrangled to be those “top secret” presenters. Oh wait, it seems the big names, those that obviously should be revealed in order to attract their audiences, have also come out. Ah, but what are they saying about either leak on the interweb, you ask? As usual, check out the quotes/links after the jump. Since I found out about the Oscar winners leak first from Cinematical, here’s an argument in favor of its legitimacy from Erik Davis, aided by Kevin at Moviefone: “Of course there’s a very good chance it’s a fake, but as Kevin noted in our AIM conversation: ‘I mean, it looks right… the fact that Best Supporting Actress is outta nowhere somehow lends it credibility.’” Brad Brevet at RopeofSilicon.com argues in favor of it being a hoax, yet forwards the list along anyway: “Ballots for the 2009 Oscar Awards were due by 5 PM last night and so the idea this site is claiming to have the list of winners already is just stupid, but it doesn’t mean the list doesn’t have that odd sense of it could happen with a few “surprise” choices (Amy Adams).” Nikki Finke refers to the mysterious posting as “annoying Oscar bullshit” and writes, “At this point, with so many of the categories locked as far back as December, I’m sure a chimpanzee could have come up with the same names.” Word that Twilight heartthrob Robert Pattinson will be a presenter this year has been out since last week, but Vulture had the best reaction yesterday: “The plan to keep the names of this year’s Oscar presenters a secret suddenly makes sense … producers were probably just trying to prevent vampire riots at the Kodak Theatre on Sunday night.” E! Online has now leaked some more presenters/performers: High School Musical’s Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens, Beyonce, Dominic Cooper and Amanda Seyfried. And somehow, Tom O’Neil at The Envelope has added Miley Cyrus to that list. Pete Hammond at The Envelope writes what everyone else is sure of regarding the Pattinson and Efron leaks: “I would be willing to bet the producers leaked that one themselves to entice potential younger viewers turned off by the absence of movies such as “Dark Knight” in marquee categories.” STV at Defamer, in a roundup that also references word that Jennifer Aniston is presenting, writes what everyone is wishing for regarding the shitty Efron and Hudgens leak: “[They] will be among the performers to help nurture this year’s Oscar renaissance, hopefully teaming for a Best Picture reenactment of Slumdog Millionaire’s romantic latrine-escape sequence. This about a week old, but according to AJ Schnack at All these wonderful things, Albert Maysles has directed a short film introducing this year’s documentary nominees. Anybody interested in knowing beforehand what some of the ads during the Oscars will be? Here’s a post at The Big Picture about the telecast’s difficulty attracting sponsors, with a reveal of an ad from Culver Restaurants. Previously announced movie ads to be shown include Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Sherlock Holmes and Terminator Salvation. And now, keeping with the idea of Oscars spoilers, also via Cinematical, a video that spoils all the endings to all the Best Picture winners: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:01:30 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/27/2009 6:01:30 PMNever mind all those Oscar predictions posts out there. If you really want to make some money in the office pool, look no further than a random blog created specifically to leak the winners of this year’s Academy Awards. Think it’s a hoax? I guess we just won’t know until Sunday, will we? And by then you’ll be out hundreds of dollars because you didn’t bet on The Reader for Best Adapted Screenplay. Okay, so who cares if it’s real or not, particularly in this predictable a year, anyway? The real betting should be on who the telecast producers have wrangled to be those “top secret” presenters. Oh wait, it seems the big names, those that obviously should be revealed in order to attract their audiences, have also come out. Ah, but what are they saying about either leak on the interweb, you ask? As usual, check out the quotes/links after the jump. Since I found out about the Oscar winners leak first from Cinematical, here’s an argument in favor of its legitimacy from Erik Davis, aided by Kevin at Moviefone: “Of course there’s a very good chance it’s a fake, but as Kevin noted in our AIM conversation: ‘I mean, it looks right… the fact that Best Supporting Actress is outta nowhere somehow lends it credibility.’” Brad Brevet at RopeofSilicon.com argues in favor of it being a hoax, yet forwards the list along anyway: “Ballots for the 2009 Oscar Awards were due by 5 PM last night and so the idea this site is claiming to have the list of winners already is just stupid, but it doesn’t mean the list doesn’t have that odd sense of it could happen with a few “surprise” choices (Amy Adams).” Nikki Finke refers to the mysterious posting as “annoying Oscar bullshit” and writes, “At this point, with so many of the categories locked as far back as December, I’m sure a chimpanzee could have come up with the same names.” Word that Twilight heartthrob Robert Pattinson will be a presenter this year has been out since last week, but Vulture had the best reaction yesterday: “The plan to keep the names of this year’s Oscar presenters a secret suddenly makes sense … producers were probably just trying to prevent vampire riots at the Kodak Theatre on Sunday night.” E! Online has now leaked some more presenters/performers: High School Musical’s Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens, Beyonce, Dominic Cooper and Amanda Seyfried. And somehow, Tom O’Neil at The Envelope has added Miley Cyrus to that list. Pete Hammond at The Envelope writes what everyone else is sure of regarding the Pattinson and Efron leaks: “I would be willing to bet the producers leaked that one themselves to entice potential younger viewers turned off by the absence of movies such as “Dark Knight” in marquee categories.” STV at Defamer, in a roundup that also references word that Jennifer Aniston is presenting, writes what everyone is wishing for regarding the shitty Efron and Hudgens leak: “[They] will be among the performers to help nurture this year’s Oscar renaissance, hopefully teaming for a Best Picture reenactment of Slumdog Millionaire’s romantic latrine-escape sequence. This about a week old, but according to AJ Schnack at All these wonderful things, Albert Maysles has directed a short film introducing this year’s documentary nominees. Anybody interested in knowing beforehand what some of the ads during the Oscars will be? Here’s a post at The Big Picture about the telecast’s difficulty attracting sponsors, with a reveal of an ad from Culver Restaurants. Previously announced movie ads to be shown include Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Sherlock Holmes and Terminator Salvation. And now, keeping with the idea of Oscars spoilers, also via Cinematical, a video that spoils all the endings to all the Best Picture winners: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/scswngr/archive/2009/2/22/40589.aspx Post By: scswngr
Post To: Film Obsessed
Post Date: 2/22/2009 6:39:44 PM
Body: As I scramble to catch the last couple of films that will complete my Oscar Watch List, I am prematurely making my picks for the statuettes tomorrow night. I will save judgement on the Foreign Language and Documentary Short categories, neither of which I have had the opportunity to get into since I live in a town where you can see 4 screens of Rambo, but you're lucky to get to see an independent or foreign film only months after it comes out on DVD at the local film club. That being said, I have also not had the chance to see 3 of the Documentary Features, but am confident in my decision in that category nonetheless. Otherwise, by tomorrow night's Academy Awards ceremony I will have seen every single movie nominated in every other category.So, onto my picks: Screenplay, OriginalShould Win: MilkWill Win: MilkMissing: The WrestlerScreenplay, AdaptedShould Win: Doubt or The ReaderWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireVisual EffectsShould Win: Iron ManWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonMissing: Speed RacerSound MixingShould Win: WALL-EWill Win: The Dark KnightSound EditingShould Win: The Dark KnightWill Win: The Dark KnightShort Film, Live ActionShould Win: Grisen (The Pig)Will Win: Spielzeugland (Toyland)Short Film, AnimatedShould Win: PrestoWill Win: PrestoOriginal SongShould Win: "Jai Ho" from Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: "Jai Ho" from Slumdog MillionaireMissing: "The Wrestler" by Bruce Springsteen from The WrestlerOriginal ScoreShould Win: Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMakeupShould Win: Hellboy IIWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonFilm EditingShould Win: Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireDocumentary FeatureShould Win: Man on WireWill Win: Man on WireCostume DesignShould Win: The DuchessWill Win: The DuchessCinematographyShould Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMissing: Brideshead RevisitedArt DirectionShould Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonAnimated FeatureShould Win: WALL-EWill Win: WALL-EDirectingShould Win: David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: Danny Boyle for Slumdog MillionaireMissing: Darren Aronofsky for The Wrestler Actress, SupportingShould Win: Penelope Cruz in Vicky Cristina BarcelonaWill Win: Viola Davis in DoubtActor, SupportingShould Win: Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightWill Win: Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightActor, LeadingShould Win: Mickey Rourke in The WrestlerWill Win: Sean Penn in MilkMissing: Leonardo Dicaprio in Revolutionary RoadActress, LeadingShould Win: Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married or Meryl Streep in DoubtWill Win: Kate Winslet in The ReaderMissing: Kate Winslet in Revolutionary RoadBest PictureShould Win: MilkWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMissing: The Wrestler, Doubt, and The Dark Knight
]]>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:39:44 GMTscswngrFilm Obsessed2/22/2009 6:39:44 PMAs I scramble to catch the last couple of films that will complete my Oscar Watch List, I am prematurely making my picks for the statuettes tomorrow night. I will save judgement on the Foreign Language and Documentary Short categories, neither of which I have had the opportunity to get into since I live in a town where you can see 4 screens of Rambo, but you're lucky to get to see an independent or foreign film only months after it comes out on DVD at the local film club. That being said, I have also not had the chance to see 3 of the Documentary Features, but am confident in my decision in that category nonetheless. Otherwise, by tomorrow night's Academy Awards ceremony I will have seen every single movie nominated in every other category.So, onto my picks: Screenplay, OriginalShould Win: MilkWill Win: MilkMissing: The WrestlerScreenplay, AdaptedShould Win: Doubt or The ReaderWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireVisual EffectsShould Win: Iron ManWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonMissing: Speed RacerSound MixingShould Win: WALL-EWill Win: The Dark KnightSound EditingShould Win: The Dark KnightWill Win: The Dark KnightShort Film, Live ActionShould Win: Grisen (The Pig)Will Win: Spielzeugland (Toyland)Short Film, AnimatedShould Win: PrestoWill Win: PrestoOriginal SongShould Win: "Jai Ho" from Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: "Jai Ho" from Slumdog MillionaireMissing: "The Wrestler" by Bruce Springsteen from The WrestlerOriginal ScoreShould Win: Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMakeupShould Win: Hellboy IIWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonFilm EditingShould Win: Slumdog MillionaireWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireDocumentary FeatureShould Win: Man on WireWill Win: Man on WireCostume DesignShould Win: The DuchessWill Win: The DuchessCinematographyShould Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMissing: Brideshead RevisitedArt DirectionShould Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonAnimated FeatureShould Win: WALL-EWill Win: WALL-EDirectingShould Win: David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonWill Win: Danny Boyle for Slumdog MillionaireMissing: Darren Aronofsky for The Wrestler Actress, SupportingShould Win: Penelope Cruz in Vicky Cristina BarcelonaWill Win: Viola Davis in DoubtActor, SupportingShould Win: Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightWill Win: Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightActor, LeadingShould Win: Mickey Rourke in The WrestlerWill Win: Sean Penn in MilkMissing: Leonardo Dicaprio in Revolutionary RoadActress, LeadingShould Win: Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married or Meryl Streep in DoubtWill Win: Kate Winslet in The ReaderMissing: Kate Winslet in Revolutionary RoadBest PictureShould Win: MilkWill Win: Slumdog MillionaireMissing: The Wrestler, Doubt, and The Dark Knight http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/2/40168.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/2/2009 5:01:22 PM
Body: With Danny Boyle’s DGA win over the weekend, Slumdog Millionaire achieved a near-impossible feat; it became even more favored to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Once thought to be an underdog, Slumdog has been pretty much unstoppable throughout the awards season, even picking up the undeserved top honor at the SAG Awards, and has never fallen from its position of frontrunner since it took the lead months ago. Yet last week, the internet was populated by talk of a Slumdog backlash, and for the first time in weeks, other Best Picture candidates were seriously being discussed as slightly plausible victors. The two titles considered most likely to be a threat to Boyle’s film are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Milk, with little concern for either Frost/Nixon or The Reader. However, while the former candidate is probably a sure thing to lose, the latter film should not yet be dismissed. Before the Academy Award nominations were announced last month, The Reader wasn’t even thought to be a contender for any major category except Best Supporting Actress. Now, among its five nominations, it’s up for three higher-tiered Oscars, including Best Picture. So, we can’t rightly continue underestimating its potential. This isn’t to say that we are predicting The Reader to win Best Picture; Slumdog is still the safest bet for the top prize. But odds for The Reader do need to be adjusted, as its chances are a lot closer to, if not better than, secondary favorites Benjamin Button and Milk. Of course, as the it stands now, the film should be an appealing choice for any gamblers out there, because a surprise Best Picture win for The Reader would pay out big time. So, our immediate apologies to betters if the following seven factors have any influence on professional oddsmakers out there. The Cancel-Out Factor Let’s begin with the simplest argument, which has also been used recently as evidence that Milk’s chances for the top award have gone up: Whether due to a backlash or not, Slumdog’s lead may be shortening, and Benjamin Button may be gaining. So, the two films could cancel each other out and The Reader, not Milk, could sneak forward. Or, to give Milk the same credit as others are giving it, the three favorites cancel each other out and The Reader makes an even greater leap forward. The Stephen Daldry Factor Now for the weakest, but not completely implausible argument: It’s clear the Academy loves Stephen Daldry, as they’ve nominated him for Best Director every time he’s made a movie. Unfortunately for him, there’s no way he’ll win his category this year, because no director has ever won the Oscar without at least being nominated for the DGA award. So, Boyle remains a lock for Best Director, but Daldry’s fans could try and make a serious push for the film to win Best Picture. It would be a somewhat ironic win, since Daldry’s first nomination came for a film that wasn’t even nominated for the top award (Billy Elliot). The Posthumous Oscars Factor (aka the Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella Factor) Thanks to a special exception the Academy made for The Reader, there are now three posthumous Oscar nominees. Heath Ledger is most definitely going to win Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Dark Knight, but what about Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella? The two are among The Reader’s four producers named to receive trophies if the film wins Best Picture. Academy members could consider this a year to pay special honor to the artists they’ve lost, and that would mean voting for two of their favorite filmmaking talents. On the other hand, though, with Pollack having previously won two Oscars (out of six nominations) and Minghella having previously won one (out of three nominations), it’s not as if the voters will feel as much of an obligation as they would if neither had been honored before. Still, never underestimate the power of the celebrity death cult. The Harvey Weinstein Factor It’s been awhile since Harvey’s heyday at the Oscars. While heading Miramax, he managed a couple surprise victories in the Best Picture category, and at the 2003 awards, Harvey actually had a connection to four of the five Best Picture nominees. He used to be known as someone not to be reckoned with when it came to his desire for Academy Awards. But it’s taken years for The Weinstein Co. to see one of its films in contention for the top prize. So, will Harvey once again show great influence over the Academy? According to Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger, Harvey’s been advised not to go crazy with the Oscar campaigning this year, partly for economic reasons and partly because his chances are considered low. But Karger thinks he’s still going to “go whole hog,” because “otherwise he wouldn’t be Harvey Weinstein.” And when Harvey goes whole hog, things like Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan happen. Seriously, there are already those who believe the whole Slumdog backlash thing was started by a certain “truth-and ethically challenged mogul” who would benefit from such a smear campaign. The Schindler’s List Factor As much as we all like to joke about the Academy’s Holocaust fetish, no Holocaust movie is a sure thing for Best Picture (especially if such a film is the one non-Harvey Weinstein-related nominee). But one Holocaust film in particular is the Academy’s pride and joy: Schindler’s List. If Slumdog Millionaire continues its awards season sweep, garnering top kudos from the WGA, the BAFTAs and finally the Oscars, it will actually become a more-honored film than Schindler’s List, which holds the current record for awards season domination. Unfortunately for Spielberg’s film, as noted by In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley, there were no BFCA or SAG ensemble awards back then. So, due to more opportunities, Slumdog could break the record rather unfairly. For Schindler’s List-loving members of the Academy, that might be an incentive to vote for The Reader, a fellow Holocaust film, instead of for Slumdog, which nobody could reasonably argue is better than the 1994 Best Picture-winner. The Tolerance Factor One of the major arguments in favor of Milk’s chances are that a Best Picture win for that film would make up for the Brokeback Mountain loss three years ago. And the Academy might vote for Milk in order to prove it is tolerant. But in a way, honoring Crash over Brokeback Mountain was a display of tolerance, only one that focused on race rather than sexual orientation. The Reader could be this year’s Crash, and not just because it’s one of the most critically hated Best Picture candidates in years. An argument against the aforementioned Schindler’s List Factor is that The Reader is almost like an anti-Holocaust film, because it attempts to make the audience sympathize with a concentration camp guard who slaughtered many Jewish prisoners. If the Academy should really feel the need to again prove its members are tolerant, honoring The Reader, which allegorically deals with Germany’s struggle to come to terms with its Nazi past, would be an even stronger display of this than would honoring a film focusing on gay rights. The again, the latter action may potentially be easier for some voters. The Surprise Factor Okay, this is actually the simplest argument: the Oscars are full of surprises. From Marisa Tomei’s out-numbered defeat of the British (and Australian) in 1992 to the shocking 1936 win by write-in candidate Hal Mohr to the unexpected Best Picture wins by non-frontrunners Chariots of Fire, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago and Crash (among others), the Academy should never be underestimated when it comes to their aim with monkey wrenches. So, the best reason not to dismiss The Reader in the Best Picture race is that all Oscars races are anyone’s game up until the envelopes are opened and the winners are named. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:01:22 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/2/2009 5:01:22 PMWith Danny Boyle’s DGA win over the weekend, Slumdog Millionaire achieved a near-impossible feat; it became even more favored to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Once thought to be an underdog, Slumdog has been pretty much unstoppable throughout the awards season, even picking up the undeserved top honor at the SAG Awards, and has never fallen from its position of frontrunner since it took the lead months ago. Yet last week, the internet was populated by talk of a Slumdog backlash, and for the first time in weeks, other Best Picture candidates were seriously being discussed as slightly plausible victors. The two titles considered most likely to be a threat to Boyle’s film are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Milk, with little concern for either Frost/Nixon or The Reader. However, while the former candidate is probably a sure thing to lose, the latter film should not yet be dismissed. Before the Academy Award nominations were announced last month, The Reader wasn’t even thought to be a contender for any major category except Best Supporting Actress. Now, among its five nominations, it’s up for three higher-tiered Oscars, including Best Picture. So, we can’t rightly continue underestimating its potential. This isn’t to say that we are predicting The Reader to win Best Picture; Slumdog is still the safest bet for the top prize. But odds for The Reader do need to be adjusted, as its chances are a lot closer to, if not better than, secondary favorites Benjamin Button and Milk. Of course, as the it stands now, the film should be an appealing choice for any gamblers out there, because a surprise Best Picture win for The Reader would pay out big time. So, our immediate apologies to betters if the following seven factors have any influence on professional oddsmakers out there. The Cancel-Out Factor Let’s begin with the simplest argument, which has also been used recently as evidence that Milk’s chances for the top award have gone up: Whether due to a backlash or not, Slumdog’s lead may be shortening, and Benjamin Button may be gaining. So, the two films could cancel each other out and The Reader, not Milk, could sneak forward. Or, to give Milk the same credit as others are giving it, the three favorites cancel each other out and The Reader makes an even greater leap forward. The Stephen Daldry Factor Now for the weakest, but not completely implausible argument: It’s clear the Academy loves Stephen Daldry, as they’ve nominated him for Best Director every time he’s made a movie. Unfortunately for him, there’s no way he’ll win his category this year, because no director has ever won the Oscar without at least being nominated for the DGA award. So, Boyle remains a lock for Best Director, but Daldry’s fans could try and make a serious push for the film to win Best Picture. It would be a somewhat ironic win, since Daldry’s first nomination came for a film that wasn’t even nominated for the top award (Billy Elliot). The Posthumous Oscars Factor (aka the Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella Factor) Thanks to a special exception the Academy made for The Reader, there are now three posthumous Oscar nominees. Heath Ledger is most definitely going to win Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Dark Knight, but what about Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella? The two are among The Reader’s four producers named to receive trophies if the film wins Best Picture. Academy members could consider this a year to pay special honor to the artists they’ve lost, and that would mean voting for two of their favorite filmmaking talents. On the other hand, though, with Pollack having previously won two Oscars (out of six nominations) and Minghella having previously won one (out of three nominations), it’s not as if the voters will feel as much of an obligation as they would if neither had been honored before. Still, never underestimate the power of the celebrity death cult. The Harvey Weinstein Factor It’s been awhile since Harvey’s heyday at the Oscars. While heading Miramax, he managed a couple surprise victories in the Best Picture category, and at the 2003 awards, Harvey actually had a connection to four of the five Best Picture nominees. He used to be known as someone not to be reckoned with when it came to his desire for Academy Awards. But it’s taken years for The Weinstein Co. to see one of its films in contention for the top prize. So, will Harvey once again show great influence over the Academy? According to Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger, Harvey’s been advised not to go crazy with the Oscar campaigning this year, partly for economic reasons and partly because his chances are considered low. But Karger thinks he’s still going to “go whole hog,” because “otherwise he wouldn’t be Harvey Weinstein.” And when Harvey goes whole hog, things like Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan happen. Seriously, there are already those who believe the whole Slumdog backlash thing was started by a certain “truth-and ethically challenged mogul” who would benefit from such a smear campaign. The Schindler’s List Factor As much as we all like to joke about the Academy’s Holocaust fetish, no Holocaust movie is a sure thing for Best Picture (especially if such a film is the one non-Harvey Weinstein-related nominee). But one Holocaust film in particular is the Academy’s pride and joy: Schindler’s List. If Slumdog Millionaire continues its awards season sweep, garnering top kudos from the WGA, the BAFTAs and finally the Oscars, it will actually become a more-honored film than Schindler’s List, which holds the current record for awards season domination. Unfortunately for Spielberg’s film, as noted by In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley, there were no BFCA or SAG ensemble awards back then. So, due to more opportunities, Slumdog could break the record rather unfairly. For Schindler’s List-loving members of the Academy, that might be an incentive to vote for The Reader, a fellow Holocaust film, instead of for Slumdog, which nobody could reasonably argue is better than the 1994 Best Picture-winner. The Tolerance Factor One of the major arguments in favor of Milk’s chances are that a Best Picture win for that film would make up for the Brokeback Mountain loss three years ago. And the Academy might vote for Milk in order to prove it is tolerant. But in a way, honoring Crash over Brokeback Mountain was a display of tolerance, only one that focused on race rather than sexual orientation. The Reader could be this year’s Crash, and not just because it’s one of the most critically hated Best Picture candidates in years. An argument against the aforementioned Schindler’s List Factor is that The Reader is almost like an anti-Holocaust film, because it attempts to make the audience sympathize with a concentration camp guard who slaughtered many Jewish prisoners. If the Academy should really feel the need to again prove its members are tolerant, honoring The Reader, which allegorically deals with Germany’s struggle to come to terms with its Nazi past, would be an even stronger display of this than would honoring a film focusing on gay rights. The again, the latter action may potentially be easier for some voters. The Surprise Factor Okay, this is actually the simplest argument: the Oscars are full of surprises. From Marisa Tomei’s out-numbered defeat of the British (and Australian) in 1992 to the shocking 1936 win by write-in candidate Hal Mohr to the unexpected Best Picture wins by non-frontrunners Chariots of Fire, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago and Crash (among others), the Academy should never be underestimated when it comes to their aim with monkey wrenches. So, the best reason not to dismiss The Reader in the Best Picture race is that all Oscars races are anyone’s game up until the envelopes are opened and the winners are named. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/27/39965.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/27/2009 1:01:20 PM
Body: In 10 out of 14 years, the winner of the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role has gone on to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. If this year marks the 11th such congruence, Meryl Streep will take home the Oscar. Yet there is an odd circumstance with the Academy’s nominations that hurts Streep’s chances. Another one of the Academy’s Best Actress contenders also received a SAG Award Sunday night: Kate Winslet, who won the supporting actress trophy for The Reader. At the Oscars, this role has been recognized as a lead performance, one that is likely a favorite to win. Yes, it is a strange situation, one that shocked and confused Oscar prognosticators (especially this writer) on Thursday morning. Winslet’s Reader performance was campaigned as a supporting role, and she was recognized as such by the Golden Globes, the Broadcast Film Critics Association, the Chicago Film Critics Association and of course the Screen Actors Guild. A few organizations did nominate her for a lead award for The Reader, though few people take the Satellites seriously, and the BAFTA Awards are different than most in that they permit Winslet to compete against herself in the same category (she is also nominated for Best Leading Actress for Revolutionary Road). Some now believe the Academy’s deviation will in fact cost Winslet the Oscar she could have won in the supporting field. Either voters will be confused about what film she’s nominated for (unless I’m simply less observant than elderly Academy members, which may indeed be the case), or she will now split the majority vote with Streep and thus allow Anne Hathaway or Melissa Leo to slip ahead (Angelina Jolie is believed to have no shot). Another idea is that voters will dismiss Winslet due to doubts over which category the performance belongs in. But since enough members of the Academy made it a point to nominate her as lead actress in the first place, this is hardly a reasonable theory. Also potentially without merit is the Holocaust factor, which seems to be the most popular argument for why Winslet is now a shoo-in to win the Oscar. This is an old favorite for Oscar oddsmakers, but it may not actually apply here. Still, when The Reader made surprise appearances in the Best Picture and Best Director categories last Thursday, one of the first familiar quotes to show up online was “there’s no business like Shoah business.” Yet the Academy already failed to nominate shortlisted documentary Blessed Is the Match, despite its Holocaust subject matter, and they also ignored related features such as The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Adam Resurrected, Good and Valkyrie (meanwhile Defiance was only recognized by the music branch). So, certainly the Holocaust fetish thing is not a sure thing. It doesn’t even necessarily carry over to Israeli Oscar nominee Waltz With Bashir, as much as people may try to tie that documentary’s favorable odds to its association with the oft-mocked trend (actually could the doc now suffer with pro-Israel Academy members if it makes them think too much about war crimes committed against Palestinians?). Also, Winslet’s role as a sympathetic concentration camp guard should be as exclusive to the fetish as was (her Reader co-star) Bruno Ganz’s brilliant, Oscar-worthy portrayal of Hitler in Downfall. Even if she has told press that she neither liked nor sympathized with her character. So, then, what are plausible factors in Winslet’s likelihood of winning the Oscar? Well, there is the damage caused by Streep, who has certain advantage in the race for winning the lead SAG Award (which she apparently expected to lose to Winslet), as well as for winning kudos from critic circles, such as the Broadcast Film Critics Association (where she tied with Hathaway). Yet on the other hand, there are all those supporting wins in Winslet and The Reader’s favor, not to mention the triumph she had over Streep at the Golden Globes, even if it was recognition for another performance. There is also the belief that this is simply Winslet’s year to win after losing five previous Oscar races. However, as much as it seems Streep doesn’t need another Academy Award, she has in fact lost her last ten Oscar bids and hasn’t won in more than 25 years. Meanwhile, Winslet has plenty of great years left in her and will surely have more chances in the future. One additional factor could put Winslet’s odds just past Streep’s, and that factor’s name is Harvey Weinstein. Whether the Oscar-hungry exec is simply holding his high ground with the Academy or he’s making a greater push for his company’s film in order to spite Scott Rudin (producer of Streep’s film, Doubt, and a former producer of The Reader) is unclear and beside the point. Many people immediately cursed his name when they saw The Reader make its surprise appearances in the top categories (Nikki Finke believes the film partly prevailed because the Academy wanted to honor Rudin, Winslet and Daldry for having to put up with “that nasty oaf”). Even better than the Harvey factor, though, is the actual quality of Winslet’s work. Sure, worth of talent is all but dead in the modern Hollywood, particularly where the Oscars are concerned, but as a deal breaker in a race between two actresses who are truly brilliant thespians, it could very well be consequential. And between Winslet and Streep, this year the former has the advantage. Streep’s Oscar-nominated role has been viewed by some as overdone, and her other performance in 2008 was in a musical comedy. Winslet, on the other hand, will benefit for giving two Oscar-worthy lead performances, only one of which was nominated. And any voters who initially made the attempt to nominate her for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road may surely choose Winslet with that other unrecognized performance in mind (Anne Thompson agrees she’ll win for both films). With another neck-and-neck race in the Best Actor category and (also thanks to the Academy’s unpredictable deviation from the Winslet campaigns) a lack of a frontrunner in the Best Supporting Actress race, this year’s Oscars are shaping up to be a difficult game to bet on. Knowing that the Academy can be counted on for surprises, it’s possible that Streep will win. Even Hathaway may have a shot (though her time will more likely come from a future supporting role). But if you’re a gambling man who hates to lose, I’d recommend putting your chips on Winslet for Best Actress. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:01:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/27/2009 1:01:20 PMIn 10 out of 14 years, the winner of the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role has gone on to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. If this year marks the 11th such congruence, Meryl Streep will take home the Oscar. Yet there is an odd circumstance with the Academy’s nominations that hurts Streep’s chances. Another one of the Academy’s Best Actress contenders also received a SAG Award Sunday night: Kate Winslet, who won the supporting actress trophy for The Reader. At the Oscars, this role has been recognized as a lead performance, one that is likely a favorite to win. Yes, it is a strange situation, one that shocked and confused Oscar prognosticators (especially this writer) on Thursday morning. Winslet’s Reader performance was campaigned as a supporting role, and she was recognized as such by the Golden Globes, the Broadcast Film Critics Association, the Chicago Film Critics Association and of course the Screen Actors Guild. A few organizations did nominate her for a lead award for The Reader, though few people take the Satellites seriously, and the BAFTA Awards are different than most in that they permit Winslet to compete against herself in the same category (she is also nominated for Best Leading Actress for Revolutionary Road). Some now believe the Academy’s deviation will in fact cost Winslet the Oscar she could have won in the supporting field. Either voters will be confused about what film she’s nominated for (unless I’m simply less observant than elderly Academy members, which may indeed be the case), or she will now split the majority vote with Streep and thus allow Anne Hathaway or Melissa Leo to slip ahead (Angelina Jolie is believed to have no shot). Another idea is that voters will dismiss Winslet due to doubts over which category the performance belongs in. But since enough members of the Academy made it a point to nominate her as lead actress in the first place, this is hardly a reasonable theory. Also potentially without merit is the Holocaust factor, which seems to be the most popular argument for why Winslet is now a shoo-in to win the Oscar. This is an old favorite for Oscar oddsmakers, but it may not actually apply here. Still, when The Reader made surprise appearances in the Best Picture and Best Director categories last Thursday, one of the first familiar quotes to show up online was “there’s no business like Shoah business.” Yet the Academy already failed to nominate shortlisted documentary Blessed Is the Match, despite its Holocaust subject matter, and they also ignored related features such as The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Adam Resurrected, Good and Valkyrie (meanwhile Defiance was only recognized by the music branch). So, certainly the Holocaust fetish thing is not a sure thing. It doesn’t even necessarily carry over to Israeli Oscar nominee Waltz With Bashir, as much as people may try to tie that documentary’s favorable odds to its association with the oft-mocked trend (actually could the doc now suffer with pro-Israel Academy members if it makes them think too much about war crimes committed against Palestinians?). Also, Winslet’s role as a sympathetic concentration camp guard should be as exclusive to the fetish as was (her Reader co-star) Bruno Ganz’s brilliant, Oscar-worthy portrayal of Hitler in Downfall. Even if she has told press that she neither liked nor sympathized with her character. So, then, what are plausible factors in Winslet’s likelihood of winning the Oscar? Well, there is the damage caused by Streep, who has certain advantage in the race for winning the lead SAG Award (which she apparently expected to lose to Winslet), as well as for winning kudos from critic circles, such as the Broadcast Film Critics Association (where she tied with Hathaway). Yet on the other hand, there are all those supporting wins in Winslet and The Reader’s favor, not to mention the triumph she had over Streep at the Golden Globes, even if it was recognition for another performance. There is also the belief that this is simply Winslet’s year to win after losing five previous Oscar races. However, as much as it seems Streep doesn’t need another Academy Award, she has in fact lost her last ten Oscar bids and hasn’t won in more than 25 years. Meanwhile, Winslet has plenty of great years left in her and will surely have more chances in the future. One additional factor could put Winslet’s odds just past Streep’s, and that factor’s name is Harvey Weinstein. Whether the Oscar-hungry exec is simply holding his high ground with the Academy or he’s making a greater push for his company’s film in order to spite Scott Rudin (producer of Streep’s film, Doubt, and a former producer of The Reader) is unclear and beside the point. Many people immediately cursed his name when they saw The Reader make its surprise appearances in the top categories (Nikki Finke believes the film partly prevailed because the Academy wanted to honor Rudin, Winslet and Daldry for having to put up with “that nasty oaf”). Even better than the Harvey factor, though, is the actual quality of Winslet’s work. Sure, worth of talent is all but dead in the modern Hollywood, particularly where the Oscars are concerned, but as a deal breaker in a race between two actresses who are truly brilliant thespians, it could very well be consequential. And between Winslet and Streep, this year the former has the advantage. Streep’s Oscar-nominated role has been viewed by some as overdone, and her other performance in 2008 was in a musical comedy. Winslet, on the other hand, will benefit for giving two Oscar-worthy lead performances, only one of which was nominated. And any voters who initially made the attempt to nominate her for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road may surely choose Winslet with that other unrecognized performance in mind (Anne Thompson agrees she’ll win for both films). With another neck-and-neck race in the Best Actor category and (also thanks to the Academy’s unpredictable deviation from the Winslet campaigns) a lack of a frontrunner in the Best Supporting Actress race, this year’s Oscars are shaping up to be a difficult game to bet on. Knowing that the Academy can be counted on for surprises, it’s possible that Streep will win. Even Hathaway may have a shot (though her time will more likely come from a future supporting role). But if you’re a gambling man who hates to lose, I’d recommend putting your chips on Winslet for Best Actress. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/germain/archive/2009/1/25/39883.aspx Post By: germain
Post To: germain Blog
Post Date: 1/25/2009 12:56:04 PM
Body: The Wrestler If the universe is fractal, a family comprised of unique parts yet each related, then patterns can be found where none were directly intended. It's the nature of things. How is that Marconi, Tesla, Popov, Lodge, Fessenden, Hertz, Dolbear, Loomis, Stubblefield and Maxwell all conceived of the radio and invented its necessary parts, separately and apart from each other at the same time? But it was Marconi who nailed it - he owns the radio - Tesla went on to other things, but Stubblefield? - Lost except to Google and 3 radio historians in a library somewhere. In the movie, The Wrestler, Randy -The Ram - Robinson and his junto of wrestler/performers put on a show, an American show - staged, pure fakery - the ritual is more powerful than the reality. In the movie, The Reader, Hannah Schmidt, is tried for the murder of 300 Jewish prisoners trapped in a burning church. The Defendants and Judges sit on stage - we know there is a deeper explanation than the evidence will admit but the Court will render its verdict - its ritual of punishment meted.Two days before the inauguration of Barack Obama, flight 1549 is steered to safety by an unlikely hero, a rather standard issue guy who saves 155 lives just as Obama, an unlikely President, starts his attempt to steer the country to an economic soft landing in hopes of saving countless livelihoods. Sully, the pilot, is a seemingly reluctant hero, no interviews, no show, no ticker tape parade - just did his job and turns a respectful but cold shoulder to the limelight of the 24/7 cable TV spectacle. By nature more Stubblefield than Marconi, our pilot is more than brave - he is decent. The Reader and The Wrestler - one refined and utterly sad, the other gritty and utterly sad. Two very different films but each bound by connective ligature to the pyramidal (and maybe particularly modern American) kernel of human isolation - that core inside all of us that our flight 1549 pilot seems to have (amazingly) excised from his DNA: the it's-the-outside-that-matters-not-the-inside gene; a/k/a longing for adoration; a/k/a pride - amour propre.Hannah Schmidt (in the Reader), the former SS guard stands accused of murder and she is illiterate. Robin "Randy The Ram" Robinson, (in the Wrestler) the former wrestling headliner, stands all blond haired, steroid pumped, heart failed image and he is emotionally illiterate.Hannah Schmidt has a "kid" (she calls her young lover - who reads to her before they make love - "kid") and Ram has a kid, a grown up daughter whom he has not seen in years. Hannah's kid, her lover, reads to her and teaches her heart-love and in return she teaches him fuck-love (he seems the better pupil than she) - but in the end - it's not enough. Ram's kid, his lost daughter, teaches Ram forgiveness - but in the end - it's not enough.Hannah's pride, her refusal to admit her illiteracy, leads to her confinement without kid. The Wrestler's pride in his past glory and refusal to kick his addiction to the known commodity - impersonal fame (no matter how small time) for the unknown cold turkey love of one single woman -- who says to him all anyone can ask or give: "I'm here, aren't I?" - leads to his emotional imprisonment (without his kid too). She goes to jail. He remains confined in the isolation of the roar of the crowd. For both its a life sentence.In the end, Hannah, still behind bars in her jail cell, climbs up a stack of shaky but carefully balanced books and from on high hangs herself. In the end, the Wrestler, behind the ropes in his jail cell of a wrestling ring, shakily climbs up the corner post, carefully balanced, and from on high throws himself down to the canvass for his last jump.Two movies as related in their sadness and regret as Marconi and Stubblefield were in their invention. We shall see how Sully fares when the talk shows come calling. Its the nature of things.
]]>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:56:04 GMTgermaingermain Blog1/25/2009 12:56:04 PM The Wrestler If the universe is fractal, a family comprised of unique parts yet each related, then patterns can be found where none were directly intended. It's the nature of things. How is that Marconi, Tesla, Popov, Lodge, Fessenden, Hertz, Dolbear, Loomis, Stubblefield and Maxwell all conceived of the radio and invented its necessary parts, separately and apart from each other at the same time? But it was Marconi who nailed it - he owns the radio - Tesla went on to other things, but Stubblefield? - Lost except to Google and 3 radio historians in a library somewhere. In the movie, The Wrestler, Randy -The Ram - Robinson and his junto of wrestler/performers put on a show, an American show - staged, pure fakery - the ritual is more powerful than the reality. In the movie, The Reader, Hannah Schmidt, is tried for the murder of 300 Jewish prisoners trapped in a burning church. The Defendants and Judges sit on stage - we know there is a deeper explanation than the evidence will admit but the Court will render its verdict - its ritual of punishment meted.Two days before the inauguration of Barack Obama, flight 1549 is steered to safety by an unlikely hero, a rather standard issue guy who saves 155 lives just as Obama, an unlikely President, starts his attempt to steer the country to an economic soft landing in hopes of saving countless livelihoods. Sully, the pilot, is a seemingly reluctant hero, no interviews, no show, no ticker tape parade - just did his job and turns a respectful but cold shoulder to the limelight of the 24/7 cable TV spectacle. By nature more Stubblefield than Marconi, our pilot is more than brave - he is decent. The Reader and The Wrestler - one refined and utterly sad, the other gritty and utterly sad. Two very different films but each bound by connective ligature to the pyramidal (and maybe particularly modern American) kernel of human isolation - that core inside all of us that our flight 1549 pilot seems to have (amazingly) excised from his DNA: the it's-the-outside-that-matters-not-the-inside gene; a/k/a longing for adoration; a/k/a pride - amour propre.Hannah Schmidt (in the Reader), the former SS guard stands accused of murder and she is illiterate. Robin "Randy The Ram" Robinson, (in the Wrestler) the former wrestling headliner, stands all blond haired, steroid pumped, heart failed image and he is emotionally illiterate.Hannah Schmidt has a "kid" (she calls her young lover - who reads to her before they make love - "kid") and Ram has a kid, a grown up daughter whom he has not seen in years. Hannah's kid, her lover, reads to her and teaches her heart-love and in return she teaches him fuck-love (he seems the better pupil than she) - but in the end - it's not enough. Ram's kid, his lost daughter, teaches Ram forgiveness - but in the end - it's not enough.Hannah's pride, her refusal to admit her illiteracy, leads to her confinement without kid. The Wrestler's pride in his past glory and refusal to kick his addiction to the known commodity - impersonal fame (no matter how small time) for the unknown cold turkey love of one single woman -- who says to him all anyone can ask or give: "I'm here, aren't I?" - leads to his emotional imprisonment (without his kid too). She goes to jail. He remains confined in the isolation of the roar of the crowd. For both its a life sentence.In the end, Hannah, still behind bars in her jail cell, climbs up a stack of shaky but carefully balanced books and from on high hangs herself. In the end, the Wrestler, behind the ropes in his jail cell of a wrestling ring, shakily climbs up the corner post, carefully balanced, and from on high throws himself down to the canvass for his last jump.Two movies as related in their sadness and regret as Marconi and Stubblefield were in their invention. We shall see how Sully fares when the talk shows come calling. Its the nature of things. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/22/39777.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/22/2009 10:01:03 AM
Body: The nominations for the 81st Annual Academy Awards were announced this morning, and they likely have upset a large number of people in the comic book geek community. Yes, the most obvious snubs have to do with The Dark Knight, which failed to garner nods for Best Picture, Best Director or even Best Screenplay — yes, obviously Heath Ledger was at least nominated. And at least the comic book adaptation did get a few craft awards, including Best Cinematography. Could we blame the Academy’s usual penchant for Holocaust movies? Perhaps, since The Reader was a surprise nominee for Best Picture and Best Director. What else was overlooked and what else was shockingly present? My immediate thoughts after the jump: Kate Winslet will not be able to achieve the same kind of double-duty win she achieved at the Golden Globes, because despite the surprising noms for The Reader, the film did not recieve a Best Supporting Actress nod. Fortunately, she did at least acquire a nomination for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road. And maybe as a consolation for her lack of two nominations, the Academy will feel it’s their obligation to give her the Oscar. Winslet is joined in the lead actress category by expected nominees Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway and also by non-sure things Angelina Jolie and Melissa Leo. The glaring “snub” is of course Golden Globe winner Sally Hawkins, who is the most upsetting omission in the eyes of this blogger. I’d even expected Cate Blanchett over Jolie, who can now make the Oscars a family affair since the other half of Brangelina is also nominated, for Best Actor. Waltz with Bashir somehow didn’t make it into the Best Animated Film trio, although nobody should attack Bolt because of this snub (surely you didn’t see it, and it is indeed worthy). Bashir did at least receive recognition in the Best Foreign Film category, which it will most surely win. Many people thought Gran Torino came out just at the right time to garner Clint Eastwood an acting nomination and maybe even a Best Picture nod, as well. But what could have been this year’s Crash is nowhere to be found among the nominees. As if The Dark Knight snubs weren’t enough to get young audiences protesting this year’s Oscars, there were also no Best Original Song nods for High School Musical 3 or even expected nominee Miley Cyrus, who cowrote a song for Bolt with Jeffrey Steele. And speaking of this category, is there any reason that there are only three nominees, none of which are for predicted winner Bruce Springsteen? I almost always have at least one issue with the Best Original Screenplay category, but if Courtney Hunt’s script for Frozen River is one of the best of the year, then Jenny Lumet, Woody Allen and Charlie Kaufman should all just pack up and retire. Wait, nevermind, because it’s snubs like these that have us once again saying that the Oscars are a joke. For the full list of nominees, head to Oscar.com. Or, if you don’t like drop menus, Variety. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:01:03 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/22/2009 10:01:03 AMThe nominations for the 81st Annual Academy Awards were announced this morning, and they likely have upset a large number of people in the comic book geek community. Yes, the most obvious snubs have to do with The Dark Knight, which failed to garner nods for Best Picture, Best Director or even Best Screenplay — yes, obviously Heath Ledger was at least nominated. And at least the comic book adaptation did get a few craft awards, including Best Cinematography. Could we blame the Academy’s usual penchant for Holocaust movies? Perhaps, since The Reader was a surprise nominee for Best Picture and Best Director. What else was overlooked and what else was shockingly present? My immediate thoughts after the jump: Kate Winslet will not be able to achieve the same kind of double-duty win she achieved at the Golden Globes, because despite the surprising noms for The Reader, the film did not recieve a Best Supporting Actress nod. Fortunately, she did at least acquire a nomination for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road. And maybe as a consolation for her lack of two nominations, the Academy will feel it’s their obligation to give her the Oscar. Winslet is joined in the lead actress category by expected nominees Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway and also by non-sure things Angelina Jolie and Melissa Leo. The glaring “snub” is of course Golden Globe winner Sally Hawkins, who is the most upsetting omission in the eyes of this blogger. I’d even expected Cate Blanchett over Jolie, who can now make the Oscars a family affair since the other half of Brangelina is also nominated, for Best Actor. Waltz with Bashir somehow didn’t make it into the Best Animated Film trio, although nobody should attack Bolt because of this snub (surely you didn’t see it, and it is indeed worthy). Bashir did at least receive recognition in the Best Foreign Film category, which it will most surely win. Many people thought Gran Torino came out just at the right time to garner Clint Eastwood an acting nomination and maybe even a Best Picture nod, as well. But what could have been this year’s Crash is nowhere to be found among the nominees. As if The Dark Knight snubs weren’t enough to get young audiences protesting this year’s Oscars, there were also no Best Original Song nods for High School Musical 3 or even expected nominee Miley Cyrus, who cowrote a song for Bolt with Jeffrey Steele. And speaking of this category, is there any reason that there are only three nominees, none of which are for predicted winner Bruce Springsteen? I almost always have at least one issue with the Best Original Screenplay category, but if Courtney Hunt’s script for Frozen River is one of the best of the year, then Jenny Lumet, Woody Allen and Charlie Kaufman should all just pack up and retire. Wait, nevermind, because it’s snubs like these that have us once again saying that the Oscars are a joke. For the full list of nominees, head to Oscar.com. Or, if you don’t like drop menus, Variety. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/tommacy/archive/2009/1/21/39752.aspx Post By: tommacy
Post To: tommacy Blog
Post Date: 1/21/2009 1:06:52 PM
Body: The flaws in the reader are glaring. A trial examines a character’s involment in the holocaust setting up themes of morality and shame that drive the second half of the film. How do you come to terms with caring for someone who committed such atrocities? How does a nation cope with the guilt? Apparently by exchanging platitudes in a law school classroom debate (led by a competely wasted and bored Bruno Ganz) where the lead character decides to remain silent. It’s regretable that these flaws serve as the downfall for this film rather than an extension of it’s mediocrity. They would be much easier to swallow that way. Since the first half of The Reader centers around the most effective human romance story of the year (WallE was a robot). In 1958 Germany, fifteen-year-old Michael Berg (a strong David Kross) meets Hana Schmitz (the impeccable Kate Winslet) a kind, stern woman of about 40. A random act of kindness prompts Michael to nervously return to Hanna’s apartment where she catches him a sneaking a peek at her nylons (ah to be young) and it sends him running. With no real intentions, or at least no concept how to act on them he returns a second time. This strange courtship continues until she suddenly makes a pass so forward on paper it would read like a bad porn. Preposterous, but executed with just the right balance of awkward, erotic and bizarre to make it believable, the lovers embody all the giggling and gasping excitement of a forbidden romance. Some of the scenes are so explicitly intimate they induce guilty feelings of voyeurism. Other than the joys of the flesh the activity the two enjoy is literature. Michael reads his prep school assignments (hence the title) to Hanna in a familiar but very effective montage featuring the luminous face of Winslet absorbing Micheal’s tales. This serves as a their romantic throughline and is ultimately redeeming in the latter parts of the film. When summer ends and the relationship fizzles Michael finds himself in Law School. The “progressive” environment of the 60s takes precedence over what is eating Micheal’s insides. Sadly, that preference is never returned until we are barely interested anymore. While sitting in on a Nazi trial for class, Hanna reenters Micheal’s life. It seems she was a guard at a Nazi camp and she and a number of her compatriots are finally getting justice. This is where the aforementioned derailment takes place as Micheal is reduced to a slumping prop. In the presence of a tour-de-force testimony (Winslet resists the usual territory for these types of scenes) without Micheal’s perspective the film turns it’s attentions to the holocaust and it’s affect on the characters and the country. All this was already on the periphery, I don’t see what was gained by drowning out Michael’s voice. The scenes border on didactic and are far too on the nose. The next time Micheal commits any actions of consequence he’s aged into Ralph Fiennes and Hanna is in prison. With some gestures that could induce gags or sniffles depending on your mood (sniffles for me) the last act is simultaneously compelling and maddening as it turns into a piece about reflection and regret. It is ironic that the first half of the film shot with shimmering nostalgia and swelling music seemed the most immediate. Finally, this is a frustrating film that will be categorized with some of the other handsome productions that fell short of their lofty expectations, including Ms. Winselt’s other endeavor “Revolutionary Road,” “Doubt,” and “Frost/Nixon.” I enjoyed all of these films and would happily revisit them all. But I generally agree with the consensus that they where just a little too careful to have any lingering impact. I give more credit to “The Reader” though. It reaches at some more delicate, ambiguous areas, or I should say approaches them more delicately. The rush of Michael and Hanna’s first encounter is one I’ll not soon forget. Or maybe I’m just giving it a pass because I’m in love with Kate Winslet.
]]>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:06:52 GMTtommacytommacy Blog1/21/2009 1:06:52 PM The flaws in the reader are glaring. A trial examines a character&rsquo;s involment in the holocaust setting up themes of morality and shame that drive the second half of the film. How do you come to terms with caring for someone who committed such atrocities? How does a nation cope with the guilt? Apparently by exchanging platitudes in a law school classroom debate (led by a competely wasted and bored Bruno Ganz) where the lead character decides to remain silent. It&rsquo;s regretable that these flaws serve as the downfall for this film rather than an extension of it&rsquo;s mediocrity. They would be much easier to swallow that way. Since the first half of The Reader centers around the most effective human romance story of the year (WallE was a robot). In 1958 Germany, fifteen-year-old Michael Berg (a strong David Kross) meets Hana Schmitz (the impeccable Kate Winslet) a kind, stern woman of about 40. A random act of kindness prompts Michael to nervously return to Hanna&rsquo;s apartment where she catches him a sneaking a peek at her nylons (ah to be young) and it sends him running. With no real intentions, or at least no concept how to act on them he returns a second time. This strange courtship continues until she suddenly makes a pass so forward on paper it would read like a bad porn. Preposterous, but executed with just the right balance of awkward, erotic and bizarre to make it believable, the lovers embody all the giggling and gasping excitement of a forbidden romance. Some of the scenes are so explicitly intimate they induce guilty feelings of voyeurism. Other than the joys of the flesh the activity the two enjoy is literature. Michael reads his prep school assignments (hence the title) to Hanna in a familiar but very effective montage featuring the luminous face of Winslet absorbing Micheal&rsquo;s tales. This serves as a their romantic throughline and is ultimately redeeming in the latter parts of the film. When summer ends and the relationship fizzles Michael finds himself in Law School. The &ldquo;progressive&rdquo; environment of the 60s takes precedence over what is eating Micheal&rsquo;s insides. Sadly, that preference is never returned until we are barely interested anymore. While sitting in on a Nazi trial for class, Hanna reenters Micheal&rsquo;s life. It seems she was a guard at a Nazi camp and she and a number of her compatriots are finally getting justice. This is where the aforementioned derailment takes place as Micheal is reduced to a slumping prop. In the presence of a tour-de-force testimony (Winslet resists the usual territory for these types of scenes) without Micheal&rsquo;s perspective the film turns it&rsquo;s attentions to the holocaust and it&rsquo;s affect on the characters and the country. All this was already on the periphery, I don&rsquo;t see what was gained by drowning out Michael&rsquo;s voice. The scenes border on didactic and are far too on the nose. The next time Micheal commits any actions of consequence he&rsquo;s aged into Ralph Fiennes and Hanna is in prison. With some gestures that could induce gags or sniffles depending on your mood (sniffles for me) the last act is simultaneously compelling and maddening as it turns into a piece about reflection and regret. It is ironic that the first half of the film shot with shimmering nostalgia and swelling music seemed the most immediate. Finally, this is a frustrating film that will be categorized with some of the other handsome productions that fell short of their lofty expectations, including Ms. Winselt&rsquo;s other endeavor &ldquo;Revolutionary Road,&rdquo; &ldquo;Doubt,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Frost/Nixon.&rdquo; I enjoyed all of these films and would happily revisit them all. But I generally agree with the consensus that they where just a little too careful to have any lingering impact. I give more credit to &ldquo;The Reader&rdquo; though. It reaches at some more delicate, ambiguous areas, or I should say approaches them more delicately. The rush of Michael and Hanna&rsquo;s first encounter is one I&rsquo;ll not soon forget. Or maybe I&rsquo;m just giving it a pass because I&rsquo;m in love with Kate Winslet. http://www.spout.com/groups/Coming_Soon/Holiday_Movies_Act_III_Daniel_Craig_s_DEFIANCE/216/38939/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: spout
Post To: Coming Soon
Post Date: 12/29/2008 7:48:46 PM
Body: Jan. 2 - LImited release Only one new film comes out this week: Defiance. Watch the trailer. Based on a true story, this film reminds me of a WWII version of Robin Hood. A band of brothers (Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, Jaimie Bell) refuse to give in to Nazi Germany. They liberate Jews, give them a safe haven in the woods, and train them to fight the Nazis. Some critics are dubious of the film, wondering why Paramount studios would delay its original December release until the quality wasteland that is January. Me, I'm still looking forward to the film for two reasons. I have faith in the director Edward Zwick. Although I didn't quite love The Last Samurai (2003), it definitely had its moments, and I thought the later Blood Diamond (2006) was even more impressive. Secondly, the actors are excellent. Daniel Craig is always intense and compelling. Liev Schreiber is great too, so I'm glad we'll be seeing more of him. (He's playing Sabretooth in the upcoming X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Watch the trailer.) BEST NEW MOVIES OUT THERE The Wrestler -- Watch the trailer. Read the review. If it's in your town, go see it! If it's not in your town yet, write your congressman and get it there! Frost/Nixon -- Watch the trailer. Even if you're not very interested in politics, this is a highly watchable story about integrity. And the "interviews" between Frost and Nixon, though civil on the surface, play more like gladiatorial combat where you can feel the sting of every strike and counter-strike. Far from a simple hatchet-job on the former president, this film balances a fair judgment of Nixon's abuses of power with an awareness that he was not just some snickering villain. If this were a lesser film, viewers might walk away disliking Nixon more than they already did; instead, Ron Howard's story makes these characters relatable and even a bit haunting. The Reader -- Watch the trailer. Read the review. Have any other recommendations? I'd love to hear them.
]]>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:48:46 GMTspoutComing Soon12/29/2008 7:48:46 PMJan. 2 - LImited release Only one new film comes out this week: Defiance. Watch the trailer. Based on a true story, this film reminds me of a WWII version of Robin Hood. A band of brothers (Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, Jaimie Bell) refuse to give in to Nazi Germany. They liberate Jews, give them a safe haven in the woods, and train them to fight the Nazis. Some critics are dubious of the film, wondering why Paramount studios would delay its original December release until the quality wasteland that is January. Me, I'm still looking forward to the film for two reasons. I have faith in the director Edward Zwick. Although I didn't quite love The Last Samurai (2003), it definitely had its moments, and I thought the later Blood Diamond (2006) was even more impressive. Secondly, the actors are excellent. Daniel Craig is always intense and compelling. Liev Schreiber is great too, so I'm glad we'll be seeing more of him. (He's playing Sabretooth in the upcoming X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Watch the trailer.) BEST NEW MOVIES OUT THERE The Wrestler -- Watch the trailer. Read the review. If it's in your town, go see it! If it's not in your town yet, write your congressman and get it there! Frost/Nixon -- Watch the trailer. Even if you're not very interested in politics, this is a highly watchable story about integrity. And the "interviews" between Frost and Nixon, though civil on the surface, play more like gladiatorial combat where you can feel the sting of every strike and counter-strike. Far from a simple hatchet-job on the former president, this film balances a fair judgment of Nixon's abuses of power with an awareness that he was not just some snickering villain. If this were a lesser film, viewers might walk away disliking Nixon more than they already did; instead, Ron Howard's story makes these characters relatable and even a bit haunting. The Reader -- Watch the trailer. Read the review. Have any other recommendations? I'd love to hear them. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2414

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 548

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:42 GMT2414126548Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/betrayal/MemberTagFilms.aspxbetrayal
Number of films tagged: 1035

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 154

]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:28:04 GMT103562154Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/prison/MemberTagFilms.aspxprison
Number of films tagged: 2437

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 167

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:02:27 GMT243762167Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/school/MemberTagFilms.aspxschool
Number of films tagged: 1231

Number of people who tagged: 56

Number of times used: 130

]]>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:49:18 GMT123156130Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/college/MemberTagFilms.aspxcollege
Number of films tagged: 854

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 187

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:40:05 GMT85448187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/book/MemberTagFilms.aspxbook
Number of films tagged: 683

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 114

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:55:43 GMT68345114Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nazi/MemberTagFilms.aspxnazi
Number of films tagged: 428

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 67

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:50:17 GMT4283667Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lawyer/MemberTagFilms.aspxlawyer
Number of films tagged: 1764

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 82

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:55:09 GMT17643582Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lies/MemberTagFilms.aspxlies
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 85

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT1873285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/train/MemberTagFilms.aspxtrain
Number of films tagged: 66

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 80

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:52:46 GMT663280Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/germany/MemberTagFilms.aspxgermany
Number of films tagged: 873

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 53

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT8733153Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nudity/MemberTagFilms.aspxnudity
Number of films tagged: 297

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 99

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:36:31 GMT2973199Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tragedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxtragedy
Number of films tagged: 92

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 47

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:08:55 GMT923047Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/affair/MemberTagFilms.aspxaffair
Number of films tagged: 84

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 96

]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:26 GMT842996Tag