list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Superman: The Movie on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Superman_The_Movie/43331/default.aspx Title: Superman: The Movie
Year: 1978
Director: Richard Donner
Plot: Richard Donner's big-budget blockbuster Superman: The Movie is an immensely entertaining recounting of the origin of the famous comic book character. Opening on Krypton (where Marlon Brando plays Superman's father), the film follows the Man of Steel (Christopher Reeve) as he's sent to Earth where he develops his alter-ego Clark Kent and is raised by a Midwestern family. In no time, the movie has run through his teenage years, and Clark gets a job at the Daily Planet, where he is a news reporter. It's there that he falls in love with Lois Lane (Margot Kidder), who is already in love with Superman. But the love story is quickly sidetracked once the villainous Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) launches a diabolical plan to conquer the world and kill Superman. Superman: The Movie is filled with action, special effects and a surprising amount of humor. ~ Stephen Thomas Erlewine, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 27
Number of Lists: 47
Number of blog posts: 9
Number of discussion threads: 5
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sun, 10 May 2009 22:20:47 GMTSuperman: The Movie1978Richard Donner<a href="/players/P____88048/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Donner</a>'s big-budget blockbuster Superman: The Movie is an immensely entertaining recounting of the origin of the famous comic book character. Opening on Krypton (where <a href="/players/P_____8070/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Marlon Brando</a> plays Superman's father), the film follows the Man of Steel (<a href="/players/P____59343/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christopher Reeve</a>) as he's sent to Earth where he develops his alter-ego Clark Kent and is raised by a Midwestern family. In no time, the movie has run through his teenage years, and Clark gets a job at the Daily Planet, where he is a news reporter. It's there that he falls in love with Lois Lane (<a href="/players/P____38064/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Margot Kidder</a>), who is already in love with Superman. But the love story is quickly sidetracked once the villainous Lex Luthor (<a href="/players/P____29486/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gene Hackman</a>) launches a diabolical plan to conquer the world and kill Superman. Superman: The Movie is filled with action, special effects and a surprising amount of humor. ~ Stephen Thomas Erlewine, All Movie Guide27Tag Target (>10)47953http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t89390ospc6.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Superman_The_Movie/43331/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/4/27/41770.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 4/27/2009 9:46:46 AM
Body: This movie is one of the few that holds up years later. It is an excellent adaptation that hardly changes the myth created in the comic books like other superhero movies. The visuals are still incredible. CGI looks so fake compared to the technology of two and a half decades ago. This movie proves that the blue screen effect works much better than a computer animated version of a character like in "Spiderman" and "The Hulk". Christopher Reeve is awesome as "Superman," but not as good as "Clark Kent". I don't remember "Clark Kent" being such a wimp as he is portrayed in this movie. Gene Hackman is amazing as "Lex Luthor". The actor who portrays "Lex" in "Smallville" should watch Hackman's performance to see how "Superman's" archenemy should be portrayed. Hackman's performance is one you will remember for some time after seeing this movie. Margot Kidder also does a standout performance as "Lois Lane". She is portrayed exactly as she is depicted in the comic book. I am so happy Marlon Brando's part as "Jor-El" was just a cameo. With the way the character was depicted in the comic book, I just could not accept a legendary actor like Brando in this role. His performance was also not the best I have seen from him. To me, he seemed stiff and was reciting the lines (which he was reading off of cue cards). This movie is just fun to watch. It's excellent for an entire family. There is little, to no violence and not any major foul words. Compared to "Spiderman" and "Daredevil", this movie will be one of those memorable classics years from now.
]]>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:46:46 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog4/27/2009 9:46:46 AMThis movie is one of the few that holds up years later. It is an excellent adaptation that hardly changes the myth created in the comic books like other superhero movies. The visuals are still incredible. CGI looks so fake compared to the technology of two and a half decades ago. This movie proves that the blue screen effect works much better than a computer animated version of a character like in "Spiderman" and "The Hulk". Christopher Reeve is awesome as "Superman," but not as good as "Clark Kent". I don't remember "Clark Kent" being such a wimp as he is portrayed in this movie. Gene Hackman is amazing as "Lex Luthor". The actor who portrays "Lex" in "Smallville" should watch Hackman's performance to see how "Superman's" archenemy should be portrayed. Hackman's performance is one you will remember for some time after seeing this movie. Margot Kidder also does a standout performance as "Lois Lane". She is portrayed exactly as she is depicted in the comic book. I am so happy Marlon Brando's part as "Jor-El" was just a cameo. With the way the character was depicted in the comic book, I just could not accept a legendary actor like Brando in this role. His performance was also not the best I have seen from him. To me, he seemed stiff and was reciting the lines (which he was reading off of cue cards). This movie is just fun to watch. It's excellent for an entire family. There is little, to no violence and not any major foul words. Compared to "Spiderman" and "Daredevil", this movie will be one of those memorable classics years from now. http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/Re_Worst_Movie_Of_The_70_s/104/41406/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 4/2/2009 12:31:49 PM
Body: [quote user="davisfreeberg"] If there is one decade that is known for bad b-movies, it would have to be the 70's or arguably the 1980's. Since I'm a sucker for cheap action adventure and horror movies, I've come across a number of less then stellar films. In thinking about your own 1970's movie experiences, what do you feel is the worst movie of the decade? [/quote] I thought about it and of all the movies I have seen from the 70s so many of them have been pretty enjoyable! I wasn't too keen on Superman though. I certainly wouldn't call it anything near the worst movie ever though. I guess I'm just good at avoiding the total shit movies. I should probably be watching more MST3K.
]]>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:31:49 GMTRisseladaWorst Movie Ever4/2/2009 12:31:49 PM[quote user="davisfreeberg"] If there is one decade that is known for bad b-movies, it would have to be the 70's or arguably the 1980's. Since I'm a sucker for cheap action adventure and horror movies, I've come across a number of less then stellar films. In thinking about your own 1970's movie experiences, what do you feel is the worst movie of the decade? [/quote] I thought about it and of all the movies I have seen from the 70s so many of them have been pretty enjoyable! I wasn't too keen on Superman though. I certainly wouldn't call it anything near the worst movie ever though. I guess I'm just good at avoiding the total shit movies. I should probably be watching more MST3K. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/11/40976.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/11/2009 6:01:18 PM
Body: We at SpoutBlog love Jon Hamm tremendously, but we don’t get to write about him much because we’re primarily a film blog and don’t feature much discussion of either Mad Men or 30 Rock (we’ve slipped praise into posts here and there, of course). Fortunately for us, Hamm has made a new video for FunnyorDie.com, in which he references movies. Specifically, he portrays Lex Luthor and alludes to plot points from Superman: The Movie, Superman Returns and even Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. And as if this video (watch it after the jump) weren’t funny enough, we can now hopefully look forward to Hamm appearing in more Judd Apatow-related comedies — at least if the guys at Vulture have any influence. Or, maybe Hamm could actually be cast in a future Superman movie (was this video a response to requests for Warner Bros. to make him the new Man of Steel?), as either hero or villain — or both!?!? Again, check out the clip and what other bloggers (some TV bloggers, but whatever) are saying about it after the jump: Cinematical’s Erik Davis finds the clip “cute” and “funny” but chooses to focus his “Watch This” post on a car commercial starring Andy Richter. Okay, it might be funnier, but it has nothing to do with movies. Oh, and it doesn’t have Jon Hamm in it. To quote Tina at FishbowlLA, “Swoon. Bald even.” David Hauslaib at Jossip goes a step further: “Even with that stupid bald cap on, I’d still hit that so hard we’d reverse the earth and get rid of the national debt. Boom!” “Jon Hamm with no hair is still better than 99% of America with hair,” argues Joe Bua at IAmATVJunkie.com. Michelle Collins at Best Week Ever has apparently given us a place to leave all kinds of those “Jon Hamm would still be hot if…” comments. “As if my love of the man wasn’t already raging out of control,” confesses TV Critic Alan Sepinwall on What’s Alan Watching? Gonzalo Cordova at Comedy Central Insider insults movie and comic geeks with more Hamm praise: Before all the comic nerds get mad at me for saying Jon Hamm is a better Lex Luthor than Gene Hackman, I just wanna say, “Whoah, nerds. Take a deep breath from your inhaler and CALM THE FUCK DOWN!” Gene HACKman wasn’t a good actor in any movie ever, okay? (Alright, now I’m just saying things I don’t believe in order to get the film geeks mad at me too. Geeks getting mad is really funny!) Now, less gushing and more commenting about the actual video: commenter “ManchuCandidate” at io9 writes, “At this point, Lex is really less of a villain than any from a major bank these days. Lex’s only trying to kill one guy, an illegal alien no less, while the banks fucked all of us.” More defense for Luthor at Topless Robot: “Sure, Superman’s trying to protect the world, but does he ever think about all those Lexcorp employees he’s putting out of work? Jackass.” The video left most of our fellow film bloggers more or less speechless (or wordless), but here’s some of the link love for those who showed appreciation for Hamm as Luthor: Jeff Wells; Scott Mendlson; IESB.net. “Lex Luthor Bailout” with Jon Hamm - watch more funny videos Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:01:18 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/11/2009 6:01:18 PMWe at SpoutBlog love Jon Hamm tremendously, but we don’t get to write about him much because we’re primarily a film blog and don’t feature much discussion of either Mad Men or 30 Rock (we’ve slipped praise into posts here and there, of course). Fortunately for us, Hamm has made a new video for FunnyorDie.com, in which he references movies. Specifically, he portrays Lex Luthor and alludes to plot points from Superman: The Movie, Superman Returns and even Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. And as if this video (watch it after the jump) weren’t funny enough, we can now hopefully look forward to Hamm appearing in more Judd Apatow-related comedies — at least if the guys at Vulture have any influence. Or, maybe Hamm could actually be cast in a future Superman movie (was this video a response to requests for Warner Bros. to make him the new Man of Steel?), as either hero or villain — or both!?!? Again, check out the clip and what other bloggers (some TV bloggers, but whatever) are saying about it after the jump: Cinematical’s Erik Davis finds the clip “cute” and “funny” but chooses to focus his “Watch This” post on a car commercial starring Andy Richter. Okay, it might be funnier, but it has nothing to do with movies. Oh, and it doesn’t have Jon Hamm in it. To quote Tina at FishbowlLA, “Swoon. Bald even.” David Hauslaib at Jossip goes a step further: “Even with that stupid bald cap on, I’d still hit that so hard we’d reverse the earth and get rid of the national debt. Boom!” “Jon Hamm with no hair is still better than 99% of America with hair,” argues Joe Bua at IAmATVJunkie.com. Michelle Collins at Best Week Ever has apparently given us a place to leave all kinds of those “Jon Hamm would still be hot if…” comments. “As if my love of the man wasn’t already raging out of control,” confesses TV Critic Alan Sepinwall on What’s Alan Watching? Gonzalo Cordova at Comedy Central Insider insults movie and comic geeks with more Hamm praise: Before all the comic nerds get mad at me for saying Jon Hamm is a better Lex Luthor than Gene Hackman, I just wanna say, “Whoah, nerds. Take a deep breath from your inhaler and CALM THE FUCK DOWN!” Gene HACKman wasn’t a good actor in any movie ever, okay? (Alright, now I’m just saying things I don’t believe in order to get the film geeks mad at me too. Geeks getting mad is really funny!) Now, less gushing and more commenting about the actual video: commenter “ManchuCandidate” at io9 writes, “At this point, Lex is really less of a villain than any from a major bank these days. Lex’s only trying to kill one guy, an illegal alien no less, while the banks fucked all of us.” More defense for Luthor at Topless Robot: “Sure, Superman’s trying to protect the world, but does he ever think about all those Lexcorp employees he’s putting out of work? Jackass.” The video left most of our fellow film bloggers more or less speechless (or wordless), but here’s some of the link love for those who showed appreciation for Hamm as Luthor: Jeff Wells; Scott Mendlson; IESB.net. “Lex Luthor Bailout” with Jon Hamm - watch more funny videos Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/3/40799.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/3/2009 5:03:10 PM
Body: In addition to winning Best Picture (and seven other awards) at the Oscars last week, Slumdog Millionaire passed a major box office benchmark. It has now grossed more than $100 million in the U.S., which is pretty astonishing for a film with one-third of its dialogue in a foreign language. But is Slumdog’s popularity a one-shot in terms of its audience’s interest in India, or are moviegoers actually now more curious about the nation and its own films? Some websites are simplifying the question of whether or not Slumdog will be a gateway film with polls asking if American moviegoers will now “go Bollywood” (40% of Cinematical readers flat out answered, “no.”), which is rather silly since Danny Boyle’s movie bears no resemblance to the majority of Bollywood pictures. In fact, Americans have in the past received far greater entry points into Indian cinema by way of films involving Anglo or NRI (non-resident Indian) protagonists directed by culturally bridging filmmakers (such as NRI helmers Deepa Mehta, Mira Nair and Gurinder Chadha), than the more-touristy type of filmmaking represented with Slumdog. If someone truly wants to become familiar with Bollywood, he or she should probably just jump right in and then patiently get used to the style, which can be quite difficult for Westerners to immediately grasp. The extremely interested might benefit from reading the section on popular Indian cinema in Dimitris Eleftheriotis and Gary Needham’s Asian Cinemas: A Reader & Guide, a book that does a really great job acquainting the Western spectator with Eastern film form. Or, the more casually curious cinephile could simply follow our guide to accessible Indian (or India-based) films for the Slumdog lover to watch next: Sita Sings the Blues (Nina Paley, 2008) What it’s about: Paley’s semi-autobiographical animated feature self-deprecatingly depicts the events of the filmmaker’s divorce crosscut with a somewhat paralleling adaptation of part of the epic Indian poem Ramayana. Why you should see it: Although not an Indian production nor made by an Indian filmmaker, Sita does offer an entry point for the mythological genre of Indian films and/or an introduction to Hindu myths, a number of which are the basis for a lot of Bollywood musical numbers. If that’s not enough reason, though, here’s what Karina wrote about the film in her review: “Sita Sings the Blues is a strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Where to see it: Sita won the Gotham Award for Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You and will infamously remain without a distributor forever. However, those of us in the NYC area can watch the film on PBS’ Reel 13 program on March 7. Those of you outside New York are in luck, too; the film is currently available for free on Reel 13’s website as a streaming video. Salaam Bombay! (Mira Nair, 1988) What it’s about: A 10-year-old boy tries to survive on the streets of Bombay (now Mumbai) after being told to go out and find work by his mother. Why you should see it: With all the crossover movies from the past two decades dealing with interracial relationships, arranged marriage and the complications of NRI life, Nair’s films are typically the most entertaining. But while minor gateways could be found in her films The Namesake (starring Harold & Kumar’s Kal Penn), Mississippi Masala (starring Denzel Washington) or the very enjoyable Monsoon Wedding, this Oscar-nominated drama might be what Slumdog fans seek most if primarily interested in more “poverty porn.” Like Slumdog, Salaam Bombay! even starred actual non-professional street children. Where to see it: Available on DVD. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955) What it’s about: The first installment of Ray’s Apu trilogy (which also includes Aparajito and The World of Apu), Pather Panchali is a tragedy-filled tale of a poor family living in rural Bengal in the 1920s and concentrates on the coming of age story of young Apu. Why you should see it: Aside from being one of the greatest films ever made, let alone one of the greatest Indian films, Pather Panchali tells a universal story of family and is quite Western in form (for one thing, it lacks musical numbers), a fact that made it somewhat looked down upon in its own country. But in addition to its accessibility, it can also serve as a starting point to melodramatic conventions found in many classic Indian films. The abandoning patriarch, the significantly strong matriarch and other common national metaphors are present and will familiarize you for the next title on this list. Where to see it: This is one of those films that’s constantly being screened at repertory houses, so see it on a big screen if you have the chance. Otherwise, the entire Apu trilogy is unfortunately out of print on DVD. But such masterpieces can’t possibly be unavailable for too long, so pick up a box set whenever one is released. Mother India (Mehboob Khan, 1957) What it’s about: An epic maternal melodrama and metaphor for post-colonial India, Khan’s Oscar-nominated film focuses on a poor Indian family throughout many years, as the patriarch leaves the home and the mother is left to deal with two very different sons. Why you should see it: If you enjoy Pather Panchali, you may at least appreciate the story of Mother India, though the latter has a much more melodramatic and emotional tone. Unlike Pather Panchali, it does feature musical numbers as well as a bit of comic relief, courtesy of a very bratty little boy. Also, it’s basically the Gone With the Wind of India, at least in terms of its national significance — and one familiar-looking shot — if not in terms of its plot. Where to see it: Available on DVD. Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (Ashutosh Gowariker, 2001) What it’s about: Oppressed Indian villagers battle against their British governors … in a cricket match seemingly depicted in real time. Also, one of the villagers becomes entangled in a love triangle between his true love and a British woman, who is also the sister of the film’s villain. Why you should see it: First of all, it’s one of the most accessible foreign films of the last 10 years, period. For the guys: Lagaan is just like all your favorite underdog sports flicks except that it gives you even more of the game, as well as some singing and dancing here and there (with music by Slumdog Oscar-winner A.R. Rahman). So what if you don’t know anything about cricket; just pretend it’s baseball. For the gals: there’s just as much romance as cricket playing. Advice for both sexes: you might want to fast forward through the song that the British woman sings. It’s the single unbearable moment in the nearly 4-hour film. Where to see it: Apparently unavailable through rental sites like Netflix, but you can pick up a DVD through Amazon affiliates. Hum Tum (Kunal Kohli, 2004) What it’s about: Basically, though not officially, it’s the Bollywood remake of When Harry Met Sally. Why you should see it: If Lagaan is the perfect gateway for guys, Hum Tum is the perfect gateway for girls, although like Lagaan, this film has something for both sexes. All guys can appreciate When Harry Met Sally, after all, right? Where to see it: Also unavailable through Netflix, but you can find a very cheap all-region DVD through Amazon affiliates. Abhimaan (Hrishikesh Mukherjee, 1973) What it’s about: Inspired by A Star is Born, a famous singer meets, falls for and fosters the career of a young woman, who ends up more popular than him. Why you should see it: First of all, every Slumdog fan should become acquainted with Amitabh Bachchan (the celebrity whose autograph the young excrement-covered Jamal acquires), who costars here with his real-life wife Jaya Bhaduri (a bigger star at the time). Second of all, because the musical numbers all figure into the plot, either as recording studio sequences or concert performances, there’s not as much of that jarring, interruptive nature of most Bollywood musicals. Where to see it: Available on DVD. It’s also one of the many Indian films available for streaming on Netflix’s Watch Instantly. Amar Akbar Anthony (Manmohan Desai, 1977) What it’s about: Another great metaphor for post-colonial India, this other Bachchan-starring classic tells the story of three brothers separated as infants, who end up growing up under very different circumstances. One is adopted by a Hindu policeman and becomes the same; one is brought up by a Muslim taylor and becomes a popular singer; and the third (played by Bachchan) is raised Catholic and enters a life of crime. Why you should see it: For more Amitabh Bachchan after he became India’s favorite actor. Though not technically a great film, it is filled with a lot of absurd moments and can serve as a gateway for those cinephiles who can only approach new things first through ironic appreciation. Such viewers should really love the Easter scene in which Bachchan jumps out of a giant egg wearing a top hat and monocle to sing a song about himself. Where to see it: Currently available on DVD. Krrish (Rakesh Roshan, 2006) What it’s about: This sequel to the sci-fi movie Koi…Mil Gay is your typical superhero action flick, except done in the style of Bollywood. Why you should see it: This one is primarily for getting your kids into Indian cinema, because kids will watch just about any superhero movie, regardless of the language or setting. Though the original more-E.T.-than-Superman film, Koi…Mil Gay, should probably be watched first, there’s nothing wrong with making this your primary gateway for the little ones. Where to see it: Currently available on DVD Vanaja (Rajnesh Domalpalli, 2006) What it’s about: Set in South India and controversially made outside the local “Tollywood” film industry, Domalpalli’s comparatively non-musical film follows the story of a 14-year-old girl who is pretty much sold off by her father to a wealthy landowner who puts her to work while also teaching her traditional Kuchipudi dance. Why you should see it: While not very relative to Slumdog or most of the other films on this list, Vanaja will open up viewers to other cinemas of India, even if this rather Western-form film was a Columbia University graduate thesis film and even if it is considered more “art house” than the popular cinema of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Like the slightly similar coming of age art house film Pather Panchali, Vanaja is a wonderful film and a terrific start for beginners. But because this film features Indian music and dance, it may also function as a gateway to the typical musical films of India, either produced in Andhra Pradesh or Mumbai (Bollywood) Where to see it: Available on DVD. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:03:10 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/3/2009 5:03:10 PMIn addition to winning Best Picture (and seven other awards) at the Oscars last week, Slumdog Millionaire passed a major box office benchmark. It has now grossed more than $100 million in the U.S., which is pretty astonishing for a film with one-third of its dialogue in a foreign language. But is Slumdog’s popularity a one-shot in terms of its audience’s interest in India, or are moviegoers actually now more curious about the nation and its own films? Some websites are simplifying the question of whether or not Slumdog will be a gateway film with polls asking if American moviegoers will now “go Bollywood” (40% of Cinematical readers flat out answered, “no.”), which is rather silly since Danny Boyle’s movie bears no resemblance to the majority of Bollywood pictures. In fact, Americans have in the past received far greater entry points into Indian cinema by way of films involving Anglo or NRI (non-resident Indian) protagonists directed by culturally bridging filmmakers (such as NRI helmers Deepa Mehta, Mira Nair and Gurinder Chadha), than the more-touristy type of filmmaking represented with Slumdog. If someone truly wants to become familiar with Bollywood, he or she should probably just jump right in and then patiently get used to the style, which can be quite difficult for Westerners to immediately grasp. The extremely interested might benefit from reading the section on popular Indian cinema in Dimitris Eleftheriotis and Gary Needham’s Asian Cinemas: A Reader & Guide, a book that does a really great job acquainting the Western spectator with Eastern film form. Or, the more casually curious cinephile could simply follow our guide to accessible Indian (or India-based) films for the Slumdog lover to watch next: Sita Sings the Blues (Nina Paley, 2008) What it’s about: Paley’s semi-autobiographical animated feature self-deprecatingly depicts the events of the filmmaker’s divorce crosscut with a somewhat paralleling adaptation of part of the epic Indian poem Ramayana. Why you should see it: Although not an Indian production nor made by an Indian filmmaker, Sita does offer an entry point for the mythological genre of Indian films and/or an introduction to Hindu myths, a number of which are the basis for a lot of Bollywood musical numbers. If that’s not enough reason, though, here’s what Karina wrote about the film in her review: “Sita Sings the Blues is a strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Where to see it: Sita won the Gotham Award for Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You and will infamously remain without a distributor forever. However, those of us in the NYC area can watch the film on PBS’ Reel 13 program on March 7. Those of you outside New York are in luck, too; the film is currently available for free on Reel 13’s website as a streaming video. Salaam Bombay! (Mira Nair, 1988) What it’s about: A 10-year-old boy tries to survive on the streets of Bombay (now Mumbai) after being told to go out and find work by his mother. Why you should see it: With all the crossover movies from the past two decades dealing with interracial relationships, arranged marriage and the complications of NRI life, Nair’s films are typically the most entertaining. But while minor gateways could be found in her films The Namesake (starring Harold & Kumar’s Kal Penn), Mississippi Masala (starring Denzel Washington) or the very enjoyable Monsoon Wedding, this Oscar-nominated drama might be what Slumdog fans seek most if primarily interested in more “poverty porn.” Like Slumdog, Salaam Bombay! even starred actual non-professional street children. Where to see it: Available on DVD. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955) What it’s about: The first installment of Ray’s Apu trilogy (which also includes Aparajito and The World of Apu), Pather Panchali is a tragedy-filled tale of a poor family living in rural Bengal in the 1920s and concentrates on the coming of age story of young Apu. Why you should see it: Aside from being one of the greatest films ever made, let alone one of the greatest Indian films, Pather Panchali tells a universal story of family and is quite Western in form (for one thing, it lacks musical numbers), a fact that made it somewhat looked down upon in its own country. But in addition to its accessibility, it can also serve as a starting point to melodramatic conventions found in many classic Indian films. The abandoning patriarch, the significantly strong matriarch and other common national metaphors are present and will familiarize you for the next title on this list. Where to see it: This is one of those films that’s constantly being screened at repertory houses, so see it on a big screen if you have the chance. Otherwise, the entire Apu trilogy is unfortunately out of print on DVD. But such masterpieces can’t possibly be unavailable for too long, so pick up a box set whenever one is released. Mother India (Mehboob Khan, 1957) What it’s about: An epic maternal melodrama and metaphor for post-colonial India, Khan’s Oscar-nominated film focuses on a poor Indian family throughout many years, as the patriarch leaves the home and the mother is left to deal with two very different sons. Why you should see it: If you enjoy Pather Panchali, you may at least appreciate the story of Mother India, though the latter has a much more melodramatic and emotional tone. Unlike Pather Panchali, it does feature musical numbers as well as a bit of comic relief, courtesy of a very bratty little boy. Also, it’s basically the Gone With the Wind of India, at least in terms of its national significance — and one familiar-looking shot — if not in terms of its plot. Where to see it: Available on DVD. Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (Ashutosh Gowariker, 2001) What it’s about: Oppressed Indian villagers battle against their British governors … in a cricket match seemingly depicted in real time. Also, one of the villagers becomes entangled in a love triangle between his true love and a British woman, who is also the sister of the film’s villain. Why you should see it: First of all, it’s one of the most accessible foreign films of the last 10 years, period. For the guys: Lagaan is just like all your favorite underdog sports flicks except that it gives you even more of the game, as well as some singing and dancing here and there (with music by Slumdog Oscar-winner A.R. Rahman). So what if you don’t know anything about cricket; just pretend it’s baseball. For the gals: there’s just as much romance as cricket playing. Advice for both sexes: you might want to fast forward through the song that the British woman sings. It’s the single unbearable moment in the nearly 4-hour film. Where to see it: Apparently unavailable through rental sites like Netflix, but you can pick up a DVD through Amazon affiliates. Hum Tum (Kunal Kohli, 2004) What it’s about: Basically, though not officially, it’s the Bollywood remake of When Harry Met Sally. Why you should see it: If Lagaan is the perfect gateway for guys, Hum Tum is the perfect gateway for girls, although like Lagaan, this film has something for both sexes. All guys can appreciate When Harry Met Sally, after all, right? Where to see it: Also unavailable through Netflix, but you can find a very cheap all-region DVD through Amazon affiliates. Abhimaan (Hrishikesh Mukherjee, 1973) What it’s about: Inspired by A Star is Born, a famous singer meets, falls for and fosters the career of a young woman, who ends up more popular than him. Why you should see it: First of all, every Slumdog fan should become acquainted with Amitabh Bachchan (the celebrity whose autograph the young excrement-covered Jamal acquires), who costars here with his real-life wife Jaya Bhaduri (a bigger star at the time). Second of all, because the musical numbers all figure into the plot, either as recording studio sequences or concert performances, there’s not as much of that jarring, interruptive nature of most Bollywood musicals. Where to see it: Available on DVD. It’s also one of the many Indian films available for streaming on Netflix’s Watch Instantly. Amar Akbar Anthony (Manmohan Desai, 1977) What it’s about: Another great metaphor for post-colonial India, this other Bachchan-starring classic tells the story of three brothers separated as infants, who end up growing up under very different circumstances. One is adopted by a Hindu policeman and becomes the same; one is brought up by a Muslim taylor and becomes a popular singer; and the third (played by Bachchan) is raised Catholic and enters a life of crime. Why you should see it: For more Amitabh Bachchan after he became India’s favorite actor. Though not technically a great film, it is filled with a lot of absurd moments and can serve as a gateway for those cinephiles who can only approach new things first through ironic appreciation. Such viewers should really love the Easter scene in which Bachchan jumps out of a giant egg wearing a top hat and monocle to sing a song about himself. Where to see it: Currently available on DVD. Krrish (Rakesh Roshan, 2006) What it’s about: This sequel to the sci-fi movie Koi…Mil Gay is your typical superhero action flick, except done in the style of Bollywood. Why you should see it: This one is primarily for getting your kids into Indian cinema, because kids will watch just about any superhero movie, regardless of the language or setting. Though the original more-E.T.-than-Superman film, Koi…Mil Gay, should probably be watched first, there’s nothing wrong with making this your primary gateway for the little ones. Where to see it: Currently available on DVD Vanaja (Rajnesh Domalpalli, 2006) What it’s about: Set in South India and controversially made outside the local “Tollywood” film industry, Domalpalli’s comparatively non-musical film follows the story of a 14-year-old girl who is pretty much sold off by her father to a wealthy landowner who puts her to work while also teaching her traditional Kuchipudi dance. Why you should see it: While not very relative to Slumdog or most of the other films on this list, Vanaja will open up viewers to other cinemas of India, even if this rather Western-form film was a Columbia University graduate thesis film and even if it is considered more “art house” than the popular cinema of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Like the slightly similar coming of age art house film Pather Panchali, Vanaja is a wonderful film and a terrific start for beginners. But because this film features Indian music and dance, it may also function as a gateway to the typical musical films of India, either produced in Andhra Pradesh or Mumbai (Bollywood) Where to see it: Available on DVD. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/13/39467.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/13/2009 4:02:06 PM
Body: As we crack open fresh calendars for a new year, we’re treated to a predictable rash of blog posts: 2009 technology predictions. I’ve read a number of these, and prognostications about Microsoft buying Yahoo make me want to light my laptop on fire just to cure the boredom. As an anecdote to lame, ‘what’s the next Twitter?’-style tech prediction lists, I’ve decided to make a list 2009 tech predictions entirely inspired by movies. 2008 was the year in which widely available real-world gadgets were just as good as what James Bond had. Sure, Daniel Craig kicked some ass in Quantum of Solace, but his only real piece of tech was a phone with a camera and GPS! (Hope you got a good texting plan with that, James.) I predict this trend will continue in 2009. We’ll see even more real-world gadgets that used to be the sole domain of Hollywood special effects gurus. Sure, some of these technologies will require minor miracles to become a reality in the coming year, but others are closer than you think. Strength-Enhancing Exoskeleton Armor In Iron Man, Tony Stark creates a crude, internally-powered suit of armor to escape his terrorist captors. Once he’s safely at home in his billion-dollar laboratory, he hones the suit into a golden ass-kicking machine, and becomes Iron Man. This story isn’t that far from the truth. Rather than a single billionaire playboy, teams of research scientists are developing robotic suits that significantly increase the wearer’s strength. And the end goal is goal is the same: beating the hell out of terrorists. Almost five years ago, UC Berkley researchers announced a DARPA-funded project called BLEEX, the Berkley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (pictured at left). If you’re thinking that giant backpack is full of the machinery that runs the thing, you’re wrong. That’s the 70 lbs. pack the wearer can hardly feel, thanks to his robot legs. Assuming secret military technology is always ahead of publicized military technology, and considering that the BLEEX is five years old, I think it’s safe to say that in 2009 President Obama will personally don an Iron Man suit and kill Osama bin Laden. Levitation Levitation in movies is usually some sort of magical or paranormal phenomenon, like Yoda using the force to lift Luke Skywalker’s X-Wing out of the swamp. But there are examples of technological levitation in fiction, especially flying saucers and other craft that can stay aloft without forward momentum. A technological version of the Force is still a long way off, but there are plenty of forms of levitation that are quite common. Magnetism can be easily harnessed to levitate certain objects, and just last week, scientists added another method to the growing list of levitation technologies. Harvard physicist Federico Capasso has effectively reversed the Casimir effect, which causes metal objects to become attracted to one another when they’re very close together. As exciting as this sounds, the reversal only works on extremely small pieces of metal. But it’s still a step in the right direction. Invisibility Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak relies on magic rather than technology, but this hasn’t stopped scientists from trying to replicate its effects. While one would hope that researchers’ interest in invisibility technology goes beyond their fondness for the boy wizard, they invariably mention Potter’s cloak in every news story about advances in invisibility technology. The development of meta-materials that can redirect lightwaves around an object have made steady progress in recent years. In a National Geographic article from November of last year, researcher Ulf Leonhardt claimed that invisibility cloaks are now “feasible.” Of course there are a few catches. The phenomenon alters visible light slightly while it bends it, and it can only work with specific shapes, meaning that a coat of invisible paint on a spy plane or a stylish cape are still out of reach. With the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in July of this year, I’m sure Potter-loving invisibility scientists will pursue their study with renewed fervor. X-Ray Vision The most popular depiction of x-ray vision is of course Superman, but the Man of Steel doesn’t need a gadget to see Louis Lane’s underwear. There are examples of technological x-ray vision in movies, like the all-but-forgotten 1996 Schwarzenegger vehicle, Eraser. The film featured an advanced weapon called a rail-gun, which had a scope that could see through solid objects. X-ray vision, like levitation, has existed in certain forms for long time, but making it as practical as Superman’s vision is another matter. Thermal imaging goggles used by police and military can see through certain objects that block visual light because of their ability to see infrared light. A new technology being employed in security situations is terahertz imagery, which can see through fabrics and plastic. While the mail-order x-ray specs sold out of comic books in the ’60s were a sham, back in 1998 Sony sold thousands of consumer video cameras whose “night shot” feature allowed users to see through clothing, especially swim wear. Time Travel Debating the physical and philosophical effects of time travel is a favorite passtime of sci-fi buffs and people who edit Wikipedia entries. The scientific consensus is that Back to the Future-style DeLorean time travel is not possible, but Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity do allow for certain types of time travel. For example, the phenomenon of time dilation allows for something akin to traveling into the future. If there were twins, and one stayed on Earth while the other went on a long trip on a spaceship at nearly the speed of light, the traveling twin would be younger when he returned. From his perspective, his trip lasted one year, while his twin would insist that he’d been gone for ten years. So this means that the DeLorean would have to travel much faster than 88 miles per hour, and once they traveled to the future, they could never go back. There is another theoretically possible form of time travel, which involves constructing an infinitely long cylinder in space and rotating it on its longitudinal axis. This would bend space time around the cylinder, allowing a spacecraft to essentially fly back in time. But since there are no infinitely long cylinders laying around, time travel in 2009 seems unlikely. Unless a time traveler from the future decides to come back to 2009 and share his knowledge with us. He’d probably kill his own grandfather, too, just to mess with our heads. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:02:06 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/13/2009 4:02:06 PMAs we crack open fresh calendars for a new year, we’re treated to a predictable rash of blog posts: 2009 technology predictions. I’ve read a number of these, and prognostications about Microsoft buying Yahoo make me want to light my laptop on fire just to cure the boredom. As an anecdote to lame, ‘what’s the next Twitter?’-style tech prediction lists, I’ve decided to make a list 2009 tech predictions entirely inspired by movies. 2008 was the year in which widely available real-world gadgets were just as good as what James Bond had. Sure, Daniel Craig kicked some ass in Quantum of Solace, but his only real piece of tech was a phone with a camera and GPS! (Hope you got a good texting plan with that, James.) I predict this trend will continue in 2009. We’ll see even more real-world gadgets that used to be the sole domain of Hollywood special effects gurus. Sure, some of these technologies will require minor miracles to become a reality in the coming year, but others are closer than you think. Strength-Enhancing Exoskeleton Armor In Iron Man, Tony Stark creates a crude, internally-powered suit of armor to escape his terrorist captors. Once he’s safely at home in his billion-dollar laboratory, he hones the suit into a golden ass-kicking machine, and becomes Iron Man. This story isn’t that far from the truth. Rather than a single billionaire playboy, teams of research scientists are developing robotic suits that significantly increase the wearer’s strength. And the end goal is goal is the same: beating the hell out of terrorists. Almost five years ago, UC Berkley researchers announced a DARPA-funded project called BLEEX, the Berkley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (pictured at left). If you’re thinking that giant backpack is full of the machinery that runs the thing, you’re wrong. That’s the 70 lbs. pack the wearer can hardly feel, thanks to his robot legs. Assuming secret military technology is always ahead of publicized military technology, and considering that the BLEEX is five years old, I think it’s safe to say that in 2009 President Obama will personally don an Iron Man suit and kill Osama bin Laden. Levitation Levitation in movies is usually some sort of magical or paranormal phenomenon, like Yoda using the force to lift Luke Skywalker’s X-Wing out of the swamp. But there are examples of technological levitation in fiction, especially flying saucers and other craft that can stay aloft without forward momentum. A technological version of the Force is still a long way off, but there are plenty of forms of levitation that are quite common. Magnetism can be easily harnessed to levitate certain objects, and just last week, scientists added another method to the growing list of levitation technologies. Harvard physicist Federico Capasso has effectively reversed the Casimir effect, which causes metal objects to become attracted to one another when they’re very close together. As exciting as this sounds, the reversal only works on extremely small pieces of metal. But it’s still a step in the right direction. Invisibility Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak relies on magic rather than technology, but this hasn’t stopped scientists from trying to replicate its effects. While one would hope that researchers’ interest in invisibility technology goes beyond their fondness for the boy wizard, they invariably mention Potter’s cloak in every news story about advances in invisibility technology. The development of meta-materials that can redirect lightwaves around an object have made steady progress in recent years. In a National Geographic article from November of last year, researcher Ulf Leonhardt claimed that invisibility cloaks are now “feasible.” Of course there are a few catches. The phenomenon alters visible light slightly while it bends it, and it can only work with specific shapes, meaning that a coat of invisible paint on a spy plane or a stylish cape are still out of reach. With the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in July of this year, I’m sure Potter-loving invisibility scientists will pursue their study with renewed fervor. X-Ray Vision The most popular depiction of x-ray vision is of course Superman, but the Man of Steel doesn’t need a gadget to see Louis Lane’s underwear. There are examples of technological x-ray vision in movies, like the all-but-forgotten 1996 Schwarzenegger vehicle, Eraser. The film featured an advanced weapon called a rail-gun, which had a scope that could see through solid objects. X-ray vision, like levitation, has existed in certain forms for long time, but making it as practical as Superman’s vision is another matter. Thermal imaging goggles used by police and military can see through certain objects that block visual light because of their ability to see infrared light. A new technology being employed in security situations is terahertz imagery, which can see through fabrics and plastic. While the mail-order x-ray specs sold out of comic books in the ’60s were a sham, back in 1998 Sony sold thousands of consumer video cameras whose “night shot” feature allowed users to see through clothing, especially swim wear. Time Travel Debating the physical and philosophical effects of time travel is a favorite passtime of sci-fi buffs and people who edit Wikipedia entries. The scientific consensus is that Back to the Future-style DeLorean time travel is not possible, but Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity do allow for certain types of time travel. For example, the phenomenon of time dilation allows for something akin to traveling into the future. If there were twins, and one stayed on Earth while the other went on a long trip on a spaceship at nearly the speed of light, the traveling twin would be younger when he returned. From his perspective, his trip lasted one year, while his twin would insist that he’d been gone for ten years. So this means that the DeLorean would have to travel much faster than 88 miles per hour, and once they traveled to the future, they could never go back. There is another theoretically possible form of time travel, which involves constructing an infinitely long cylinder in space and rotating it on its longitudinal axis. This would bend space time around the cylinder, allowing a spacecraft to essentially fly back in time. But since there are no infinitely long cylinders laying around, time travel in 2009 seems unlikely. Unless a time traveler from the future decides to come back to 2009 and share his knowledge with us. He’d probably kill his own grandfather, too, just to mess with our heads. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/20/36531.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/20/2008 5:01:15 PM
Body: Last week, Entertainment Weekly confirmed with Warner Bros. that the studio would be campaigning for a nomination for Heath Ledger specifically in the supporting actor category, putting to rest all the speculation and suggestions that he could contend for the Best Actor Oscar. Now all the awards pundits seem to agree that Ledger is a definite lock for a posthumous nomination. As for The Dark Knight’s hopes for other categories, though, it’s still up in the air as to how many nominations the comic book movie might garner. While its predecessor, Batman Begins, only received one Oscar nomination, for Wally Pfister’s cinematography, there’s at least some likelihood that The Dark Knight could be recognized in as many as a dozen categories. That’s about as many as it’s legitimately eligible for, anyway, and in a year that keeps looking slimmer and slimmer in terms of Oscar-worthy pictures, there’s no reason to completely deny The Dark Knight’s full capability. Unfortunately, it’s a popular genre picture, so regardless of how critically acclaimed it is, and regardless of how the Academy has historically lauded similar titles, there will be a lot of doubt and debate concerning this movie’s prospects all the way up until January 22, when the nominations are announced. Yesterday, John Foote of In Contention, commented on the increasing chances of The Dark Knight in such a lackluster Oscar season. In some ways, though, it’s not just about onetime Oscar hopefuls turning out to be hopeless; it’s also the constant problem of so much Oscar bait being held away from viewers and voters until the last possible second. Even those films that end up being fairly good can be disappointments after so much premature awards season hype. Sure, audiences have short attention spans and typically a film released midyear is easily forgotten by voting time, but a movie as memorable, as successful and as well-made as The Dark Knight can come out in the summer and easily be in the forefront of voters’ minds as an easy and deserving fallback. Therefore so many Oscar bloggers shouldn’t suddenly be surprised to see that The Dark Knight’s hopes for multiple Oscar nominations is “brightening” or “shaping up.” It’s always been a contender. Let’s break down its chances, category by category, after the jump: Best Picture The greatest difference in opinion among the experts so far is with the movie’s chances in the Best Picture race. The majority consensus seems to be that The Dark Knight has little to no shot at the top award (apparently only The Hollywood Reporter’s T.L. Stanley and Rolling Stones‘ Peter Travers are seriously considering it), primarily because it’s a superhero movie. However, deserving or not, there’s really no viable argument against the plausibility of a Best Picture nom. Rather, the movie’s chances for inclusion in the category already outweigh its chances for exclusion. And as more Best Picture hopefuls are either released to underwhelming response or pushed back to 2009, the balance in The Dark Knight’s favor only increases. So what if there’s never before been a superhero comic book movie up for Best Picture (despite Superman being far more deserving than An Unmarried Woman)? The Dark Knight still could fall in with that ever-increasing list of genre flicks, including Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings movies, which have shown us that quality fanboy fodder is also capable of appealing to the Academy. And while it’s true that box office success doesn’t necessarily translate to Oscar contention, The Dark Knight has the right combo of being the biggest moneymaker and one of the most critically acclaimed films of 2008, which was hardly the case with another high-grossing blockbuster Best Picture, Titanic. It’s believed that if the Academy does nominate a box office winner with critical acclaim, they’ll go with Wall-E, because they’ve nominated an animated feature for Best Picture in the past. But that thinking goes against the whole present logic of the Oscars. There will never again be an animated feature up for the top award as long as the Best Animated Feature category exists. That award was pretty much conceived for the purpose of sidelining films like Wall-E in order to give them separate recognition. If the Academy isn’t going to nominate something as brilliant as Ratatouille for Best Picture, they’re not going to nominate Wall-E either. On the other side of the argument, there’s just as much of a mistaken defense for why the movie will be nominated. Contrary to some early conjecture, though,The Dark Knight’s chances aren’t improved at all by the fact that the Oscar ceremony needs a ratings boost. Sure, a Best Picture nom for the film would be great for the Academy in terms of telecast viewership, but it’s probably not permitted or likely for the show’s producers to encourage Academy members to vote for more popular fare. Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay: If The Dark Knight does receive a Best Picture nomination, it will be one of those occasional cases where the director is not nominated. Due to a sometimes-problematic issue of having different people voting for different categories, The Dark Knight’s flaws will be clearer to the filmmakers who pick the nominees for Best Director, and so Christopher Nolan will be excluded there (although Awards Daily still has him as a front runner anyway). However, Nolan and his writing partners, Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer should have a decent shot at the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar for their success at turning a superhero comic into a realistic film with a smart, topical, complex and fairly original story. Acting Categories: As for the acting awards, The Dark Knight can really only count on Ledger’s nomination. The film lacks any substantial female performances, and despite the fact that Christian Bale seriously deserves an Oscar nomination and despite the belief that he puts more into the Bruce Wayne/Batman character than is necessary, it’s simply not his time. If there is any other actor besides Ledger worthy and at all probable to receive a nomination, it’s Gary Oldman, for Best Supporting Actor, but there’s not much likelihood that Academy voters would water down Ledger’s lauds like that. Technical and Craft Categories: Finally, with the tech and craft categories, Pfister should very easily pick up another nomination for his cinematography work, while The Dark Knight is expected to better Batman Begins‘ Oscar glory by turning up in both the sound categories. Score and Editing are total longshots, despite their respective talent’s past Oscar success. And as much as makeup and costumes are significant to the film, The Dark Knight may only be a dark horse in those categories. Still, it’s probably about time the Academy ignored its period piece tradition with the latter category and took notice of Lindy Hemming’s accomplishment of making superhero movie costumes that are more realistic and believable than the typically flashy, costumey costumes of the genre. The film even reflexively addresses the issue of plausible and practical superhero wear in the real world. Then, of course, there’s the other craft categories that could suffer from the film’s efforts to be more natural than most comic book adaptations. Best Art Direction? Not enough obvious design there. Best visual effects? The Dark Knight could be one of the rare genre movies nominated for Best Picture that doesn’t place in the effects category, due to its lack of showy CG work. Like In Contention’s Gerard Kennedy, I won’t be shocked if the film manages an effects nomination simply because it’s so respected, but the odds are mostly against its modestly functional effects spectacle. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:01:15 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/20/2008 5:01:15 PMLast week, Entertainment Weekly confirmed with Warner Bros. that the studio would be campaigning for a nomination for Heath Ledger specifically in the supporting actor category, putting to rest all the speculation and suggestions that he could contend for the Best Actor Oscar. Now all the awards pundits seem to agree that Ledger is a definite lock for a posthumous nomination. As for The Dark Knight’s hopes for other categories, though, it’s still up in the air as to how many nominations the comic book movie might garner. While its predecessor, Batman Begins, only received one Oscar nomination, for Wally Pfister’s cinematography, there’s at least some likelihood that The Dark Knight could be recognized in as many as a dozen categories. That’s about as many as it’s legitimately eligible for, anyway, and in a year that keeps looking slimmer and slimmer in terms of Oscar-worthy pictures, there’s no reason to completely deny The Dark Knight’s full capability. Unfortunately, it’s a popular genre picture, so regardless of how critically acclaimed it is, and regardless of how the Academy has historically lauded similar titles, there will be a lot of doubt and debate concerning this movie’s prospects all the way up until January 22, when the nominations are announced. Yesterday, John Foote of In Contention, commented on the increasing chances of The Dark Knight in such a lackluster Oscar season. In some ways, though, it’s not just about onetime Oscar hopefuls turning out to be hopeless; it’s also the constant problem of so much Oscar bait being held away from viewers and voters until the last possible second. Even those films that end up being fairly good can be disappointments after so much premature awards season hype. Sure, audiences have short attention spans and typically a film released midyear is easily forgotten by voting time, but a movie as memorable, as successful and as well-made as The Dark Knight can come out in the summer and easily be in the forefront of voters’ minds as an easy and deserving fallback. Therefore so many Oscar bloggers shouldn’t suddenly be surprised to see that The Dark Knight’s hopes for multiple Oscar nominations is “brightening” or “shaping up.” It’s always been a contender. Let’s break down its chances, category by category, after the jump: Best Picture The greatest difference in opinion among the experts so far is with the movie’s chances in the Best Picture race. The majority consensus seems to be that The Dark Knight has little to no shot at the top award (apparently only The Hollywood Reporter’s T.L. Stanley and Rolling Stones‘ Peter Travers are seriously considering it), primarily because it’s a superhero movie. However, deserving or not, there’s really no viable argument against the plausibility of a Best Picture nom. Rather, the movie’s chances for inclusion in the category already outweigh its chances for exclusion. And as more Best Picture hopefuls are either released to underwhelming response or pushed back to 2009, the balance in The Dark Knight’s favor only increases. So what if there’s never before been a superhero comic book movie up for Best Picture (despite Superman being far more deserving than An Unmarried Woman)? The Dark Knight still could fall in with that ever-increasing list of genre flicks, including Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings movies, which have shown us that quality fanboy fodder is also capable of appealing to the Academy. And while it’s true that box office success doesn’t necessarily translate to Oscar contention, The Dark Knight has the right combo of being the biggest moneymaker and one of the most critically acclaimed films of 2008, which was hardly the case with another high-grossing blockbuster Best Picture, Titanic. It’s believed that if the Academy does nominate a box office winner with critical acclaim, they’ll go with Wall-E, because they’ve nominated an animated feature for Best Picture in the past. But that thinking goes against the whole present logic of the Oscars. There will never again be an animated feature up for the top award as long as the Best Animated Feature category exists. That award was pretty much conceived for the purpose of sidelining films like Wall-E in order to give them separate recognition. If the Academy isn’t going to nominate something as brilliant as Ratatouille for Best Picture, they’re not going to nominate Wall-E either. On the other side of the argument, there’s just as much of a mistaken defense for why the movie will be nominated. Contrary to some early conjecture, though,The Dark Knight’s chances aren’t improved at all by the fact that the Oscar ceremony needs a ratings boost. Sure, a Best Picture nom for the film would be great for the Academy in terms of telecast viewership, but it’s probably not permitted or likely for the show’s producers to encourage Academy members to vote for more popular fare. Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay: If The Dark Knight does receive a Best Picture nomination, it will be one of those occasional cases where the director is not nominated. Due to a sometimes-problematic issue of having different people voting for different categories, The Dark Knight’s flaws will be clearer to the filmmakers who pick the nominees for Best Director, and so Christopher Nolan will be excluded there (although Awards Daily still has him as a front runner anyway). However, Nolan and his writing partners, Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer should have a decent shot at the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar for their success at turning a superhero comic into a realistic film with a smart, topical, complex and fairly original story. Acting Categories: As for the acting awards, The Dark Knight can really only count on Ledger’s nomination. The film lacks any substantial female performances, and despite the fact that Christian Bale seriously deserves an Oscar nomination and despite the belief that he puts more into the Bruce Wayne/Batman character than is necessary, it’s simply not his time. If there is any other actor besides Ledger worthy and at all probable to receive a nomination, it’s Gary Oldman, for Best Supporting Actor, but there’s not much likelihood that Academy voters would water down Ledger’s lauds like that. Technical and Craft Categories: Finally, with the tech and craft categories, Pfister should very easily pick up another nomination for his cinematography work, while The Dark Knight is expected to better Batman Begins‘ Oscar glory by turning up in both the sound categories. Score and Editing are total longshots, despite their respective talent’s past Oscar success. And as much as makeup and costumes are significant to the film, The Dark Knight may only be a dark horse in those categories. Still, it’s probably about time the Academy ignored its period piece tradition with the latter category and took notice of Lindy Hemming’s accomplishment of making superhero movie costumes that are more realistic and believable than the typically flashy, costumey costumes of the genre. The film even reflexively addresses the issue of plausible and practical superhero wear in the real world. Then, of course, there’s the other craft categories that could suffer from the film’s efforts to be more natural than most comic book adaptations. Best Art Direction? Not enough obvious design there. Best visual effects? The Dark Knight could be one of the rare genre movies nominated for Best Picture that doesn’t place in the effects category, due to its lack of showy CG work. Like In Contention’s Gerard Kennedy, I won’t be shocked if the film manages an effects nomination simply because it’s so respected, but the odds are mostly against its modestly functional effects spectacle. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/10/36147.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/10/2008 2:01:25 PM
Body: I knew from the recent Hollywood Reporter feature on Twilight that Summit Entertainment planned to release a new trailer more geared toward a male audience, but I never would have guessed they’d do such a damn good job of it. I’ve been hating on this movie from the beginning, but now part of me is actually thinking I’d like to see it. And I bet a lot of teenage boys will be thinking the same, only more so. This is pure genius marketing, and it would have been in Summit’s favor to have gone this route all along. What with superheroes so huge right now, why hadn’t they already tried to sell this thing as being like a comic book movie rather than a sappy adaptation of goth chick lit? Wasn’t that bit of dialogue referencing Spider-Man and Superman in the film the whole time? Such a line needs to be exploited, and it’s a shame the fledgling studio took so long to employ it. This trailer is seriously what Summit should have shown at Comic-Con. Well, better late than never, right? Considering there’s more than a month left before Twilight hits theaters, it’s not too late. But since the young Stephenie Meyer fans are already sold on the film and its romantic elements, Summit should definitely concentrate on this trailer and possible TV spots cut from it. Air commercials during Smallville and Heroes (if anyone is still watching that confused and redundant mess they’ll certainly be turned on by how much cooler Twilight looks than Season 3 so far). Run the trailer ahead of male-friendly movies like Max Payne, Quantum of Solace and maybe even a football movie like The Express. Young girls are still going to be the majority of the audience for this film, and they may even be the only ones who come away satisfied with it, but don’t be surprised if you see a lot of boys in the audience (myself included), too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:01:25 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/10/2008 2:01:25 PM I knew from the recent Hollywood Reporter feature on Twilight that Summit Entertainment planned to release a new trailer more geared toward a male audience, but I never would have guessed they’d do such a damn good job of it. I’ve been hating on this movie from the beginning, but now part of me is actually thinking I’d like to see it. And I bet a lot of teenage boys will be thinking the same, only more so. This is pure genius marketing, and it would have been in Summit’s favor to have gone this route all along. What with superheroes so huge right now, why hadn’t they already tried to sell this thing as being like a comic book movie rather than a sappy adaptation of goth chick lit? Wasn’t that bit of dialogue referencing Spider-Man and Superman in the film the whole time? Such a line needs to be exploited, and it’s a shame the fledgling studio took so long to employ it. This trailer is seriously what Summit should have shown at Comic-Con. Well, better late than never, right? Considering there’s more than a month left before Twilight hits theaters, it’s not too late. But since the young Stephenie Meyer fans are already sold on the film and its romantic elements, Summit should definitely concentrate on this trailer and possible TV spots cut from it. Air commercials during Smallville and Heroes (if anyone is still watching that confused and redundant mess they’ll certainly be turned on by how much cooler Twilight looks than Season 3 so far). Run the trailer ahead of male-friendly movies like Max Payne, Quantum of Solace and maybe even a football movie like The Express. Young girls are still going to be the majority of the audience for this film, and they may even be the only ones who come away satisfied with it, but don’t be surprised if you see a lot of boys in the audience (myself included), too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/7/33699.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/7/2008 2:00:31 PM
Body: We’re less than a week away from the release of Tropic Thunder, and as the reviews and puff pieces make their way onto the web, there’s one thing clearly uniting the media’s coverage: talk of Tom Cruise’s appearance in a small role as a Hollywood studio boss. Everyone seems to agree that he steals the show and that his performance — or the joke surrounding it — is one of the comedy’s major highlights, if not the actual best part. Of course, we can expect a good cameo from Cruise every now and then. He showed up for a bit part in Young Guns and played himself as playing “Austin Powers” in Austin Powers in Goldmember. But from what it sounds like, his role in Tropic Thunder is featured for longer than might qualify as a cameo. Some are regardless referring to the performance as an “extended cameo”, and in theory it certainly fits in with the huge crop of so-called “ironic cameos” that have become popular in movies and TV in the last ten years. Still, despite my not having yet seen the movie, I’m thinking that Tom Cruise’s involvement in Tropic Thunder is more like the following list, which consists of merely small roles filled by big stars. You might consider some of them to be technically cameos, especially the ones that aren’t integral to the plot and/or call attention to themselves. But with each of the roles I’ve included, I consider them to be either the best part of their respective movies or at least a major highlight, which is how Cruise’s appearance is being touted. Anyway, forgive me for trying to come up with something different than simply a best cameo list, even if the focus here seems less than clear. 10. Marlon Brando as “Jor-El” in Superman - He was probably paid too much for the part, especially if all the trivia surrounding his involvement (reading his lines off baby Superman’s diaper; desiring that only his voice be used; demanding to be paid double if any footage was to be used in the sequel) is true, but it’s pretty cool having Brando appear at the beginning of what I still consider to be the best superhero comic book adaptation of all time (sorry Dark Knight fans). He’s not the best thing about the movie, but he’s an immediate highlight. As for his payment (reportedly $3.7 million), Warner Bros. has leveled out his worth a little by featuring him in the Donner cut of Superman II and in Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns — a movie that also creatively employs Brando’s On the Waterfront costar Eva Marie Saint appropriately as Superman’s adopted mother. 9. Drew Barrymore as “Casey Becker” in Scream - Having your biggest star killed in the opening scene is kinda like having your best action sequence at the head of the movie (a la Bad Boys II), but fortunately the rest of the first Scream is pretty good, and Barrymore’s (don’t call it a cameo) part doesn’t overshadow the movie too much. In a way, since this wasn’t a sequel yet the movie was a bit of a parody of all slasher movies, the familiarity of Becker’s face could be taken to be akin to how, often, horror sequels begin by killing off the heroine of the previous installment in the first few minutes. 8. Arnold Schwarzenegger as “Prince Hapi” in Around the World in 80 Days - There isn’t much to enjoy about Frank Coraci’s 2004 version of the Jules Verne tale, especially since there appears to be a lot of missed opportunities in terms of guest appearances (Wikipedia counts 45 “cameos” in the 1956 version; I count maybe 10 that could be considered “cameos” in the newer movie). Therefore, Schwarzenegger’s hilarious appearance as a lecherous Turkish prince — one of his last roles filmed before becoming Governor of California — is one of the few highlights, if not the sole highlight (personally, I enjoy Jackie Chan in anything, and I liked more of this movie than most people did). The role is especially funny and creepy if you’ve ever seen that old footage of Schwarzenegger being sleazy at Carnival in Rio. 7. Orson Welles as “Unicron” in Transformers: The Movie - Welles’ voice had been overpowering in films before — he had a good side career going throughout his life as a narrator — but considering this was ridiculously his final performance and considering he easily overshadowed his fellow celebrity voice lenders (including otherwise commanding vocal talents Leonard Nimoy, Robert Stack and Casey Kasem), his part completely dominates the movie, both diegetically and extradiegetically. 6. Bruce Willis as “Harry Rydell” in Fast Food Nation - Far and away the only good part of Richard Linklater’s botched attempt to dramatize Eric Schlosser’s non-fiction classic (I consider the book a kind of bible since it inspired me to give up fast food and subsequently lose 60lbs., so it pains me even more to think about Schlosser being a co-writer and producer of the movie), and not just because of his oft-quoted line about how we all have to eat a little shit from time to time. His whole characterization of the cynical meat supplier is brilliant, enough that he unfortunately makes the rest of the movie play even less interesting that it already is. 5. Charlie Sheen as “Charlie” in Being John Malkovich - I wanted to stay away from roles in which actors play themselves, mainly because that’s a big percentage of the ironic cameo stuff that’s so overused these days. However, Sheen’s part here is a little more than a mere cameo. And it’s kind of an ironic parody of the ironic cameo, even as it predates a lot of these cameos in Entourage and Extras and the like (by crediting the role as “Charlie” rather than “as himself”, it’s also a precursor to the more exaggerated than exaggerated “Neil Patrick Harris” character of the Harold and Kumar films). Perhaps intended to redirect the audience’s perspective on John Malkovich’s titular character, which is up until Sheen’s entrance possibly accepted as an authentic self-portrayal, the overstatement of the role raises the already ingeniously funny film up another notch to put it at the level of best comedies ever made. 4. Matt Damon as “Donny” in Eurotrip - I’ve actually never seen Eurotrip, but I hear there’s no reason to watch it other than to see Damon’s bit role as the singer of a pop punk band (the otherwise real Lustra). And I’ve seen that on YouTube, so I’m good. Even more than Cruise and some of the others, Damon seems to love doing guest stints in movies and on TV (he’s also given us the only reasons to ever watch Jimmy Kimmel). Some of his other small roles and cameos can be found in Youth Without Youth, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Finding Forrester, Jersey Girl and The Majestic (the last in voice only). 3. Sean Connery as “King Richard” in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves - After making us suffer through Kevin Costner’s terrible performance in the lead role, the producers of this disappointing version of the classic legend actually rub it in how bad their casting choice was by sneaking Connery in at the last minute. Of course, despite the way his appearance increases our dissatisfaction with the rest of the movie, he’s still the highlight. Especially since he’s immediately followed by that awful Bryan Adams song playing over the credits. 2. Alec Baldwin as “Blake” in Glengarry Glen Ross - Sure, the rest of the film is really good, mostly because of the stellar cast filling out the rest of the ensemble, but the first thing you remember about this David Mamet adaptation is Baldwin’s monologue. It’s good enough that I almost also included on this list the Blake-inspired character from Boiler Room as played by Ben Affleck. But it’s also too good to actually accept Affleck’s ripoff as being in the same league. 1. Gene Hackman as “Blindman” in Young Frankenstein - I’m in the minority as far as my appreciation of Mel Brooks’ parody of James Whale’s Frankenstein films. I think it’s really funny, but I don’t think it’s one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen. Yet the few minutes that Hackman is on screen always leave me in tears, enough that I wholeheartedly accept the movie’s status as one of the greatest comedies ever made. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:00:31 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/7/2008 2:00:31 PMWe’re less than a week away from the release of Tropic Thunder, and as the reviews and puff pieces make their way onto the web, there’s one thing clearly uniting the media’s coverage: talk of Tom Cruise’s appearance in a small role as a Hollywood studio boss. Everyone seems to agree that he steals the show and that his performance — or the joke surrounding it — is one of the comedy’s major highlights, if not the actual best part. Of course, we can expect a good cameo from Cruise every now and then. He showed up for a bit part in Young Guns and played himself as playing “Austin Powers” in Austin Powers in Goldmember. But from what it sounds like, his role in Tropic Thunder is featured for longer than might qualify as a cameo. Some are regardless referring to the performance as an “extended cameo”, and in theory it certainly fits in with the huge crop of so-called “ironic cameos” that have become popular in movies and TV in the last ten years. Still, despite my not having yet seen the movie, I’m thinking that Tom Cruise’s involvement in Tropic Thunder is more like the following list, which consists of merely small roles filled by big stars. You might consider some of them to be technically cameos, especially the ones that aren’t integral to the plot and/or call attention to themselves. But with each of the roles I’ve included, I consider them to be either the best part of their respective movies or at least a major highlight, which is how Cruise’s appearance is being touted. Anyway, forgive me for trying to come up with something different than simply a best cameo list, even if the focus here seems less than clear. 10. Marlon Brando as “Jor-El” in Superman - He was probably paid too much for the part, especially if all the trivia surrounding his involvement (reading his lines off baby Superman’s diaper; desiring that only his voice be used; demanding to be paid double if any footage was to be used in the sequel) is true, but it’s pretty cool having Brando appear at the beginning of what I still consider to be the best superhero comic book adaptation of all time (sorry Dark Knight fans). He’s not the best thing about the movie, but he’s an immediate highlight. As for his payment (reportedly $3.7 million), Warner Bros. has leveled out his worth a little by featuring him in the Donner cut of Superman II and in Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns — a movie that also creatively employs Brando’s On the Waterfront costar Eva Marie Saint appropriately as Superman’s adopted mother. 9. Drew Barrymore as “Casey Becker” in Scream - Having your biggest star killed in the opening scene is kinda like having your best action sequence at the head of the movie (a la Bad Boys II), but fortunately the rest of the first Scream is pretty good, and Barrymore’s (don’t call it a cameo) part doesn’t overshadow the movie too much. In a way, since this wasn’t a sequel yet the movie was a bit of a parody of all slasher movies, the familiarity of Becker’s face could be taken to be akin to how, often, horror sequels begin by killing off the heroine of the previous installment in the first few minutes. 8. Arnold Schwarzenegger as “Prince Hapi” in Around the World in 80 Days - There isn’t much to enjoy about Frank Coraci’s 2004 version of the Jules Verne tale, especially since there appears to be a lot of missed opportunities in terms of guest appearances (Wikipedia counts 45 “cameos” in the 1956 version; I count maybe 10 that could be considered “cameos” in the newer movie). Therefore, Schwarzenegger’s hilarious appearance as a lecherous Turkish prince — one of his last roles filmed before becoming Governor of California — is one of the few highlights, if not the sole highlight (personally, I enjoy Jackie Chan in anything, and I liked more of this movie than most people did). The role is especially funny and creepy if you’ve ever seen that old footage of Schwarzenegger being sleazy at Carnival in Rio. 7. Orson Welles as “Unicron” in Transformers: The Movie - Welles’ voice had been overpowering in films before — he had a good side career going throughout his life as a narrator — but considering this was ridiculously his final performance and considering he easily overshadowed his fellow celebrity voice lenders (including otherwise commanding vocal talents Leonard Nimoy, Robert Stack and Casey Kasem), his part completely dominates the movie, both diegetically and extradiegetically. 6. Bruce Willis as “Harry Rydell” in Fast Food Nation - Far and away the only good part of Richard Linklater’s botched attempt to dramatize Eric Schlosser’s non-fiction classic (I consider the book a kind of bible since it inspired me to give up fast food and subsequently lose 60lbs., so it pains me even more to think about Schlosser being a co-writer and producer of the movie), and not just because of his oft-quoted line about how we all have to eat a little shit from time to time. His whole characterization of the cynical meat supplier is brilliant, enough that he unfortunately makes the rest of the movie play even less interesting that it already is. 5. Charlie Sheen as “Charlie” in Being John Malkovich - I wanted to stay away from roles in which actors play themselves, mainly because that’s a big percentage of the ironic cameo stuff that’s so overused these days. However, Sheen’s part here is a little more than a mere cameo. And it’s kind of an ironic parody of the ironic cameo, even as it predates a lot of these cameos in Entourage and Extras and the like (by crediting the role as “Charlie” rather than “as himself”, it’s also a precursor to the more exaggerated than exaggerated “Neil Patrick Harris” character of the Harold and Kumar films). Perhaps intended to redirect the audience’s perspective on John Malkovich’s titular character, which is up until Sheen’s entrance possibly accepted as an authentic self-portrayal, the overstatement of the role raises the already ingeniously funny film up another notch to put it at the level of best comedies ever made. 4. Matt Damon as “Donny” in Eurotrip - I’ve actually never seen Eurotrip, but I hear there’s no reason to watch it other than to see Damon’s bit role as the singer of a pop punk band (the otherwise real Lustra). And I’ve seen that on YouTube, so I’m good. Even more than Cruise and some of the others, Damon seems to love doing guest stints in movies and on TV (he’s also given us the only reasons to ever watch Jimmy Kimmel). Some of his other small roles and cameos can be found in Youth Without Youth, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Finding Forrester, Jersey Girl and The Majestic (the last in voice only). 3. Sean Connery as “King Richard” in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves - After making us suffer through Kevin Costner’s terrible performance in the lead role, the producers of this disappointing version of the classic legend actually rub it in how bad their casting choice was by sneaking Connery in at the last minute. Of course, despite the way his appearance increases our dissatisfaction with the rest of the movie, he’s still the highlight. Especially since he’s immediately followed by that awful Bryan Adams song playing over the credits. 2. Alec Baldwin as “Blake” in Glengarry Glen Ross - Sure, the rest of the film is really good, mostly because of the stellar cast filling out the rest of the ensemble, but the first thing you remember about this David Mamet adaptation is Baldwin’s monologue. It’s good enough that I almost also included on this list the Blake-inspired character from Boiler Room as played by Ben Affleck. But it’s also too good to actually accept Affleck’s ripoff as being in the same league. 1. Gene Hackman as “Blindman” in Young Frankenstein - I’m in the minority as far as my appreciation of Mel Brooks’ parody of James Whale’s Frankenstein films. I think it’s really funny, but I don’t think it’s one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen. Yet the few minutes that Hackman is on screen always leave me in tears, enough that I wholeheartedly accept the movie’s status as one of the greatest comedies ever made. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/26/31749.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/26/2008 5:00:43 PM
Body: Over the weekend, Wanted had a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com. It’s since gone down to 81% (at the time of this writing — and with top critics it’s down to 67%), though that’s still pretty good for a movie that initially looked like just another Matrix knockoff. But will the good reviews make for great box office? Last night, while viewing the latest trailer in a theater with some friends, I mentioned that Wanted was receiving great reviews. Nobody believed me at first, and then they didn’t care; they still thought it looked terrible. Good reviews rarely help an action movie, and bad reviews rarely deter audiences from seeing them. However, if we look at the top 5 most critically acclaimed action movies, it’s clear that people do often prefer a good action film to a bad one. The next 5, on the other hand… The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 98%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #9 ($377 million) Sample Critic Quote: “The film event of the millennium.” (Richard Corliss, Time) My Analysis: In terms of both reviews and gross, it is possible that, yes, this final LOTR film was the film event of the millennium only three years in. It even won the Oscar for Best Picture, as well as ten other Academy Awards. However, we do have a few hundred years left, and Corliss’ assessment is likely to be challenged one of these centuries. Casino Royale (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #133 ($167.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “This is the best James Bond film in at least 17 years, and Daniel Craig might be the best 007 … ever.” (Eric D. Snider, EricDSnider.com) My Analysis: Most critics and audiences agreed that this was one of the best 007 films ever and that Craig was at least the best Bond since Connery. Still, it only grossed a mere $7 million more than Die Another Day, which was certified rotten by RT. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 97%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #62 ($227.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “It is probably the best action films to date that doesn’t involved so much special effects.” (Wilson Morales, BlackFilm.com) My Analysis: I agree that it’s the best of the series and one of the best action movies in years, maybe even best to date not involving special effects, as Morales says. But really the only reason that Ultimatum is higher up on the b.o. charts than The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy is because people took awhile to get into the series, with many of Ultimatum’s audience having seen the previous two for the first time on DVD. Still, along with both Return of the King and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it’s one of the rare threequels that earned the highest gross of its series. Considering Return, that says one thing, while considering Indy, that says something else. Spider-Man 2 (2004) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #10 ($373.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “[It's sure to] join the upper echelons of action movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, and Die Hard.” (Jeffrey Overstreet, Looking Closer) My Analysis: If this sequel were switched in ranking with its predecessor (see below), it might say something more about reviews equaling revenue, but otherwise between the two installments, there is evidence that good superhero movies will perform better than bad ones. Just don’t pay any attention to Spider-Man 3, which is also pretty close on the b.o. charts, but which is pretty far below in RT ranking (62%, whole; 44%, top critics). Iron Man (2008) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #26 ($305.9 million and counting) Sample Critic Quote: “It’s the best movie of its kind since the second Spider-Man movie four years ago.” (Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle) My Analysis: Fitting to LaSalle’s quote that Iron Man is just behind Spider-Man 2, and with only another $70 million to go in order to be just behind it on the b.o. chart. Unfortunately, as far as ticket sales show, it’s really only the best movie of its kind since the third Spider-Man movie one year ago. Spy Kids (2001) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 96%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #309 ($112.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “To sum up, if you want your children to someday appreciate the true art of cinema, Spy Kids is a terrific movie to start with.” (Bob Strauss, Los Angeles Daily News) My Analysis: If by “true art of cinema” Strauss means the kind of action movies that receive good reviews, then he’s right. Film critics love the well-directed spy movies (see #2 and #3). As for kids, they don’t care about reviews, which explains why Alvin and the Chipmunks made almost double what Spy Kids grossed. Out of Sight (1998) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 90%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #1,395 ($37.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “In a summer filled with mega-hyped disappointments, Out of Sight proves the undeniable value of story, characterization, and — most of all — intelligence.” (Mike McGranaghan, Aisle Seat) My Analysis: The mega-hyped disappointments of that summer include Godzilla, which made about $100 million more than this film. Of course, Out of Sight isn’t really an action-packed action movie, and it only starred George Clooney, who despite being a huge movie star has never really been that big a box office draw. Meanwhile, 1998’s biggest box office winner, the more-action-packed Saving Private Ryan (which RT apparently doesn’t consider to be an action movie), was also one of the five best-reviewed films of the year. Hot Fuzz (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #2,029 ($23.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Hot Fuzz is everything an action-comedy should be. It achieves through parody what most films in the genre can’t accomplish straight.” (Nathan Rabin, The Onion A.V. Club) My Analysis: The best action buddy comedy in ten years, yet it’s gross is hardly comparable to the box office success of the Rush Hour movies, Bad Boys II, Lethal Weapon 4 and … Starsky & Hutch? Even Jimmy Fallon’s Taxi performed better domestically. Rescue Dawn (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 88%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #3,970 ($5.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “A potentially commercial audience-pleaser that retains all of the characteristic Herzog complexity and nuance, Rescue Dawn is an electrifying action adventure that clamps your nerves with jaws of steel.” (Rex Reed, New York Observer) My Analysis: Too bad more moviegoers don’t read Rex Reed, because that’s a mighty good sell. Unfortunately, Rescue Dawn suffered a double blow because of who directed it. Critics certainly overpraised it, just because it’s an Herzog film; audiences likely avoided it because of the same reason (not by name, but had it opened bigger right away, audiences wouldn’t have even noticed the art house connection and might have gone to see the new action movie starring “Batman”). Spider-Man (2002) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 85%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #7 ($403.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Let the gauntlet be thrown: Spider-Man may be the best comic adaptation of all time.” (Todd Gilchrest, FilmStew.com) My Analysis: In terms of box office receipts, it is indeed the best comic adaptation of all time. But as we see by two titles above, it’s since been beat in terms of critical acclaim, just in this decade alone (and from earlier, at least Superman: The Movie has a better RT score). Still, it would almost be evidence that critics and box office can sometimes go hand in hand if it weren’t for that certified rotten movie that ranks just above it on the box office chart: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/26/2008 5:00:43 PMOver the weekend, Wanted had a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com. It’s since gone down to 81% (at the time of this writing — and with top critics it’s down to 67%), though that’s still pretty good for a movie that initially looked like just another Matrix knockoff. But will the good reviews make for great box office? Last night, while viewing the latest trailer in a theater with some friends, I mentioned that Wanted was receiving great reviews. Nobody believed me at first, and then they didn’t care; they still thought it looked terrible. Good reviews rarely help an action movie, and bad reviews rarely deter audiences from seeing them. However, if we look at the top 5 most critically acclaimed action movies, it’s clear that people do often prefer a good action film to a bad one. The next 5, on the other hand… The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 98%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #9 ($377 million) Sample Critic Quote: “The film event of the millennium.” (Richard Corliss, Time) My Analysis: In terms of both reviews and gross, it is possible that, yes, this final LOTR film was the film event of the millennium only three years in. It even won the Oscar for Best Picture, as well as ten other Academy Awards. However, we do have a few hundred years left, and Corliss’ assessment is likely to be challenged one of these centuries. Casino Royale (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #133 ($167.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “This is the best James Bond film in at least 17 years, and Daniel Craig might be the best 007 … ever.” (Eric D. Snider, EricDSnider.com) My Analysis: Most critics and audiences agreed that this was one of the best 007 films ever and that Craig was at least the best Bond since Connery. Still, it only grossed a mere $7 million more than Die Another Day, which was certified rotten by RT. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 97%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #62 ($227.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “It is probably the best action films to date that doesn’t involved so much special effects.” (Wilson Morales, BlackFilm.com) My Analysis: I agree that it’s the best of the series and one of the best action movies in years, maybe even best to date not involving special effects, as Morales says. But really the only reason that Ultimatum is higher up on the b.o. charts than The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy is because people took awhile to get into the series, with many of Ultimatum’s audience having seen the previous two for the first time on DVD. Still, along with both Return of the King and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it’s one of the rare threequels that earned the highest gross of its series. Considering Return, that says one thing, while considering Indy, that says something else. Spider-Man 2 (2004) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #10 ($373.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “[It's sure to] join the upper echelons of action movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, and Die Hard.” (Jeffrey Overstreet, Looking Closer) My Analysis: If this sequel were switched in ranking with its predecessor (see below), it might say something more about reviews equaling revenue, but otherwise between the two installments, there is evidence that good superhero movies will perform better than bad ones. Just don’t pay any attention to Spider-Man 3, which is also pretty close on the b.o. charts, but which is pretty far below in RT ranking (62%, whole; 44%, top critics). Iron Man (2008) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #26 ($305.9 million and counting) Sample Critic Quote: “It’s the best movie of its kind since the second Spider-Man movie four years ago.” (Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle) My Analysis: Fitting to LaSalle’s quote that Iron Man is just behind Spider-Man 2, and with only another $70 million to go in order to be just behind it on the b.o. chart. Unfortunately, as far as ticket sales show, it’s really only the best movie of its kind since the third Spider-Man movie one year ago. Spy Kids (2001) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 96%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #309 ($112.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “To sum up, if you want your children to someday appreciate the true art of cinema, Spy Kids is a terrific movie to start with.” (Bob Strauss, Los Angeles Daily News) My Analysis: If by “true art of cinema” Strauss means the kind of action movies that receive good reviews, then he’s right. Film critics love the well-directed spy movies (see #2 and #3). As for kids, they don’t care about reviews, which explains why Alvin and the Chipmunks made almost double what Spy Kids grossed. Out of Sight (1998) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 90%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #1,395 ($37.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “In a summer filled with mega-hyped disappointments, Out of Sight proves the undeniable value of story, characterization, and — most of all — intelligence.” (Mike McGranaghan, Aisle Seat) My Analysis: The mega-hyped disappointments of that summer include Godzilla, which made about $100 million more than this film. Of course, Out of Sight isn’t really an action-packed action movie, and it only starred George Clooney, who despite being a huge movie star has never really been that big a box office draw. Meanwhile, 1998’s biggest box office winner, the more-action-packed Saving Private Ryan (which RT apparently doesn’t consider to be an action movie), was also one of the five best-reviewed films of the year. Hot Fuzz (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #2,029 ($23.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Hot Fuzz is everything an action-comedy should be. It achieves through parody what most films in the genre can’t accomplish straight.” (Nathan Rabin, The Onion A.V. Club) My Analysis: The best action buddy comedy in ten years, yet it’s gross is hardly comparable to the box office success of the Rush Hour movies, Bad Boys II, Lethal Weapon 4 and … Starsky & Hutch? Even Jimmy Fallon’s Taxi performed better domestically. Rescue Dawn (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 88%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #3,970 ($5.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “A potentially commercial audience-pleaser that retains all of the characteristic Herzog complexity and nuance, Rescue Dawn is an electrifying action adventure that clamps your nerves with jaws of steel.” (Rex Reed, New York Observer) My Analysis: Too bad more moviegoers don’t read Rex Reed, because that’s a mighty good sell. Unfortunately, Rescue Dawn suffered a double blow because of who directed it. Critics certainly overpraised it, just because it’s an Herzog film; audiences likely avoided it because of the same reason (not by name, but had it opened bigger right away, audiences wouldn’t have even noticed the art house connection and might have gone to see the new action movie starring “Batman”). Spider-Man (2002) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 85%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #7 ($403.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Let the gauntlet be thrown: Spider-Man may be the best comic adaptation of all time.” (Todd Gilchrest, FilmStew.com) My Analysis: In terms of box office receipts, it is indeed the best comic adaptation of all time. But as we see by two titles above, it’s since been beat in terms of critical acclaim, just in this decade alone (and from earlier, at least Superman: The Movie has a better RT score). Still, it would almost be evidence that critics and box office can sometimes go hand in hand if it weren’t for that certified rotten movie that ranks just above it on the box office chart: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2007/9/10/19625.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 9/10/2007 4:54:00 PM
Body: Superman ReturnsI never intended to watch this movie. I was never much of a fan of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. Always thought they were stuck between being sincere and corny. Should have pushed the corn 100% like Adam West with Batman in my opinion.I do remember liking that Lois and Clark show though. Maybe because my mom always watched it.Anyways, my roommate rented this from Netflix and I was bored. I think I may have watched this with Adam as well. I think all three of us saw it together. It's hard to remember. The event was less than spectacular.It felt like there was absolutely nothing new here. And even the best of the old stuff was missing. The whole story of Superman and how he came to be. I've seen all that in every Superman production so far. And he hardly ever even uses his different powers in exciting ways. The lead actor seemed like he was just trying to safely emulate Christopher Reeve. Since I never liked his portrayal in the first place I wasn't too keen on that.Uh I could bitch more about it, but like I said I can't even remember it too much more. I do know that Gene Hackman made a more amusing Lex Luthor to me than Kevin Spacey. And as my friend Zoran commented on in regards to the completely unbelievable plot and villain scheme "COME ON, WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY TO LIVE ON A GIANT CALICIUM DEPOSIT?" Rating: 4/10
]]>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:54:00 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog9/10/2007 4:54:00 PMSuperman ReturnsI never intended to watch this movie. I was never much of a fan of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. Always thought they were stuck between being sincere and corny. Should have pushed the corn 100% like Adam West with Batman in my opinion.I do remember liking that Lois and Clark show though. Maybe because my mom always watched it.Anyways, my roommate rented this from Netflix and I was bored. I think I may have watched this with Adam as well. I think all three of us saw it together. It&#39;s hard to remember. The event was less than spectacular.It felt like there was absolutely nothing new here. And even the best of the old stuff was missing. The whole story of Superman and how he came to be. I&#39;ve seen all that in every Superman production so far. And he hardly ever even uses his different powers in exciting ways. The lead actor seemed like he was just trying to safely emulate Christopher Reeve. Since I never liked his portrayal in the first place I wasn&#39;t too keen on that.Uh I could bitch more about it, but like I said I can&#39;t even remember it too much more. I do know that Gene Hackman made a more amusing Lex Luthor to me than Kevin Spacey. And as my friend Zoran commented on in regards to the completely unbelievable plot and villain scheme "COME ON, WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY TO LIVE ON A GIANT CALICIUM DEPOSIT?" Rating: 4/10 http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12479

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1481

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT124793381481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1140

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT62892271140Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awesome/MemberTagFilms.aspxawesome
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 158

Number of times used: 291

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:23:33 GMT187158291Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag 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/personal-classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpersonal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT18064274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

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

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hero/MemberTagFilms.aspxhero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT63843141Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/alien/MemberTagFilms.aspxalien
Number of films tagged: 81

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 130

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:33 GMT8138130Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adoption/MemberTagFilms.aspxadoption
Number of films tagged: 578

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 59

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT5783559Tag 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/courage/MemberTagFilms.aspxcourage
Number of films tagged: 1054

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 80

]]>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:24:48 GMT10542880Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criminal/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriminal
Number of films tagged: 3388

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 56

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT33882756Tag