list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Close Encounters of the Third Kind 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/Close_Encounters_of_the_Third_Kind/6460/default.aspx Title: Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Year: 1978
Director: Steven Spielberg
Plot: Steven Spielberg followed Jaws (1975), his first major box-office success, with this epic science fiction adventure about a disparate group of people who attempt to contact alien intelligence. Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) is an electrical lineman who, while sent out on emergency repairs, witnesses an unidentified flying object, and even has a "sunburn" from its bright lights to prove it. Neary's wife and children are at first skeptical, then concerned, and eventually fearful, as Roy refuses to accept a "logical" explanation for what he saw and is prepared to give up his job, his home, and his family to pursue the "truth" about UFOs. Neary's obsession eventually puts him in contact with others who've had close encounters with alien spacecraft, including Jillian (Melinda Dillon), a single mother whose son disappeared during her UFO experience, and Claude Lacombe (celebrated French filmmaker François Truffaut), a French researcher who believes that we can use a musical language to communicate with alien visitors. Lacombe's theory is put to the test when a band of government researchers and underground UFO enthusiasts (including Neary) join for an exchange with alien visitors near Devil's Tower, Wyoming. In 1980, a "Special Edition" was released. While its primary selling point was the addition of scenes inside the alien spaceship, Spielberg claimed that he also cleaned up some choppy editing in the second act. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 52
Number of Lists: 84
Number of blog posts: 16
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:31:49 GMTClose Encounters of the Third Kind1978Steven Spielberg<a href="/players/P___112325/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Steven Spielberg</a> followed <a href=/films/17794/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Jaws</a> (1975), his first major box-office success, with this epic science fiction adventure about a disparate group of people who attempt to contact alien intelligence. Roy Neary (<a href="/players/P____88268/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Dreyfuss</a>) is an electrical lineman who, while sent out on emergency repairs, witnesses an unidentified flying object, and even has a "sunburn" from its bright lights to prove it. Neary's wife and children are at first skeptical, then concerned, and eventually fearful, as Roy refuses to accept a "logical" explanation for what he saw and is prepared to give up his job, his home, and his family to pursue the "truth" about UFOs. Neary's obsession eventually puts him in contact with others who've had close encounters with alien spacecraft, including Jillian (<a href="/players/P____19211/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Melinda Dillon</a>), a single mother whose son disappeared during her UFO experience, and Claude Lacombe (celebrated French filmmaker <a href="/players/P___114620/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>François Truffaut</a>), a French researcher who believes that we can use a musical language to communicate with alien visitors. Lacombe's theory is put to the test when a band of government researchers and underground UFO enthusiasts (including Neary) join for an exchange with alien visitors near Devil's Tower, Wyoming. In 1980, a "Special Edition" was released. While its primary selling point was the addition of scenes inside the alien spaceship, Spielberg claimed that he also cleaned up some choppy editing in the second act. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide52Tag Target (>10)841633http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u46458i0hm1.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Close_Encounters_of_the_Third_Kind/6460/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2009/9/20/43963.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 9/20/2009 11:29:11 PM
Body: What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Close Encounters of the Third Kind is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#64)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#31)100 Most Inspiring Movies (#58) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (hereinafter called "Close Encounters") is another one of those films that I watched and rewatched throughout my childhood. I have also owned it in various forms (the test passes!) and bought the super-fancy-deluxe-anniversary edition in advance of viewing it again for this project. To me, Close Encounters is something like ET for adults, or ET with a mystery-type beginning, and yet, it's a film that stands on its own merits. It's a multilayered exploration and discussion of many themes, from faith to preserving innocence to opening the mind to extreme possibilities, and it's also a classic film that has held up well, despite the timing of its introduction in the late 70s. In Close Encounters, Richard Dreyfuss plays Roy Neary, an electrical lineman who, as the title of the film would suggest, encouters a UFO in rural Indiana. He's not alone. Jillian (Melinda Dillon) and her son see the odd lights in the sky and experience the odd noises, too, and, eventually, Barry is taken away. Roy, who steadily becomes more obsessed with the quest to make sense of what he saw, up-ends his family, including his wife (Teri Garr) and three children, by sculpting shapes in his mashed potatoes ("This means something; this is important") and, eventually, by replicating the famed Devil's Tower in Wyoming in his living room by means of garbage and refuse from his lawn. In the meantime, a French researcher named LaCombe (Francois Truffault) and his translator (Bob Balaban) have found odd crash sites from airplanes missing decades earlier, and the US government appears to have knowledge of these strange happenings, as they stage a false viral outbreak in the vicinity of Devil's Tower to keep curious onlookers away from the area. All the while, people who have had these close encounters themselves, Roy and Jillian included, seem drawn to this location, as the researchers and government officials team up to construct close encounters of their own. The reason Close Encounters works is that it is, in ways, fresh and different, even as it recycles some of the motifs from scifis of the 50s and 60s. At its core, it's about aliens and outer space, flying their spaceships and making contact with Earth and with humans, but, for once, they're not attacking. Spielberg would catch quite a bevy of flack later in his career for making all of his science fiction pictures about friendly aliens, but, it's potentially flawed to limit the ideal of visitors from other worlds to the possibility that they would only be hostile. The picture also expounds on the idea of communication, through a universal language that has long been accepted as such: music. John Williams, movie composer extraordinaire and Stevie's go-to music man, created a wonderful score punctuated by five iconic notes that symbolize something humans seek in everyday life: connection. Since the story concept is Spielberg's (he is credited with the screenplay), and since he was also the director, these bits of subtlety and grace resulted in a wonderful, layered tale that truly engages the viewer and makes him or her (and especially me) as curious and as attracted to the UFO mystery as Roy and Jillian. Spielberg's unquestioned skill is unmistakable here. Like in Jaws, again operating on a small, if blown, budget, Stevie used the implication of what was not visually there to ratchet up the spooky factor. Scenes would go completely quiet, bereft of all noise, including underscore. The expressions on the child actor who played Barry (Cary Guffey) were pricelessly coaxed out of him. Also, the visual effects in this film are quite stunning for the year in which the film was produced; they look almost as seamless as present-day CGI, and digitally rendered versions of the film do little more than accentuate the clarity of what was already there. The performances, even if not Oscar-worthy and a bit clunky at times (Dreyfuss and Garr are a highly unlikely couple and completely lack chemistry), are genuine; the reactions are organic and expected, and none of it feels hammy or over-the-top. Close Encounters works also, then, because it feels so natural - if UFOs did truly descend to Earth in any measurable way, witnessed by many instead of a few crackpots with fuzzy cameras, I imagine similar reactions would erupt from onlookers and their beleaguered families. The touches of tying the UFOs and strange discoveries in the film to other interesting supernatural mythology, such as the Bermuda Triangle, were a nice touch on Spielberg's part too. In short, this movie is just fun, like so many of Spielberg's blockbuster films, but it also has his undeniably artistic touch that accents and accentuates the story he is telling. The film moves a bit slowly, but it has a distinctive atmosphere that people are either going to be drawn into and fascinated by or are not going to be interested in because they are not quite predisposed to UFO phenomena. I love Close Encounters though because it is an excellent story and a great piece of filmmaking. It's not Spielberg's masterpiece, but it's still quite entertaining for scifi buffs like me. I think the film warrants an 8.5 (between minor flaws/very good and perfectly entertaining) on the patented ratings scale. I also think the film merits its rankings on the AFI lists - the film is spooky enough to be quite heart-pounding, and the friendly alien motif provides some messages of hope and wonderment that truly inspire. Sadly, however, the film did not make the AFI's revised greatest list, instead being replaced by Network (which moved up two spots). I guess the film isn't for everyone, but one should at least give the film a chance: watch it and see if experiencing these close encounters are as magical for you as they have always been for me.
]]>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 03:29:11 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts9/20/2009 11:29:11 PM What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Close Encounters of the Third Kind is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#64)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#31)100 Most Inspiring Movies (#58) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (hereinafter called "Close Encounters") is another one of those films that I watched and rewatched throughout my childhood. I have also owned it in various forms (the test passes!) and bought the super-fancy-deluxe-anniversary edition in advance of viewing it again for this project. To me, Close Encounters is something like ET for adults, or ET with a mystery-type beginning, and yet, it's a film that stands on its own merits. It's a multilayered exploration and discussion of many themes, from faith to preserving innocence to opening the mind to extreme possibilities, and it's also a classic film that has held up well, despite the timing of its introduction in the late 70s. In Close Encounters, Richard Dreyfuss plays Roy Neary, an electrical lineman who, as the title of the film would suggest, encouters a UFO in rural Indiana. He's not alone. Jillian (Melinda Dillon) and her son see the odd lights in the sky and experience the odd noises, too, and, eventually, Barry is taken away. Roy, who steadily becomes more obsessed with the quest to make sense of what he saw, up-ends his family, including his wife (Teri Garr) and three children, by sculpting shapes in his mashed potatoes ("This means something; this is important") and, eventually, by replicating the famed Devil's Tower in Wyoming in his living room by means of garbage and refuse from his lawn. In the meantime, a French researcher named LaCombe (Francois Truffault) and his translator (Bob Balaban) have found odd crash sites from airplanes missing decades earlier, and the US government appears to have knowledge of these strange happenings, as they stage a false viral outbreak in the vicinity of Devil's Tower to keep curious onlookers away from the area. All the while, people who have had these close encounters themselves, Roy and Jillian included, seem drawn to this location, as the researchers and government officials team up to construct close encounters of their own. The reason Close Encounters works is that it is, in ways, fresh and different, even as it recycles some of the motifs from scifis of the 50s and 60s. At its core, it's about aliens and outer space, flying their spaceships and making contact with Earth and with humans, but, for once, they're not attacking. Spielberg would catch quite a bevy of flack later in his career for making all of his science fiction pictures about friendly aliens, but, it's potentially flawed to limit the ideal of visitors from other worlds to the possibility that they would only be hostile. The picture also expounds on the idea of communication, through a universal language that has long been accepted as such: music. John Williams, movie composer extraordinaire and Stevie's go-to music man, created a wonderful score punctuated by five iconic notes that symbolize something humans seek in everyday life: connection. Since the story concept is Spielberg's (he is credited with the screenplay), and since he was also the director, these bits of subtlety and grace resulted in a wonderful, layered tale that truly engages the viewer and makes him or her (and especially me) as curious and as attracted to the UFO mystery as Roy and Jillian. Spielberg's unquestioned skill is unmistakable here. Like in Jaws, again operating on a small, if blown, budget, Stevie used the implication of what was not visually there to ratchet up the spooky factor. Scenes would go completely quiet, bereft of all noise, including underscore. The expressions on the child actor who played Barry (Cary Guffey) were pricelessly coaxed out of him. Also, the visual effects in this film are quite stunning for the year in which the film was produced; they look almost as seamless as present-day CGI, and digitally rendered versions of the film do little more than accentuate the clarity of what was already there. The performances, even if not Oscar-worthy and a bit clunky at times (Dreyfuss and Garr are a highly unlikely couple and completely lack chemistry), are genuine; the reactions are organic and expected, and none of it feels hammy or over-the-top. Close Encounters works also, then, because it feels so natural - if UFOs did truly descend to Earth in any measurable way, witnessed by many instead of a few crackpots with fuzzy cameras, I imagine similar reactions would erupt from onlookers and their beleaguered families. The touches of tying the UFOs and strange discoveries in the film to other interesting supernatural mythology, such as the Bermuda Triangle, were a nice touch on Spielberg's part too. In short, this movie is just fun, like so many of Spielberg's blockbuster films, but it also has his undeniably artistic touch that accents and accentuates the story he is telling. The film moves a bit slowly, but it has a distinctive atmosphere that people are either going to be drawn into and fascinated by or are not going to be interested in because they are not quite predisposed to UFO phenomena. I love Close Encounters though because it is an excellent story and a great piece of filmmaking. It's not Spielberg's masterpiece, but it's still quite entertaining for scifi buffs like me. I think the film warrants an 8.5 (between minor flaws/very good and perfectly entertaining) on the patented ratings scale. I also think the film merits its rankings on the AFI lists - the film is spooky enough to be quite heart-pounding, and the friendly alien motif provides some messages of hope and wonderment that truly inspire. Sadly, however, the film did not make the AFI's revised greatest list, instead being replaced by Network (which moved up two spots). I guess the film isn't for everyone, but one should at least give the film a chance: watch it and see if experiencing these close encounters are as magical for you as they have always been for me. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/23/39844.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/23/2009 4:00:40 PM
Body: I don’t want to publish the Twitter identities of those who have won tickets to see The Dark Knight on IMAX, a contest we announced yesterday, but I will tell you what movies they told us, via Twitter, what movies they’d like to see released on the IMAX screen: Caligula Blade Runner Mulholland Drive Once Upon a Time in America / Once Upon a Time in the West Titanic Lawrence of Arabia Young Frankenstein / Close Encounters of the Third Kind Brazil Drunken Master E.T. / The Green Mile As you’d expect there are a lot of epics on the list as well as a couple of offbeat choices - I love the people who suggested Brazil and Young Frankenstein. Thanks to everyone who sent in their suggestions and look for more contests like this in the future. Make sure to keep following @spout for updates, news and more. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:00:40 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/23/2009 4:00:40 PMI don’t want to publish the Twitter identities of those who have won tickets to see The Dark Knight on IMAX, a contest we announced yesterday, but I will tell you what movies they told us, via Twitter, what movies they’d like to see released on the IMAX screen: Caligula Blade Runner Mulholland Drive Once Upon a Time in America / Once Upon a Time in the West Titanic Lawrence of Arabia Young Frankenstein / Close Encounters of the Third Kind Brazil Drunken Master E.T. / The Green Mile As you’d expect there are a lot of epics on the list as well as a couple of offbeat choices - I love the people who suggested Brazil and Young Frankenstein. Thanks to everyone who sent in their suggestions and look for more contests like this in the future. Make sure to keep following @spout for updates, news and more. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/11/38235.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/11/2008 11:01:42 AM
Body: The fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/11/2008 11:01:42 AMThe fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_3_The_Movies_in_the/625/36928/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rangertx
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/4/2008 2:01:40 AM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] Here's an idea I got from Gremlins. I bought this one from the $5 bin at Wal-Mart this weekend to show my kids on Halloween. One thing that struck me while watching this was the unusually high amount of references to other movies contained in withing the film. At one point we see It's A Wonderful Life being watched on a TV in the kitchen. This is a pretty common reference for Christmas movie. Then, in the pivotal scene that the mogwais are fed after midnight, we see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Later the gremlins are watching Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. There are quite a few references to Spielberg films, both blatant and subtle. The marquee of the theater has two films being showed: A Boy's Life (which was the working title for E.T.) and Watch The Skies.( working title for Close Encounters of a Third Kind.) There are really too many to name, I even saw The Road Warrior poster hanging in the bedroom. So have at it. There it is. I think that a lot of these are put in film just for people like us. Some are so sublte that only the true movie nerds will get them. So, what do y'all think? Do you jump for joy when you see one of your favorite classics referenced in a movie? Or, do you just hate it? And more importantly, why?? [/quote] So I actually love when I am watching a film and I see or hear a reference to another film. I was just watching Any Given Sunday. During the scene that Al Pacino is trying to motivate Jamie Fox Ben Hur is playing in the backroom. Oliver Stone sliced in moments of Jamie's speech with scenes from Ben Hur. I know that there so many other flics that have these moments but this is the only one that comes to mind.
]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:01:40 GMTrangertxWeekly Theme11/4/2008 2:01:40 AM[quote user="leeroy711"] Here's an idea I got from Gremlins. I bought this one from the $5 bin at Wal-Mart this weekend to show my kids on Halloween. One thing that struck me while watching this was the unusually high amount of references to other movies contained in withing the film. At one point we see It's A Wonderful Life being watched on a TV in the kitchen. This is a pretty common reference for Christmas movie. Then, in the pivotal scene that the mogwais are fed after midnight, we see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Later the gremlins are watching Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. There are quite a few references to Spielberg films, both blatant and subtle. The marquee of the theater has two films being showed: A Boy's Life (which was the working title for E.T.) and Watch The Skies.( working title for Close Encounters of a Third Kind.) There are really too many to name, I even saw The Road Warrior poster hanging in the bedroom. So have at it. There it is. I think that a lot of these are put in film just for people like us. Some are so sublte that only the true movie nerds will get them. So, what do y'all think? Do you jump for joy when you see one of your favorite classics referenced in a movie? Or, do you just hate it? And more importantly, why?? [/quote] So I actually love when I am watching a film and I see or hear a reference to another film. I was just watching Any Given Sunday. During the scene that Al Pacino is trying to motivate Jamie Fox Ben Hur is playing in the backroom. Oliver Stone sliced in moments of Jamie's speech with scenes from Ben Hur. I know that there so many other flics that have these moments but this is the only one that comes to mind. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_November_3_The_Movies_in_the_Mov/625/36902/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/3/2008 1:06:54 PM
Body: Here's an idea I got from Gremlins. I bought this one from the $5 bin at Wal-Mart this weekend to show my kids on Halloween. One thing that struck me while watching this was the unusually high amount of references to other movies contained in withing the film. At one point we see It's A Wonderful Life being watched on a TV in the kitchen. This is a pretty common reference for Christmas movie. Then, in the pivotal scene that the mogwais are fed after midnight, we see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Later the gremlins are watching Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. There are quite a few references to Spielberg films, both blatant and subtle. The marquee of the theater has two films being showed: A Boy's Life (which was the working title for E.T.) and Watch The Skies.( working title for Close Encounters of a Third Kind.) There are really too many to name, I even saw The Road Warrior poster hanging in the bedroom. So have at it. There it is. I think that a lot of these are put in film just for people like us. Some are so sublte that only the true movie nerds will get them. So, what do y'all think? Do you jump for joy when you see one of your favorite classics referenced in a movie? Or, do you just hate it? And more importantly, why??
]]>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:06:54 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme11/3/2008 1:06:54 PMHere's an idea I got from Gremlins. I bought this one from the $5 bin at Wal-Mart this weekend to show my kids on Halloween. One thing that struck me while watching this was the unusually high amount of references to other movies contained in withing the film. At one point we see It's A Wonderful Life being watched on a TV in the kitchen. This is a pretty common reference for Christmas movie. Then, in the pivotal scene that the mogwais are fed after midnight, we see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Later the gremlins are watching Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. There are quite a few references to Spielberg films, both blatant and subtle. The marquee of the theater has two films being showed: A Boy's Life (which was the working title for E.T.) and Watch The Skies.( working title for Close Encounters of a Third Kind.) There are really too many to name, I even saw The Road Warrior poster hanging in the bedroom. So have at it. There it is. I think that a lot of these are put in film just for people like us. Some are so sublte that only the true movie nerds will get them. So, what do y'all think? Do you jump for joy when you see one of your favorite classics referenced in a movie? Or, do you just hate it? And more importantly, why?? http://www.spout.com/blogs/capeach/archive/2008/9/4/34746.aspx Post By: CaPeach
Post To: CaPeach Blog
Post Date: 9/4/2008 12:59:28 PM
Body: I gotta shape my mashed potatoes like Devil's Peak! The tempo is a little slow for this quickie generation. The first third of the story, I asked myself , "What the..what's happening.. what is he thinking...etc." Then I look for the required phrase in almost EVERY movie : "I don't understand." That used to nearly kill me, but now I see it as an Easter Egg of sorts. I would place a bet that someone would say it , oh, about 45min. into the movie. This movie is an oldie, where the story has to carry our interest to the very end, and not the cgi nor other fx. Now that communication tune is playing in my head! I would reccomend this movie to anyone who has had experience with UFO's and other weird creteures from Crete. Ha ha, just kidding. Sorry Ya-ya Billie. Seriously, anyone who is studying film making should tear this movie apart and make another one. This time with gobs of special effects.
]]>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:59:28 GMTCaPeachCaPeach Blog9/4/2008 12:59:28 PMI gotta shape my mashed potatoes like Devil's Peak! The tempo is a little slow for this quickie generation. The first third of the story, I asked myself , "What the..what's happening.. what is he thinking...etc." Then I look for the required phrase in almost EVERY movie : "I don't understand." That used to nearly kill me, but now I see it as an Easter Egg of sorts. I would place a bet that someone would say it , oh, about 45min. into the movie. This movie is an oldie, where the story has to carry our interest to the very end, and not the cgi nor other fx. Now that communication tune is playing in my head! I would reccomend this movie to anyone who has had experience with UFO's and other weird creteures from Crete. Ha ha, just kidding. Sorry Ya-ya Billie. Seriously, anyone who is studying film making should tear this movie apart and make another one. This time with gobs of special effects. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/17/27422.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/17/2008 3:01:21 PM
Body: If the rumors (or are they predictions?) are true that Harrison Ford/Indiana Jones dies at the end of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time George Lucas completed a franchise by killing off a returning character. But would it actually mean the end of the series? While there has been additional speculation that Shia LaBeouf could continue the franchise as Indy Jr., there is now the possibility that Ford would actually return for a fifth film, if asked. In an interview in USA Today, the actor says he’d consider it, as long as it doesn’t take another 20 years. So, no death for Indy, then? Well, over at Aint It Cool News, they’re calling Ford’s comment a ruse. It’s simply spin, they suggest, dropped into major media outlet as a way of dispelling the rumors of and expectation for the death scene. However, I believe Ford may be telling the truth, and could be doing so even if his character does finally succumb to Nazi (or now Commie) gunfire, poisonous darts, mystical powers of the Ark, the wrong goblet, the smooth removal of his still-beating heart, snakes, boulders or old age. Never underestimate the power of Hollywood sequelitis to introduce a clone or utilize some other sort of resurrection strategy. In fact, with the Indy movies, the Christian allegory would be quite appropriate. Or maybe he only seems to die, but really he hopped aboard a UFO (a la Close Encounters) while his doppelganger stayed on Earth (a la The Last Starfighter) and that was who died (some AICN commenters have roughly the same idea). One important reminder, though: when he drank from the Holy Grail in Last Crusade, didn’t Indy ensure that he’ll be alive for long, long time? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:01:21 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/17/2008 3:01:21 PMIf the rumors (or are they predictions?) are true that Harrison Ford/Indiana Jones dies at the end of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time George Lucas completed a franchise by killing off a returning character. But would it actually mean the end of the series? While there has been additional speculation that Shia LaBeouf could continue the franchise as Indy Jr., there is now the possibility that Ford would actually return for a fifth film, if asked. In an interview in USA Today, the actor says he’d consider it, as long as it doesn’t take another 20 years. So, no death for Indy, then? Well, over at Aint It Cool News, they’re calling Ford’s comment a ruse. It’s simply spin, they suggest, dropped into major media outlet as a way of dispelling the rumors of and expectation for the death scene. However, I believe Ford may be telling the truth, and could be doing so even if his character does finally succumb to Nazi (or now Commie) gunfire, poisonous darts, mystical powers of the Ark, the wrong goblet, the smooth removal of his still-beating heart, snakes, boulders or old age. Never underestimate the power of Hollywood sequelitis to introduce a clone or utilize some other sort of resurrection strategy. In fact, with the Indy movies, the Christian allegory would be quite appropriate. Or maybe he only seems to die, but really he hopped aboard a UFO (a la Close Encounters) while his doppelganger stayed on Earth (a la The Last Starfighter) and that was who died (some AICN commenters have roughly the same idea). One important reminder, though: when he drank from the Holy Grail in Last Crusade, didn’t Indy ensure that he’ll be alive for long, long time? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Science_Fiction/190/26899/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/2/2008 8:35:05 PM
Body: There's so many now that I think about it...I'll tone it down.1. 2001: A Space Odyssey That's a given.2. Brazil I'd categorize this as science fiction...it's one of the only genres it readily fits criteria for.3. Children of Men Provocative, amazing.4. Blade Runner A classic, perfect example of great sci-fi.5. Close Encounters I know it's not widely loved, but I thought it was a great film.I'd also like to mention Sunshine, which was great, as was The Matrix. And I was looking at the AFI website the other day and saw that they categorized Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as science fiction. It's a bit of a stretch, but I'll take any chance to mention how amazing that movie is.
]]>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:35:05 GMTSmooth_JTop 54/2/2008 8:35:05 PMThere&#39;s so many now that I think about it...I&#39;ll tone it down.1. 2001: A Space Odyssey That&#39;s a given.2. Brazil I&#39;d categorize this as science fiction...it&#39;s one of the only genres it readily fits criteria for.3. Children of Men Provocative, amazing.4. Blade Runner A classic, perfect example of great sci-fi.5. Close Encounters I know it&#39;s not widely loved, but I thought it was a great film.I&#39;d also like to mention Sunshine, which was great, as was The Matrix. And I was looking at the AFI website the other day and saw that they categorized Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as science fiction. It&#39;s a bit of a stretch, but I&#39;ll take any chance to mention how amazing that movie is. http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2008/3/18/26376.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 3/18/2008 9:38:12 PM
Body: After much deliberation, I have created a comprehensive list of my current 30 favorite movies ever made. I am still debating about it in my head, considering there are still so many more movies that I want to include on it. However, I widdled it down to 30. I'll reveal them periodically over the next few days, with my absolute favorites (1-10) having long explanations, and then after that getting shorter and shorter. Here's numbers 21-30 with brief explanations.21. The Shining Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece of horror is in my humble opinion the scariest film ever made. I have never seen anything that has contained as much suspense and as much sheer terror as this movie. And while I usually don't like the genre a whole lot, I love this movie.22. The 40 Year Old Virgin/Knocked Up There was a tie here, and I figured I could group them together since it's the same crew. Apatow's movies have changed comedy, and both of these films are almost beyond hilarious. I could never get sick of either of them.23. Blade Runner I love sci-fi. It's probably one of my favorite genres, whether it be film or book. This movie is near perfect as both provocative sci-fi and as neo-noir. Outstanding.24. Donnie Darko This back end of the list contains a lot of mind-benders, and I feel this is the best of the bunch. It's strange, morbid, and surreal, but amazingly relateable and compelling. And Frank still scares the sh*t out of me.25. Fight Club This movie was just awesome. Brad Pitt and Edward Norton are perfect, and surprisingly compatible playing two sides of the same character. There are so many great scenes and quotes in this movie too.26. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas I know this is a complete druggie movie, but I still just can't seem to get it out of my head. It's hilarious and offbeat, but Thompson and Gilliam just seem to have so much to say about America, even in a drug-induced stupor. And Johnny Depp is dead-on gonzo.27. Pi I only recently saw this movie, but there's just something about it that struck close to home. The use of black and white is amazing, and some of the ideas presented are so interesting.28. Kill Bill Vol. 1 & Vol. 2 These movies are great. The fight scenes are amazing, and there are some scenes that are hysterical. Everything about them is just so cool. (As a note, I decided to include film series as one entry.)29. Memento One of the most influential mind-f***s ever made, it is also one of the finest. The story is so strange and so compelling, as is the style in which it's done. This movie seriously was gipped by the Academy and others in so many ways.30. Close Encounters of the Third Kind Another sci-fi masterpiece that I couldn't resist including. The idea for this film is amazing, as is the style in which it's done. I love how you can tell that this was Spielberg "back in the day", when his imagination was really flourishing.End of part one. (As you may be able to tell, I am a compulsive list-maker.)
]]>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:38:12 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog3/18/2008 9:38:12 PMAfter much deliberation, I have created a comprehensive list of my current 30 favorite movies ever made. I am still debating about it in my head, considering there are still so many more movies that I want to include on it. However, I widdled it down to 30. I&#39;ll reveal them periodically over the next few days, with my absolute favorites (1-10) having long explanations, and then after that getting shorter and shorter. Here&#39;s numbers 21-30 with brief explanations.21. The Shining Stanley Kubrick&#39;s masterpiece of horror is in my humble opinion the scariest film ever made. I have never seen anything that has contained as much suspense and as much sheer terror as this movie. And while I usually don&#39;t like the genre a whole lot, I love this movie.22. The 40 Year Old Virgin/Knocked Up There was a tie here, and I figured I could group them together since it&#39;s the same crew. Apatow&#39;s movies have changed comedy, and both of these films are almost beyond hilarious. I could never get sick of either of them.23. Blade Runner I love sci-fi. It&#39;s probably one of my favorite genres, whether it be film or book. This movie is near perfect as both provocative sci-fi and as neo-noir. Outstanding.24. Donnie Darko This back end of the list contains a lot of mind-benders, and I feel this is the best of the bunch. It&#39;s strange, morbid, and surreal, but amazingly relateable and compelling. And Frank still scares the sh*t out of me.25. Fight Club This movie was just awesome. Brad Pitt and Edward Norton are perfect, and surprisingly compatible playing two sides of the same character. There are so many great scenes and quotes in this movie too.26. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas I know this is a complete druggie movie, but I still just can&#39;t seem to get it out of my head. It&#39;s hilarious and offbeat, but Thompson and Gilliam just seem to have so much to say about America, even in a drug-induced stupor. And Johnny Depp is dead-on gonzo.27. Pi I only recently saw this movie, but there&#39;s just something about it that struck close to home. The use of black and white is amazing, and some of the ideas presented are so interesting.28. Kill Bill Vol. 1 &amp; Vol. 2 These movies are great. The fight scenes are amazing, and there are some scenes that are hysterical. Everything about them is just so cool. (As a note, I decided to include film series as one entry.)29. Memento One of the most influential mind-f***s ever made, it is also one of the finest. The story is so strange and so compelling, as is the style in which it&#39;s done. This movie seriously was gipped by the Academy and others in so many ways.30. Close Encounters of the Third Kind Another sci-fi masterpiece that I couldn&#39;t resist including. The idea for this film is amazing, as is the style in which it&#39;s done. I love how you can tell that this was Spielberg &quot;back in the day&quot;, when his imagination was really flourishing.End of part one. (As you may be able to tell, I am a compulsive list-maker.) http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/2/14/25144.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/14/2008 3:01:19 PM
Body: We could do without the introduction with clips from the past three films. Just as Spielberg has pointed out in a recent promotional video, all we need is that first shadow on the jeep. Because few characters in cinema are able to be recognized on silhouette alone, and Indy is one of those few. But why should I complain about anything having to do with this long-awaited trailer for one of the most highly anticipated films of all time (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull!)? Could it be that we’re all a bit cynical and are just waiting for it to be a Star Wars-prequels-size disappointment? Yeah, it could be that. However, there’s no denying that, aside from a few quips (obviously we knew there’d be jokes about Indy’s age — hence the “Damn, I thought that was closer” gag), it looks really friggin awesome. Perhaps I’m just giddy over the shot of something with “Roswell, New Mexico” written on it (Raiders meets Close Encounters!). And the definite (but by now not at all surprising) callback to the warehouse where the Ark of the Covenant was hidden away. Or maybe I’m just drawn in by Cate Blanchett and her bad-ass Commie bob. Or is it the score, the whip, the Marion!? Am I too excited? Of course. But so is everyone else. I had planned to link to a number of reactions this afternoon, but unfortunately there are few bloggers or commenters with more to say than “YES! AWESOME!” The only really interesting review of the trailer I can find comes from Jeffrey Wells: (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/14/2008 3:01:19 PM We could do without the introduction with clips from the past three films. Just as Spielberg has pointed out in a recent promotional video, all we need is that first shadow on the jeep. Because few characters in cinema are able to be recognized on silhouette alone, and Indy is one of those few. But why should I complain about anything having to do with this long-awaited trailer for one of the most highly anticipated films of all time (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull!)? Could it be that we’re all a bit cynical and are just waiting for it to be a Star Wars-prequels-size disappointment? Yeah, it could be that. However, there’s no denying that, aside from a few quips (obviously we knew there’d be jokes about Indy’s age — hence the “Damn, I thought that was closer” gag), it looks really friggin awesome. Perhaps I’m just giddy over the shot of something with “Roswell, New Mexico” written on it (Raiders meets Close Encounters!). And the definite (but by now not at all surprising) callback to the warehouse where the Ark of the Covenant was hidden away. Or maybe I’m just drawn in by Cate Blanchett and her bad-ass Commie bob. Or is it the score, the whip, the Marion!? Am I too excited? Of course. But so is everyone else. I had planned to link to a number of reactions this afternoon, but unfortunately there are few bloggers or commenters with more to say than “YES! AWESOME!” The only really interesting review of the trailer I can find comes from Jeffrey Wells: (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/music/MemberTagFilms.aspxmusic
Number of films tagged: 4341

Number of people who tagged: 144

Number of times used: 481

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT4341144481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Creepy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCreepy
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 211

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT17081211Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lame/MemberTagFilms.aspxlame
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 162

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:10:30 GMT14065162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/obsession/MemberTagFilms.aspxobsession
Number of films tagged: 1134

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 136

]]>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:49 GMT113464136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/favorite/MemberTagFilms.aspxfavorite
Number of films tagged: 85

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:22:58 GMT8562127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/aliens/MemberTagFilms.aspxaliens
Number of films tagged: 74

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 111

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:12:57 GMT7451111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/psychological/MemberTagFilms.aspxpsychological
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 74

]]>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:37:13 GMT484174Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/alien/MemberTagFilms.aspxalien
Number of films tagged: 80

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 129

]]>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:27:56 GMT8038129Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scifi/MemberTagFilms.aspxscifi
Number of films tagged: 56

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 101

]]>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 07:07:43 GMT5636101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Didnt-Get-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxDidnt-Get-It
Number of films tagged: 36

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 42

]]>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:46:38 GMT362242Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Spielberg/MemberTagFilms.aspxSpielberg
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 49

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:14:12 GMT302249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/government/MemberTagFilms.aspxgovernment
Number of films tagged: 1063

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 126

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:36 GMT106321126Tag