Citizen Kane's Recent Activity - Spout

Film:Citizen Kane

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:51:42 GMT

Title: Citizen Kane
Year: 1941
Director: Orson Welles
Plot: Orson Welles first feature film -- which he directed, produced, and co-wrote, as well as playing the title role -- proved to be his most important and influential work, a ground-breaking drama loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst which is frequently cited as the finest American film ever made. Aging newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) dies in his sprawling Florida estate after uttering a single, enigmatic final word -- "Rosebud" -- and newsreel producer Rawlston (Phil Van Zandt) sends reporter Jerry Thompson (William Alland) out with the assignment of uncovering the meaning behind the great man's dying thought. As Thompson interviews Kane's friends, family, and associates, we learn the facts of Kane's eventful and ultimately tragic life: his abandonment by his parents (Agnes Moorehead and Harry Shannon) after he becomes the heir to a silver mine; his angry conflicts with his guardian, master financier Walter Parks Thatcher (George Coulouris); his impulsive decision that "it would be fun to run a newspaper" with the help of school chum Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten) and loyal assistant Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloane); his rise from scandal sheet publisher to the owner of America's largest and most influential newspaper chain; his marriage to socially prominent Emily Norton (Ruth Warrick), whose uncle is the President of the United States; Kane's ambitious bid for public office, which is dashed along with his marriage when his opponent, corrupt political boss Jim Gettys (Ray Collins), reveals that Kane is having an affair with aspiring vocalist Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore); Kane's vain attempts to promote second wife Alexander as an opera star; and his final, self-imposed exile to a massive and never-completed pleasure palace called Xanadu. While Citizen Kane was a film full of distinguished debuts -- along with Welles, it was the first feature for Joseph Cotten, Everett Sloane, Ray Collins, Agnes Moorehead, and Ruth Warrick -- the only Academy Award it received was for Best Original Screenplay, for which Welles shared credit with veteran screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 120
Number of Lists: 117
Number of blog posts: 21
Number of discussion threads: 13
SpoutRating: 4

Spout Post: Re:Which of these from Tim Out's list of 10 greatest directorial debuts of all time is your favorite?

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:11:31 GMT

Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 9/13/2009 9:11:31 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. Here is the link for the full list of Time Out's 50 greatest directorial debuts of all time Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:The 400 BlowsL'AtalanteBadlandsBlood SimpleCitizen KaneThe Maltese FalconThe Night of the HunterNight of the Living DeadPerformanceThey Live By Night [/quote] Obviously I could only vote for one movie out of that list... George Romero is a GOD in the directing world and NOTLD is, quite simply, one of the best movies ever made... < GOR >

Spout Post: Which of these from Tim Out's list of 10 greatest directorial debuts of all time is your favorite?

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:25:09 GMT

Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 9/9/2009 6:25:09 PM
Body: Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. Here is the link for the full list of Time Out's 50 greatest directorial debuts of all time Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:The 400 BlowsL'AtalanteBadlandsBlood SimpleCitizen KaneThe Maltese FalconThe Night of the HunterNight of the Living DeadPerformanceThey Live By Night

Spout Post: A classic, wonderfully shot movie

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:05:22 GMT

Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 4/27/2009 12:05:22 PM
Body: What is "Rosebud"? That is what a news reporter is in search for, but all he finds is more questions about "Charles Foster Kane" (Orson Welles), who uttered that now-famous word just before he died. "Citizen Kane" is possibly the greatest movie when it comes to cinematography. It uses unusual angles, shadows and long shots wonderfully. The way audio and editing is also what makes this movie standout from others. The acting was just as good as the cinematography. It is Welles performance that stands out the most. The other actors also do an outstanding job, but none are as good as Welles. If you are into old movies, this is one of the "Must See" movies. It is also worth checking out if you ever come across it at your local rental place.

Spout Post: THE WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN: CITIZEN KANE

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:15:39 GMT

Post By: joem18b
Post To: joem18b Blog
Post Date: 3/17/2009 1:15:39 AM
Body: I was reading the comments for a movie review the other day and one poster identified the film under discussion as "The worst movie I've ever seen." I googled the sentence because it seems to me that I've been seeing it a lot lately. 19,700 hits.Some of the movies deemed "the worst ever": 10,000 BC, Open Water, Meet the Spartans, Twister.If Twister is the worst you've seen, viewer, then let me warn you that there are a lot, a mighty lot, of seriously terrible movies out there that you've somehow managed to miss up till now.Some of the google hits turned out to be for "not the worst movie I've ever seen," but still. Other worst-seens: Wanted, Howl's Moving Castle, Ladder 49, Legends of the Fall. It's a strange world that we live in.So my question is, how many of these posters list a movie as their worst, but then do it again, and perhaps again, serial worsters, naming many of the movies they see? Pathalogical worsters. Are these movie-watchers caught in some downward spiral vectoring them toward cinema Hell? Or do they also keep encountering their best-ever? Is every movie that they see either the best or the worst or the most or the least, or were these folks just having a bad day, or are they just lonely and wailing for help or for a little attention, or is hyperbole now a plague in the U.S. that has given us, for example, a major political party for which everything under consideration is either perfectly good or perfectly evil? How does Limbaugh rate his movies, or is he even allowed to go out and see movies?"The worst movie I've seen." 15,800 hits. A guy names "Benjamin Button" as his personal worst. Gets some agreement from other commenters but also some violent flames. Best ever/worst ever struggle breaks out over Button. They walk among us, these comment-posters, seemingly normal humans.There are sites that do prompt for your worsts, asking "What's the worst movie you've seen?" Nothing wrong with that. Moths to the flame. "The worst movie ever made." 63,200 hits. I've got no problem with legitimate contenders for worst, or with the fun of trying to pick that worst flick. Zardoz, Showgirls, Gigli, Ishtar, Cleopatra, The Hottie and the Nottie, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, the Turkish Wizard of Oz, and many many more, all legitimate contenders. But the googled worst-made list also includes Spiderman 3, Black Hawk Down, Southland Tales, I Am Legend, Lions and Lambs, Star Wars episode III, etc. Were these the picks of hotheads, or the challenged, or those unclear on the concept, or iconoclasts in want of an icon, or simple knuckleheads, or some species of the disgruntled?I can name my worst pain and my worst breakup with a girlfriend and the worst President of the U.S. in my lifetime. I'm no worst hater (or wurst hater, either). I personally don't have a worst movie but I suppose I could name a few candidates. The question is, are all the posted "worsts" true candidates like my own, or are they exposing a septicemiaized vein in the body cinematic?"The worstest movie I've seen." 2 hits. Talladagea Nights, Signs. Thirteen circles of movie inferno and we're down at the bottom here, in the worstest, the icy lakes of Hades with their movie reviewers frozen in ice up to their padded hips, along with the future shades of Will Ferrell and M. Night Shyamalan.Note also that there are chuckleheads who name Citizen Kane the worst, as per the title above. And speaking of the worst, Google also yields: "The Bible is the worst book ever." and "The worst book in the Bible? Okay, this won't be easy. There are only three books in the bible that have more good stuff than bad." and "To the faithful in particular: what's your least favourited/most hated book in the 'good' book?""The worst movie I have ever seen." 28,200 hits. Watchman (of course), Son of Mask, Last Days (the van Zant flick)."Most awful movie." 1,430 hits. The Fifth Element, Snakes on the Plane (I've only seen Snakes on a Plane...), Burn After Reading."Most terrible movie." 704 hits. State of the Union, Slumdog Millionaire (of course), Driven, The Door in the Floor."Baddest movie." 1,230 hits. Nah, bad is good."Rottenest movie." 9 hits. Tropic Thunder (because of the r word), Lost Souls, Blazing Saddles."rottnest movie." 2 hits. Cool Runnings, The Lion King.These are the worst posts I've ever read.

Spout Post: Citizen Kane

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:07:14 GMT

Post By: mconrad3
Post To: mconrad3 Blog
Post Date: 2/17/2009 10:07:14 PM
Body: Few films can claim the laurels rested on Citizen Kane. Fewer still were made before 1960. Even today, Citizen Kane can be watched as if it were made yesterday. It serves as a testament to the film and the men behind it, namely Orson Welles, who propelled it to such a degree of fame among the film community. Loosely based off of newspaper mogul William Randolf Hearst, the film originally sparked controversy over the portrayal of the titular characters life. Today, however, it is an enjoyable trip back in time covering the societal climate from the 1890s to the early 1940s. There are a lot of things about this flick that are ahead of its time. The kind of shot composition and transition tricks used throughout the film are still eye catching. Sitting and watching it I wonder how they managed to pull off some of the things they did considering the year it was made. Also stunning are the sets and make-up, especially for the aging done to the characters. Welles was in his twenties when he played Kane, but made up to look like an eighty year old man, he didn't look too far removed from his physical appearance when he himself grew old. I still find it amazing how well made the film is considering the young cast and crew. It was also unheard of at the time for a director to have complete creative control over his work, yet Welles managed to do that as well with this project. Its length may be a turn-off for younger viewers, but it should absolutely be required viewing for anyone entering the film industry. It serves as both an inspiration and a benchmark for future and current filmmakers.

Spout Post: Presidential Election Movies To Get You Through Election Day

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:01:24 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/4/2008 6:01:24 PM
Body: Are you walking around with your “I Voted!” sticker proudly adhered to your chest? If not, get out there and do some lever pulling, chad punching, and ballot dropping. Then take the rest ofthe day off and watch one of these movies that’ll get you through the rest of election day and away from the nail-biting edge of election return coverage. There are a few minor spoilers inside, but don’t view that as me messing with the ballot box. You’ll still love the movies more than CNN’s infographics. Citizen Kane Yes, it’s the grandaddy at the top of every “best of” list, but people don’t really think of it as an election film. However, there’s an election right in the heart of it. Charles Foster Kane runs for the governorship of New York, and has a good chance of winning until he’s at the heart of a scandal involving a woman and the incumbent governor, Boss Jim W. Gettys. His campaign speech in front of the enormous poster of himself is one of the most iconic images from the film, and also the turning point for his ultimate fall from grace in the film. The Candidate Robert Redford’s darkly comic film about a race for one of the California senate seats shows how volatile and tupsy-turvy politics can be. Peter Boyle is supposed to find someone to unseat a popular Republican Senator, but know that they are so far ahead it won’t matter who he gets. Eventually he goes after the extremely unlike candidate Bill McKay, played by Redford, and tells him it doesn’t matter what he does, he’s going to lose. So he’s free to do what he wants on the campaign trail. However, he finally decides he doesn’t want to go down by a landslide and fights back, eventually even winning the race. In the famous scene at the end, Redford finds Boyle and asks, “What do we do now?” America might very well be asking that question tomorrow. The Contender Joan Allen has had a couple of brushes with the White House. She played first lady Pat Nixon in Oliver Stone’s Nixon, for which she received an Academy Award nomination, and inThe Contender she plays a Democratic senator from Ohio who becomes the new Vice-Presidential nominee when the President (Jeff Bridges) has his own VP die while in office. It’s a well-acted exploration of sexual politics, and revolves around an event that may or may not have happened to Allen’s character in college. Gary Oldman vamps it up as a congressman who blocks Allen’s appointment, Jeff Bridges make a terrific president and Sam Elliot is a wonderfully hardassed Chief of Staff, but it’s really Joan Allen who amazes in this film. Bob Roberts Tim Robbins’ film about a folksy Pennsylvania senate candidate who learns how to manipulate the system was actually based on a Saturday Night Live sketch from 1986 featuring Robbins as the same character. It’s full of twangy music, borrows heavily from Bob Dylan, and turns sinister towards the end with a possibly faked assassination attempt that puts Roberts in office. The songs are the most memorable part of the film, although the soundtrack was never released because Tim Robbins didn’t want the songs to be played out of context. Like… as a John McCain rally song, which would have sent Robbins into fits of apoplexy. Election It might take place in the halls of high school, but it’s a snapshot not just of the formative years of teenager, but of the entire political process as well. Easily Reese Witherspoon’s best film, her evil and vindictive Tracy Flick isn’t someone you want to cross, or even run against. Although if your opponent is the sickly sweet Chris Klein (who even votes for Tracy), then you don’t really have to worry about competition. Matthew Broderick desperately tries to stop her rise to power, which provides some of the funniest moments in the film, including a recount scandal that rivals the Bush/Gore election. Mr. Smith Goes To Washington They don’t make films like this anymore, and Washington would certainly never give us an ending this neat and clean, but it’s one of Jimmy Stewart’s most endearing roles and it’s still inspirational some 50 years later. It has the best filibuster ever on film, although the confessional moment at the end would never happen in today’s political climate. Stewart’s Smith is still the kind of character you can get behind and root for today, and should probably be required viewing upon assuming any office in D.C. Primary Colors Based on the book that was inspired by Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 1992, John Travolta actually does a decent job as a southern governor running for office in this Mike Nichols film. It’s hard to believe that it’s been 10 years since this movie came out, although it was a bit too late to ride on the coattails of the book two years earlier. When the novel came out by “Anonymous” (later revealed to be journalist Joe Klein) it was on everyone’s lips. Besides Travolta’s Clinton impersonation, the movie didn’t generate nearly as many waves. Still, it’s worth watcing on this Election Tuesday, if nothing other than to tweak your nostalgia circuit. Wag the Dog This movie is mostly terrific for Dustin Hoffman’s excellent Robert Evans impersonation throughout the movie. He plays a Hollywood producer brought in by De Niro’s political spin doctor character to create a fake war in order to distract from the President’s ongoing sex scandal. It proves to be ridiculously successful, and is loosely based on Larry Beinhart’s novel American Hero. Although in the book the president is George H.W. Bush, and the war Opeation Desert Storm. Still, it works a bit better as a dark comedy rather than being based on actual events, although Beinhart’s book is well worth reading. Nixon I wasn’t originally a fan of this Oliver Stone movie, but it’s been playing on cable a lot the past month, and I usually end up watching it whenever I flip channels. Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of Nixon is incredibly intricate, showing both his paranoid side, and his detached loneliness. As Paul Sorvino’s Henry Kissinger in the film says, “Can you imagine what this man would be like had anyone ever loved him?” It’s also a slap the the face to W, which doesn’t even feel like an Oliver Stone movie. Nixon has teeth, W is a softball. Probably one of Hopkins’ meatiest roles as an actor, and the DVD version with 28 minutes of extra footage will get you through the entire night. Recount When HBO announced this film, I remember cringing and thinking “Won’t the controversy ever go away? It’s like pouring salt in an open wound!” Then I saw the movie, and I loved it. However, I can’t watch it all the way through because I get incredibly angry whenever I see it. Forget about what would have happened if Nixon was loved. What about what our country would be like now if Gore had been elected. How different would things be now? Would we be at war? Would the economy be in the toilet? We’ll never know, but this film really gives you a hard look at the process that put Bush in office, and how full of holes (and dangling chads) it really is. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: The Spirit: My City Screams (And So Do Fans of the Comic Book)

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:01:08 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/23/2008 10:01:08 AM
Body: We talked about Frank Miller’s highly anticipated film adaptation of Will Eisner’s long running comic book The Spirit back at Comic-Con when the scenes failed to impress us. In fact, they felt like they were straight out of Sin City Redux. It’s been a few months since we were underwhelmed; have the filmmakers changed anything? Not based on the clip we were sent this week. Despite being a self-proclaimed fan of Will Eisner, Frank Miller is managing to stomp the life out of every facet that made The Spirit a compelling comic. Check out the video after the break, and find out why we’re not happy. The Spirit, which has been called “the Citizen Kane of comic books,” ran from 1940 through the early 1950s, and even appeared as a Sunday comic strip for three years in the early 40s. Eisner had been approached by publishers who wanted to get in on the comic book, but that didn’t really appeal to Eisner. As a result, he created a hero without superpowers who fights crime wearing a bright blue business suit, a fedora, and a domino mask. The charm was in both Eisner’s appealing art style, and the gee-whillikers style writing that combined detective noir with goofball wit. In Eisner’s book, Denny Colt was a young detective who was apparently killed on the job, but was later revealed to have been in “suspended animation” and used the fact that the world thought he was dead to create a new identity for himself to fight crime as The Spirit. Sort of like Michael Knight without the talking car. He doesn’t have any powers or special abilities, except maybe the ease with which he seems to attract women. Straight from the mouth of Frank Miller in this clip, his movie version of The Spirit has mysteriously returned from the dead and has “unusual powers of healing.” As if this wasn’t affront enough, you’ve got Samuel L. Jackson as a vamping villain version of The Octopus (only seen in the comics as a pair of gloves) who shouts “I’ve got 8 of everything!” while blasting away with a multitude of enormous guns. We imagine there’s a joke about his eight penises somewhere in the film as well. Miller even goes as far as saying, “This movie’s not a tribute to Will Eisner, it’s a tribute to The Spirit“. Sadly, it seems like it’s more a tribute to Miller’s obsession with green screen, guns, over the top acting, and his own Sin City. The Spirit was entirely Will Eisner’s creation. To not feature what made it so popular is a slap in the face to the memory of Eisner, and Miller should know better. This would be like taking Miller’s own version of The Dark Knight Returns, giving Batman some sort of arbitrary superpower (Hey! Now he can talk to bats!) and making it a slapstick comedy. Even the poster for Miller’s film tries to ape the splash page style that Eisner often opened his comics with. Although where Eisner’s pieces were gorgeous works of art, Miller’s comes off as an amateurish horror film copy. “My City Screams” also seems a lot harsher than the madcap adventures that Eisner’s hero often found himself in. He’s even changed The Spirit’s blue suit and mask for black versions, and he’s trying to make his bright red tie as iconic as Superman’s cape or Batman’s symbol. Our advice is to just wait for Sin City 2, when Miller is free to apply the style of filmmaking that suited Sin City to his own artwork so well, for better or for worse. As far as The Spirit is concerned, imagine if Quentin Tarantino remade Citizen Kane, because that’s about as messy as this movie sounds. Miller is so concerned with making this his own, that he’s thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Even DC Comics, who publishes a monthly The Spirit comic book, calls it “Will Eisner’s The Spirit” on the cover of each book. Miller’s version feels like it left Will Eisner on the curb — or more likely spinning in his grave somewhere. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Lady Frankenstein (1971)

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:54:05 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/31/2008 5:54:05 AM
Body: Mel Welles’ reimagining of the Frankenstein story is a ludicrous and exploitative film that rejects art for lurid sex scenes and unconvincing violence. Whereas Mary Shelley’s novel was a masterpiece of the gothic literary movement, examining the hubris of a scientist who wishes to create life unnaturally, this story pays only lip service to those themes. Sure, the characters have debates about whether they are doing the right thing and the risks inherent in their choices but the film never convinces when talking about morality. Perhaps it’s the score of topless women that somewhat distracts from any pretence at a greater meaning to this tale. Joseph Cotten plays the older Dr Frankenstein, the scientist experimenting with cadavers in the hope of creating new life. After three years of work he finally succeeds in but the brain he uses in his experiment is severely damaged and the creature wakes up a mentally unbalanced monster. Killing his creator, this monster then embarks on a killing spree, taking vengeance on those who created him. His daughter, discovering the body, reacts as any loving daughter would do. She persuades her father’s assistant not to report the creation of the monster and tells him that she wants to become his lover but cannot bear his elderly body. She proposes killing a handsome but mentally-slow young man and transplanting the assistant’s brain into that body so that she can make her perfect man. Riiight. From that moment on it ceases to even pretend to be a horror film and switches to become melodrama interlaced with nudity. This is not an improvement. This film is schlock of the worst kind, completely lacking in depth or artistic merit. Failing even to frighten, it is grippingly atrocious cinema (and I use that word in its lightest sense). Earlier in his career Joseph Cotten had starred in such great films as The Third Man, Citizen Kane and Shadow of a Doubt. It is humiliating to see him reduced to a role this slight, although he does his best to inject some gravitas into a clunking script. He is fortunate to be able to escape the picture at the half-way mark. Rosalba Neri is not so lucky. With a concept so horrible you wonder if the filmmakers were intending this to be parody but any laughs it may generate are strictly unintentional. Some may find it comically bad but it didn’t work for me on that level either. Lady Frankenstein is a tiresome, grim film that even fails to provide scares. For a horror film that is inexcusable.

Spout Post: 500 FP Review: Citizen Kane

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:28:06 GMT

Post By: ranmovtho
Post To: ranmovtho Blog
Post Date: 8/5/2008 3:28:06 AM
Body: Note: This is an abridged version of the 500 Films Project review of Citizen Kane. For the full version, click here. ----- If you know anything about movie history, then you know about Citizen Kane--the little movie that could, then couldn't, then did.Citizen Kane was the Hollywood directorial debut of 25-year-old Orson Welles. RKO Studios gave the inexperienced director "final cut" on his film--basically, giving him almost full artistic control over every aspect of the movie's creation. This unprecedented privilege earned Welles much resentment in Hollywood and put great pressure on him to make his first film spectacular.Unfortunately for Welles, Citizen Kane attracted the ire of one of the most influential men in America at the time: newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. Kane's protagonist, Charles Foster Kane, was a thinly-veiled, fictionalized version of Hearst, and the movie didn't exactly paint a sympathetic portrait of its main character.Due to Hearst's interference, Citizen Kane ended up being a commercial failure. Today, however, Citizen Kane is widely thought to be one of the greatest films of all time.-----For me, Citizen Kane completely lives up to its hype.Orson Welles as titular character Charles Foster Kane dominates the screen. Throughout the movie, Welles instills in his character a tremendous passion and energy. Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, and Everett Sloane also stand out with their captivating performances. Overall, however, all of the actors in this movie deliver.The subject matter of Citizen Kane--the life, loves, triumphs, and tragedies of an ambitious American newspaper baron--might bore some viewers, but I love character-driven stories with intricate plots and sharp dialogue. Charlie Kane might not be the most sympathetic character in movie history, but his story is still wholly captivating. For full review, click here.

Spout Post: Non-review review #3

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:22:09 GMT

Post By: Zularian
Post To: Zularian Blog
Post Date: 7/1/2008 7:22:09 PM
Body: I am feeling a bit grumpy at the moment so I am going to revisit the subject of my first post -- that of a director pilfering through their own material. There are a number of excellent examples of this but I am going to limit myself to two directors. The reason for this is that both of these men, Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith have had a very large impact on me. My current career path has been shaped largely by these directors which is why their transgressions pain me so. First, Mr. Smith. Once upon a time there was a directory who made a crappy (production-wise) little movie called Clerks. It is not a pretty movie nor is it an interesting-looking film. Clerks has very few merits except the fact that it is quite funny and original and it somehow manages to convey the joy and exuberence of it's creator. There is a quality to Clerks, a "I just wanted to make a movie" attitude that is infectious. This film feels to me to emboy the very spirit of Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane (1941) when he decides that it would be fun to run a paper. Now we flash forward to 2007. Nevermind the fact that Mr. Smith has made only one movie since this first one that has not relied heavily on the strange universe he created or his two uninpsired characters, Jay and Silent Bob. Arguments can be made for Chasing Amy, Dogma and even Mallrats as being steps away from Clerks. What I want to talk about is Jersey Girl, how it did not do well and what came next. I very much enjoyed Jersey Girland I was proud of Mr. Smith for taking his work in a different direction. Would this film have done better with a different actor as the lead? Was it just poor timing that the world at large became sick of Mr. Affleck when this film was released? Who knows. What I do know is everyone other than Mr. Smith was not shocked when his fanbase, by and large, did not take to this movie. You mean the 30 year-old stoner didn't like this movie? How can this be? So then we arrive at Clerks 2. Say what you will about any other movie Mr. Smith has done, this one can be seen as nothing other than a retreat to a proven formula because his last attempt was stomped by everyone. To say that Clerks 2 made me sad in my heart is like saying that what is bad for Mexico is bad for Mexicans. Clerks 2 isn't just a rehashing of past material, it is one of those dreadful sequels where the main characters appear to have forgotten everything that has happened in the previous installment. The shining example of this is Dante being torn between two women (again) only this time he is involved with both of them. Poor Dante, apparently the lessons learned in the first movie were forgotten during the ten year period these poor sould were left on their own. Then we have Mr. Rodriguez. Once upon a time he was the ambitious young filmmaker who decided he could make a movie with a crew of one. And what a movie he made. Originally intended for the spanish home video market El Mariachi is a highly inventive and unusual film. Slightly campy but containing a big heart El Mariachi delivers as a comedy and action film. Apparently this movie did not make enough money or receive enough attention to dissuade Mr. Rodriguez and others when it came time for making his next movie.Desperado. (I am not forgetting the movie Road Racers here, I think the number of people who have seen this film is still very small) Somehow this movie was conceived as a sequel to Mariachi, which is odd because the lead actor has changed and because this film is now all about killing, explosions and drugs. Perhaps I am just a bit think and taking the whole matter too literally. Desperado works because the two lead actors are wonderful actors and play together nicely. The plot is a bit strange to me (again perhaps I am too literal) because the man who shoots the El's hand in the first movie is not the same man who does in Desperado. Couple that with dream sequences that contain the dreaded Mocho (the spelling may be wrong on this one) who I think has morphed somehow into the new bad guy (who now seems to have ties to our hero which he did not in Mariachi). All of this could be forgiven, in fact I think most viewers were fine with this oddness, until Once upon a Time in Mexico was released. To be very brief -- the movie is meant to be the fourth film in this series (the third was never made but the important bits are relayed to the audience through flashbacks and dreams). This time around our hero is not the only lead actor and to further add to the confusion actors who were in the first and second movie (and died) appear as different characters in this film. Mr. Rodriguez had just discovered the joys of HD before beginning this project and his work as a musician on Tarantino's Kill Bill movies led him to score this film as well. The idea, so the film's commentary says, was to make this move on an epic scale, much like another film with a similar title, Once upon a Time in the West. Since this entry is really meant to be a personal gripe I'll just get on with my grumble and end this entry. What makes this particular film (for those of you having a hard time keeping up I am refering to Once upon a Time in Mexico now) so disappointing to me is that much like Clerks 2 this movie felt like a retreat to safe ground. From the story, which admittedly departs from previous works of Mr. Rodriguez, to the low-budget feel of the movie I can't help but feel this picture was made because it was safe. What made both Clerks and El Mariachi such appealing films was that both of them involved a fair amount of risk to their creators and that this risk was reflected in the movie itself. These two films truly feel like independent films in the sense that there is little that is formulaic or predictable about them. I am tempted to start listing examples from both movies but chances are if you are reading this you can think of them already. I recognize the fact that both of these directors have been very successful and what they did for their first films would undoubtedly not work now. My frustration stems from them attempting to steal from these early films, but oddly enough, lifting the banal parts or simply ignoring crucial story elements and hoping that everyone will go along. If you read the reviews for the later films from both directors it seems as though this is what happened too...

Spout Tag:Classic

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT

Classic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

Spout Tag:brilliant

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT

brilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

Spout Tag:overrated

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT

overrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

Spout Tag:drama

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:32 GMT

drama
Number of films tagged: 522

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 621

Spout Tag:masterpiece

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:30:57 GMT

masterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 214

Spout Tag:suicide

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:20:04 GMT

suicide
Number of films tagged: 1826

Number of people who tagged: 80

Number of times used: 183

Spout Tag:marriage

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:11 GMT

marriage
Number of films tagged: 3471

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 267

Spout Tag:personal-classic

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT

personal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

Spout Tag:underrated

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:34:46 GMT

underrated
Number of films tagged: 139

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

Spout Tag:depressing

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:43 GMT

depressing
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 74

Spout Tag:journalism

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT

journalism
Number of films tagged: 1146

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 65

Spout Tag:writer

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:37:08 GMT

writer
Number of films tagged: 869

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 89

Spout Tag:power

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:55 GMT

power
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 104

Spout Tag:loneliness

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:01:02 GMT

loneliness
Number of films tagged: 416

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 68

Spout Tag:greed

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:40:23 GMT

greed
Number of films tagged: 592

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 64