list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Schindler's List 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/Schindler_s_List/81023/default.aspx Title: Schindler's List
Year: 1993
Director: Steven Spielberg
Plot: Based on a true story, Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List stars Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler, a German businessman in Poland who sees an opportunity to make money from the Nazis' rise to power. He starts a company to make cookware and utensils, using flattery and bribes to win military contracts, and brings in accountant and financier Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) to help run the factory. By staffing his plant with Jews who've been herded into Krakow's ghetto by Nazi troops, Schindler has a dependable unpaid labor force. For Stern, a job in a war-related plant could mean survival for himself and the other Jews working for Schindler. However, in 1942, all of Krakow's Jews are assigned to the Plaszow Forced Labor Camp, overseen by Commandant Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes), an embittered alcoholic who occasionally shoots prisoners from his balcony. Schindler arranges to continue using Polish Jews in his plant, but, as he sees what is happening to his employees, he begins to develop a conscience. He realizes that his factory (now refitted to manufacture ammunition) is the only thing preventing his staff from being shipped to the death camps. Soon Schindler demands more workers and starts bribing Nazi leaders to keep Jews on his employee lists and out of the camps. By the time Germany falls to the allies, Schindler has lost his entire fortune -- and saved 1,100 people from likely death. Schindler's List was nominated for 12 Academy Awards and won seven, including Best Picture and a long-coveted Best Director for Spielberg, and it quickly gained praise as one of the finest American movies about the Holocaust. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 74
Number of Lists: 104
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 18
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:19:42 GMTSchindler's List1993Steven SpielbergBased on a true story, <a href="/players/P___112325/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Steven Spielberg</a>'s Schindler's List stars <a href="/players/P____52070/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Liam Neeson</a> as Oskar Schindler, a German businessman in Poland who sees an opportunity to make money from the Nazis' rise to power. He starts a company to make cookware and utensils, using flattery and bribes to win military contracts, and brings in accountant and financier Itzhak Stern (<a href="/players/P____38383/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ben Kingsley</a>) to help run the factory. By staffing his plant with Jews who've been herded into Krakow's ghetto by Nazi troops, Schindler has a dependable unpaid labor force. For Stern, a job in a war-related plant could mean survival for himself and the other Jews working for Schindler. However, in 1942, all of Krakow's Jews are assigned to the Plaszow Forced Labor Camp, overseen by Commandant Amon Goeth (<a href="/players/P____23390/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ralph Fiennes</a>), an embittered alcoholic who occasionally shoots prisoners from his balcony. Schindler arranges to continue using Polish Jews in his plant, but, as he sees what is happening to his employees, he begins to develop a conscience. He realizes that his factory (now refitted to manufacture ammunition) is the only thing preventing his staff from being shipped to the death camps. Soon Schindler demands more workers and starts bribing Nazi leaders to keep Jews on his employee lists and out of the camps. By the time Germany falls to the allies, Schindler has lost his entire fortune -- and saved 1,100 people from likely death. Schindler's List was nominated for 12 Academy Awards and won seven, including Best Picture and a long-coveted Best Director for Spielberg, and it quickly gained praise as one of the finest American movies about the Holocaust. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide74Tag Target (>10)10412184http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t40723kqubv.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Schindler_s_List/81023/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_April_27_3_Hours/625/41839/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/28/2009 9:30:25 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] I think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times. Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times. So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking! If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list. [/quote] WOW! Until seeing that list, I had just assumed that I don't really care for long movies. But I'm actually really surprised at some of the films on that list because I've never really thought of them long-winded or even the least bit taxing to watch. You already mentioned Magnolia, which I pretty much figured on a bit over two hours. Schindler's List is one of my all time favorite films, weighing in at 195 minutes.... But on the other hand, there are some on this list I definately think would have benefited from a bit of cutting room floor action. I really think La Dolce Vita could have used about a 20 minute trim or so. (don't kill me).
]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:30:25 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme4/28/2009 9:30:25 PM[quote user="mercurial"] I think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times. Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times. So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking! If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list. [/quote] WOW! Until seeing that list, I had just assumed that I don't really care for long movies. But I'm actually really surprised at some of the films on that list because I've never really thought of them long-winded or even the least bit taxing to watch. You already mentioned Magnolia, which I pretty much figured on a bit over two hours. Schindler's List is one of my all time favorite films, weighing in at 195 minutes.... But on the other hand, there are some on this list I definately think would have benefited from a bit of cutting room floor action. I really think La Dolce Vita could have used about a 20 minute trim or so. (don't kill me). http://www.spout.com/groups/Community_Recommendations/Re_Favorite_Director/643/40874/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: tadiv
Post To: Community Recommendations
Post Date: 3/6/2009 3:18:13 PM
Body: [quote user="tadiv"] "...for example: Jurassic Park"? [rant deleted] Sorry -- I had written a rant about the selection of Jurassic Park - but that's not really fair, is it... Maybe Schildler's List would have been a less controversial example of the work of a great director. Tom P.S. I wonder - did you shoose to write "I like the movies" for a specific reason, or is that just what you wrote? [/quote] Okay - I'm just wondering here -- can anyone tell us why I wrote the P.S. question? Tom
]]>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:18:13 GMTtadivCommunity Recommendations3/6/2009 3:18:13 PM[quote user="tadiv"] "...for example: Jurassic Park"? [rant deleted] Sorry -- I had written a rant about the selection of Jurassic Park - but that's not really fair, is it... Maybe Schildler's List would have been a less controversial example of the work of a great director. Tom P.S. I wonder - did you shoose to write "I like the movies" for a specific reason, or is that just what you wrote? [/quote] Okay - I'm just wondering here -- can anyone tell us why I wrote the P.S. question? Tom http://www.spout.com/groups/Community_Recommendations/Re_Favorite_Director/643/40873/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: tadiv
Post To: Community Recommendations
Post Date: 3/6/2009 3:14:05 PM
Body: [quote user="haku-cho"] [quote user="rjsprague"] If you had to choose ONE director (I know, kind of silly) as your favorite. Who would it be, and feel free to offer an explanation? Also include some films you feel represent the reason for you choice, or a link to the director's page on spout. [/quote] What is with Steven SPIELBERG. He is a great director. I like the movies. For example: Jurassic Park [/quote] "...for example: Jurassic Park"? [rant deleted] Sorry -- I had written a rant about the selection of Jurassic Park - but that's not really fair, is it... Maybe Schildler's List would have been a less controversial example of the work of a great director. Tom P.S. I wonder - did you shoose to write "I like the movies" for a specific reason, or is that just what you wrote?
]]>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:14:05 GMTtadivCommunity Recommendations3/6/2009 3:14:05 PM[quote user="haku-cho"] [quote user="rjsprague"] If you had to choose ONE director (I know, kind of silly) as your favorite. Who would it be, and feel free to offer an explanation? Also include some films you feel represent the reason for you choice, or a link to the director's page on spout. [/quote] What is with Steven SPIELBERG. He is a great director. I like the movies. For example: Jurassic Park [/quote] "...for example: Jurassic Park"? [rant deleted] Sorry -- I had written a rant about the selection of Jurassic Park - but that's not really fair, is it... Maybe Schildler's List would have been a less controversial example of the work of a great director. Tom P.S. I wonder - did you shoose to write "I like the movies" for a specific reason, or is that just what you wrote? http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/2/40168.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/2/2009 5:01:22 PM
Body: With Danny Boyle’s DGA win over the weekend, Slumdog Millionaire achieved a near-impossible feat; it became even more favored to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Once thought to be an underdog, Slumdog has been pretty much unstoppable throughout the awards season, even picking up the undeserved top honor at the SAG Awards, and has never fallen from its position of frontrunner since it took the lead months ago. Yet last week, the internet was populated by talk of a Slumdog backlash, and for the first time in weeks, other Best Picture candidates were seriously being discussed as slightly plausible victors. The two titles considered most likely to be a threat to Boyle’s film are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Milk, with little concern for either Frost/Nixon or The Reader. However, while the former candidate is probably a sure thing to lose, the latter film should not yet be dismissed. Before the Academy Award nominations were announced last month, The Reader wasn’t even thought to be a contender for any major category except Best Supporting Actress. Now, among its five nominations, it’s up for three higher-tiered Oscars, including Best Picture. So, we can’t rightly continue underestimating its potential. This isn’t to say that we are predicting The Reader to win Best Picture; Slumdog is still the safest bet for the top prize. But odds for The Reader do need to be adjusted, as its chances are a lot closer to, if not better than, secondary favorites Benjamin Button and Milk. Of course, as the it stands now, the film should be an appealing choice for any gamblers out there, because a surprise Best Picture win for The Reader would pay out big time. So, our immediate apologies to betters if the following seven factors have any influence on professional oddsmakers out there. The Cancel-Out Factor Let’s begin with the simplest argument, which has also been used recently as evidence that Milk’s chances for the top award have gone up: Whether due to a backlash or not, Slumdog’s lead may be shortening, and Benjamin Button may be gaining. So, the two films could cancel each other out and The Reader, not Milk, could sneak forward. Or, to give Milk the same credit as others are giving it, the three favorites cancel each other out and The Reader makes an even greater leap forward. The Stephen Daldry Factor Now for the weakest, but not completely implausible argument: It’s clear the Academy loves Stephen Daldry, as they’ve nominated him for Best Director every time he’s made a movie. Unfortunately for him, there’s no way he’ll win his category this year, because no director has ever won the Oscar without at least being nominated for the DGA award. So, Boyle remains a lock for Best Director, but Daldry’s fans could try and make a serious push for the film to win Best Picture. It would be a somewhat ironic win, since Daldry’s first nomination came for a film that wasn’t even nominated for the top award (Billy Elliot). The Posthumous Oscars Factor (aka the Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella Factor) Thanks to a special exception the Academy made for The Reader, there are now three posthumous Oscar nominees. Heath Ledger is most definitely going to win Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Dark Knight, but what about Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella? The two are among The Reader’s four producers named to receive trophies if the film wins Best Picture. Academy members could consider this a year to pay special honor to the artists they’ve lost, and that would mean voting for two of their favorite filmmaking talents. On the other hand, though, with Pollack having previously won two Oscars (out of six nominations) and Minghella having previously won one (out of three nominations), it’s not as if the voters will feel as much of an obligation as they would if neither had been honored before. Still, never underestimate the power of the celebrity death cult. The Harvey Weinstein Factor It’s been awhile since Harvey’s heyday at the Oscars. While heading Miramax, he managed a couple surprise victories in the Best Picture category, and at the 2003 awards, Harvey actually had a connection to four of the five Best Picture nominees. He used to be known as someone not to be reckoned with when it came to his desire for Academy Awards. But it’s taken years for The Weinstein Co. to see one of its films in contention for the top prize. So, will Harvey once again show great influence over the Academy? According to Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger, Harvey’s been advised not to go crazy with the Oscar campaigning this year, partly for economic reasons and partly because his chances are considered low. But Karger thinks he’s still going to “go whole hog,” because “otherwise he wouldn’t be Harvey Weinstein.” And when Harvey goes whole hog, things like Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan happen. Seriously, there are already those who believe the whole Slumdog backlash thing was started by a certain “truth-and ethically challenged mogul” who would benefit from such a smear campaign. The Schindler’s List Factor As much as we all like to joke about the Academy’s Holocaust fetish, no Holocaust movie is a sure thing for Best Picture (especially if such a film is the one non-Harvey Weinstein-related nominee). But one Holocaust film in particular is the Academy’s pride and joy: Schindler’s List. If Slumdog Millionaire continues its awards season sweep, garnering top kudos from the WGA, the BAFTAs and finally the Oscars, it will actually become a more-honored film than Schindler’s List, which holds the current record for awards season domination. Unfortunately for Spielberg’s film, as noted by In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley, there were no BFCA or SAG ensemble awards back then. So, due to more opportunities, Slumdog could break the record rather unfairly. For Schindler’s List-loving members of the Academy, that might be an incentive to vote for The Reader, a fellow Holocaust film, instead of for Slumdog, which nobody could reasonably argue is better than the 1994 Best Picture-winner. The Tolerance Factor One of the major arguments in favor of Milk’s chances are that a Best Picture win for that film would make up for the Brokeback Mountain loss three years ago. And the Academy might vote for Milk in order to prove it is tolerant. But in a way, honoring Crash over Brokeback Mountain was a display of tolerance, only one that focused on race rather than sexual orientation. The Reader could be this year’s Crash, and not just because it’s one of the most critically hated Best Picture candidates in years. An argument against the aforementioned Schindler’s List Factor is that The Reader is almost like an anti-Holocaust film, because it attempts to make the audience sympathize with a concentration camp guard who slaughtered many Jewish prisoners. If the Academy should really feel the need to again prove its members are tolerant, honoring The Reader, which allegorically deals with Germany’s struggle to come to terms with its Nazi past, would be an even stronger display of this than would honoring a film focusing on gay rights. The again, the latter action may potentially be easier for some voters. The Surprise Factor Okay, this is actually the simplest argument: the Oscars are full of surprises. From Marisa Tomei’s out-numbered defeat of the British (and Australian) in 1992 to the shocking 1936 win by write-in candidate Hal Mohr to the unexpected Best Picture wins by non-frontrunners Chariots of Fire, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago and Crash (among others), the Academy should never be underestimated when it comes to their aim with monkey wrenches. So, the best reason not to dismiss The Reader in the Best Picture race is that all Oscars races are anyone’s game up until the envelopes are opened and the winners are named. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:01:22 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/2/2009 5:01:22 PMWith Danny Boyle’s DGA win over the weekend, Slumdog Millionaire achieved a near-impossible feat; it became even more favored to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Once thought to be an underdog, Slumdog has been pretty much unstoppable throughout the awards season, even picking up the undeserved top honor at the SAG Awards, and has never fallen from its position of frontrunner since it took the lead months ago. Yet last week, the internet was populated by talk of a Slumdog backlash, and for the first time in weeks, other Best Picture candidates were seriously being discussed as slightly plausible victors. The two titles considered most likely to be a threat to Boyle’s film are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Milk, with little concern for either Frost/Nixon or The Reader. However, while the former candidate is probably a sure thing to lose, the latter film should not yet be dismissed. Before the Academy Award nominations were announced last month, The Reader wasn’t even thought to be a contender for any major category except Best Supporting Actress. Now, among its five nominations, it’s up for three higher-tiered Oscars, including Best Picture. So, we can’t rightly continue underestimating its potential. This isn’t to say that we are predicting The Reader to win Best Picture; Slumdog is still the safest bet for the top prize. But odds for The Reader do need to be adjusted, as its chances are a lot closer to, if not better than, secondary favorites Benjamin Button and Milk. Of course, as the it stands now, the film should be an appealing choice for any gamblers out there, because a surprise Best Picture win for The Reader would pay out big time. So, our immediate apologies to betters if the following seven factors have any influence on professional oddsmakers out there. The Cancel-Out Factor Let’s begin with the simplest argument, which has also been used recently as evidence that Milk’s chances for the top award have gone up: Whether due to a backlash or not, Slumdog’s lead may be shortening, and Benjamin Button may be gaining. So, the two films could cancel each other out and The Reader, not Milk, could sneak forward. Or, to give Milk the same credit as others are giving it, the three favorites cancel each other out and The Reader makes an even greater leap forward. The Stephen Daldry Factor Now for the weakest, but not completely implausible argument: It’s clear the Academy loves Stephen Daldry, as they’ve nominated him for Best Director every time he’s made a movie. Unfortunately for him, there’s no way he’ll win his category this year, because no director has ever won the Oscar without at least being nominated for the DGA award. So, Boyle remains a lock for Best Director, but Daldry’s fans could try and make a serious push for the film to win Best Picture. It would be a somewhat ironic win, since Daldry’s first nomination came for a film that wasn’t even nominated for the top award (Billy Elliot). The Posthumous Oscars Factor (aka the Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella Factor) Thanks to a special exception the Academy made for The Reader, there are now three posthumous Oscar nominees. Heath Ledger is most definitely going to win Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Dark Knight, but what about Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella? The two are among The Reader’s four producers named to receive trophies if the film wins Best Picture. Academy members could consider this a year to pay special honor to the artists they’ve lost, and that would mean voting for two of their favorite filmmaking talents. On the other hand, though, with Pollack having previously won two Oscars (out of six nominations) and Minghella having previously won one (out of three nominations), it’s not as if the voters will feel as much of an obligation as they would if neither had been honored before. Still, never underestimate the power of the celebrity death cult. The Harvey Weinstein Factor It’s been awhile since Harvey’s heyday at the Oscars. While heading Miramax, he managed a couple surprise victories in the Best Picture category, and at the 2003 awards, Harvey actually had a connection to four of the five Best Picture nominees. He used to be known as someone not to be reckoned with when it came to his desire for Academy Awards. But it’s taken years for The Weinstein Co. to see one of its films in contention for the top prize. So, will Harvey once again show great influence over the Academy? According to Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger, Harvey’s been advised not to go crazy with the Oscar campaigning this year, partly for economic reasons and partly because his chances are considered low. But Karger thinks he’s still going to “go whole hog,” because “otherwise he wouldn’t be Harvey Weinstein.” And when Harvey goes whole hog, things like Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan happen. Seriously, there are already those who believe the whole Slumdog backlash thing was started by a certain “truth-and ethically challenged mogul” who would benefit from such a smear campaign. The Schindler’s List Factor As much as we all like to joke about the Academy’s Holocaust fetish, no Holocaust movie is a sure thing for Best Picture (especially if such a film is the one non-Harvey Weinstein-related nominee). But one Holocaust film in particular is the Academy’s pride and joy: Schindler’s List. If Slumdog Millionaire continues its awards season sweep, garnering top kudos from the WGA, the BAFTAs and finally the Oscars, it will actually become a more-honored film than Schindler’s List, which holds the current record for awards season domination. Unfortunately for Spielberg’s film, as noted by In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley, there were no BFCA or SAG ensemble awards back then. So, due to more opportunities, Slumdog could break the record rather unfairly. For Schindler’s List-loving members of the Academy, that might be an incentive to vote for The Reader, a fellow Holocaust film, instead of for Slumdog, which nobody could reasonably argue is better than the 1994 Best Picture-winner. The Tolerance Factor One of the major arguments in favor of Milk’s chances are that a Best Picture win for that film would make up for the Brokeback Mountain loss three years ago. And the Academy might vote for Milk in order to prove it is tolerant. But in a way, honoring Crash over Brokeback Mountain was a display of tolerance, only one that focused on race rather than sexual orientation. The Reader could be this year’s Crash, and not just because it’s one of the most critically hated Best Picture candidates in years. An argument against the aforementioned Schindler’s List Factor is that The Reader is almost like an anti-Holocaust film, because it attempts to make the audience sympathize with a concentration camp guard who slaughtered many Jewish prisoners. If the Academy should really feel the need to again prove its members are tolerant, honoring The Reader, which allegorically deals with Germany’s struggle to come to terms with its Nazi past, would be an even stronger display of this than would honoring a film focusing on gay rights. The again, the latter action may potentially be easier for some voters. The Surprise Factor Okay, this is actually the simplest argument: the Oscars are full of surprises. From Marisa Tomei’s out-numbered defeat of the British (and Australian) in 1992 to the shocking 1936 win by write-in candidate Hal Mohr to the unexpected Best Picture wins by non-frontrunners Chariots of Fire, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago and Crash (among others), the Academy should never be underestimated when it comes to their aim with monkey wrenches. So, the best reason not to dismiss The Reader in the Best Picture race is that all Oscars races are anyone’s game up until the envelopes are opened and the winners are named. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/moviebuff1234/archive/2009/1/20/39690.aspx Post By: moviebuff1234
Post To: moviebuff1234 Blog
Post Date: 1/20/2009 12:36:02 AM
Body: I just saw this movie after hearing about for so many years. Wow, what a powerful movie. Some of the scenes are hard to sit through. The screenplay was excellently written by Thomas Keneally and Steven Zallian. And it was taken much further by the wondefrully talented, Steven Spielberg, who again demonstrates that he can do non-action movies equally as well. All of the actors are excellent in this movie. I recommend for anyone to see this.
]]>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:36:02 GMTmoviebuff1234moviebuff1234 Blog1/20/2009 12:36:02 AMI just saw this movie after hearing about for so many years. Wow, what a powerful movie. Some of the scenes are hard to sit through. The screenplay was excellently written by Thomas Keneally and Steven Zallian. And it was taken much further by the wondefrully talented, Steven Spielberg, who again demonstrates that he can do non-action movies equally as well. All of the actors are excellent in this movie. I recommend for anyone to see this. http://www.spout.com/groups/Forever_Young/Re_Top_5_Films_of_the_90s/85/35726/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Forever Young
Post Date: 9/30/2008 4:56:32 PM
Body: [quote user="filmgal81"] ( Originally posted on the 80s Movies board, but i think it fits better here) Picking up where Seely left off, I'd like to start a list of the Top 5 Films of the 90s. Again, not necessarily cinematic genius, but films that epitomize how you remember the 90s ( or a particular part of the 90s). Here's mine: 1) Edward Scissorhands - does anything scream 90s like this film? Early Johnny Depp, the Rebel Without a Cause like angst of the early 90s personified in Tim Burton's creation about a man forever on the outside of the "perfect" world ( a theme that also reverberates throughout many of his later films) 2) Singles - A film complete with long hair, plaid shirts, and the Seattle grunge music scene- classic! 3) House Party- on the lighter side, there was this fun film featuring a very popular rap duo named Kid n Play. The fashion, the music, the dancing, blatant sexual references...also classic! 4)Dances with Wolves - & 5) Wyatt Earp - 90s actors of the moment paying tribute to our frontier past. [/quote] Ah, thank you for posting! This group has been sleepy lately, so it's nice to know people are still interested. And a good topic...but... I have a question: are we talking our five fave films in general from the 90s? Or our five fave teen flicks? Since this is the group devoted to those guilty pleasures we call the teen movie, I'll approach it from both vantage points, but if you like Top 5's, the Top 5 group is the best place to play this game. Still, we're open to all here - So: top 5 teen flicks from the 90s (not as good as from the 80s...but yeah). 1. 10 Things I Hate About You - I admit it. I like it. I mostly like Heath before his superstardom, but the whole massively guilty pleasure is just fun to watch. Even when you're sick! 2. Clueless - As if! Whatever happened to what's her name? You know, the star? 3. Never Been Kissed - Is Drew Barrymore believable as Josie Grossie? Hard to say, but another massively guilty pleasure. 4. Election - Overachiever hell by Reese Witherspoon. 5. Now and Then - The female version of Stand By Me for the 90s! Now, to pick my favorite movies of the 90s. That's considerably harder - I mean, it was a good decade and all, but I don't think my favoritest films include many from the decade. I'm trying to think back to my movie collection; ironically, it dances around the 90s quite dramatically. Let's see if I can pick five... 1. Forrest Gump / Apollo 13 - I put these Tom Hanks movies together because this was during the Tom Hanks era, when he couldn't escape a year without an Oscar nod. I like Philadelphia too, but I liked these movies more. Forrest sees it all - it's funny and touching and yes, he's not a smart man, but he knows what love is! And Apollo 13 still tenses me up, and I already know the outcome (I have seen it a few times, after all, in addition to, well, history). 2. Schindler's List - It's hard to watch, but it's the artistic pinnacle of the decade without question. 3. Pulp Fiction - QT exploded onto the map with this quintessential film, and John Travolta had a second coming. It's violent, profane, and overtly sexual (not to mention the unadulterated cocaine use), but it's one of the best told yarns on film. 4. American Beauty / The Usual Suspects - Two of my favorite movies starring one of my favorite actors. Kevin Spacey, playing the duplicitous Verbal Kint or hysterically sardonic Lester Burnham, pretty much rocked my world, and I've watched these movies multiple times and own them both too. 5. The Sixth Sense - Shyamalan seems to offend many nowadays, but no one can deny the thrills and chills factor of this, his very first film, about seeing dead people. And for good measure, my top 5 honorable mentions for the decade: Wayne's World / Austin Powers - It was Mike Myers' decade, after all. Toy Story - A masterpiece but oddly not my favorite Pixar anymore. The Mask / The Truman Show - It was Jim Carrey's decade too, and these two films exemplify his wacky acting schizophrenia. The Silence of the Lambs - Almost made my top 5, but I can't watch it repeatedly. Hannibal scares me. And he should. Titanic - Oh shut up. You know you loved it the first time you saw it. It was only after Celine Dion's painfully worded ballad and James Cameron's self-indulgent "I'm the king of the world" nod that you decided you were too cool to like it. Besides, the production values on the film are astounding. I get cold just watching those poor people drown in the icy Atlantic.
]]>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:56:32 GMTpippin06Forever Young9/30/2008 4:56:32 PM[quote user="filmgal81"] ( Originally posted on the 80s Movies board, but i think it fits better here) Picking up where Seely left off, I'd like to start a list of the Top 5 Films of the 90s. Again, not necessarily cinematic genius, but films that epitomize how you remember the 90s ( or a particular part of the 90s). Here's mine: 1) Edward Scissorhands - does anything scream 90s like this film? Early Johnny Depp, the Rebel Without a Cause like angst of the early 90s personified in Tim Burton's creation about a man forever on the outside of the "perfect" world ( a theme that also reverberates throughout many of his later films) 2) Singles - A film complete with long hair, plaid shirts, and the Seattle grunge music scene- classic! 3) House Party- on the lighter side, there was this fun film featuring a very popular rap duo named Kid n Play. The fashion, the music, the dancing, blatant sexual references...also classic! 4)Dances with Wolves - &amp; 5) Wyatt Earp - 90s actors of the moment paying tribute to our frontier past. [/quote] Ah, thank you for posting! This group has been sleepy lately, so it's nice to know people are still interested. And a good topic...but... I have a question: are we talking our five fave films in general from the 90s? Or our five fave teen flicks? Since this is the group devoted to those guilty pleasures we call the teen movie, I'll approach it from both vantage points, but if you like Top 5's, the Top 5 group is the best place to play this game. Still, we're open to all here - So: top 5 teen flicks from the 90s (not as good as from the 80s...but yeah). 1. 10 Things I Hate About You - I admit it. I like it. I mostly like Heath before his superstardom, but the whole massively guilty pleasure is just fun to watch. Even when you're sick! 2. Clueless - As if! Whatever happened to what's her name? You know, the star? 3. Never Been Kissed - Is Drew Barrymore believable as Josie Grossie? Hard to say, but another massively guilty pleasure. 4. Election - Overachiever hell by Reese Witherspoon. 5. Now and Then - The female version of Stand By Me for the 90s! Now, to pick my favorite movies of the 90s. That's considerably harder - I mean, it was a good decade and all, but I don't think my favoritest films include many from the decade. I'm trying to think back to my movie collection; ironically, it dances around the 90s quite dramatically. Let's see if I can pick five... 1. Forrest Gump / Apollo 13 - I put these Tom Hanks movies together because this was during the Tom Hanks era, when he couldn't escape a year without an Oscar nod. I like Philadelphia too, but I liked these movies more. Forrest sees it all - it's funny and touching and yes, he's not a smart man, but he knows what love is! And Apollo 13 still tenses me up, and I already know the outcome (I have seen it a few times, after all, in addition to, well, history). 2. Schindler's List - It's hard to watch, but it's the artistic pinnacle of the decade without question. 3. Pulp Fiction - QT exploded onto the map with this quintessential film, and John Travolta had a second coming. It's violent, profane, and overtly sexual (not to mention the unadulterated cocaine use), but it's one of the best told yarns on film. 4. American Beauty / The Usual Suspects - Two of my favorite movies starring one of my favorite actors. Kevin Spacey, playing the duplicitous Verbal Kint or hysterically sardonic Lester Burnham, pretty much rocked my world, and I've watched these movies multiple times and own them both too. 5. The Sixth Sense - Shyamalan seems to offend many nowadays, but no one can deny the thrills and chills factor of this, his very first film, about seeing dead people. And for good measure, my top 5 honorable mentions for the decade: Wayne's World / Austin Powers - It was Mike Myers' decade, after all. Toy Story - A masterpiece but oddly not my favorite Pixar anymore. The Mask / The Truman Show - It was Jim Carrey's decade too, and these two films exemplify his wacky acting schizophrenia. The Silence of the Lambs - Almost made my top 5, but I can't watch it repeatedly. Hannibal scares me. And he should. Titanic - Oh shut up. You know you loved it the first time you saw it. It was only after Celine Dion's painfully worded ballad and James Cameron's self-indulgent "I'm the king of the world" nod that you decided you were too cool to like it. Besides, the production values on the film are astounding. I get cold just watching those poor people drown in the icy Atlantic. http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/8/23/34302.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/23/2008 8:47:49 PM
Body: There are occassions when you look at the cast list, look at the crew and look at the source material for a film and are forced to ponder how so many promising elements turn into a turkey. Based on Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel that was to Louisiana Governor Huey P. Long what Primary Colors was to Bill Clinton, the film tells the story of a fiery, populist politician (Sean Penn) who takes on the oil industry. We see the events from the perspective of Jack Burden (Jude Law), a newspaper writer who is drawn into Willie Stark's campaign for Governor and subsequently his administration. Stark, who was based upon Governor Long, is urged to run by a political schemer named Tiny Duffy who is trying to use Stark to get his own candidate elected Governor. When Burden reveals to Stark that Tiny is using him, the politician responds with a verbal tirade at his next stump stop against the fat cats - a theme that resonates with the crowd. Sean Penn's Stark is a curious beast that never really settles for me. I can admire the way he physically apes Long when giving speeches, most noticeable in the way he moves his hands as he talks, but his personality feels indistinct. It is almost as if he had decided that Stark is a morally ambigious character and so should be "grey". Not a mixture of motives, not a mixture of actions - just soft, "grey" ambiguity. Now, I have nothing against ambiguity in and of itself in a character's motivations if we are presented with a character and asked to make judgements. However, Zaillian's script never lets us see Stark clearly, keeping him at ambigious middle-distance and shrowding the impeachment proceedings in mystery. In doing so it becomes ambigious as to whether those charges, whatever they are, are trumped up or based on evidence of some kind. We never know Stark so how can we judge him? We also cannot share in Burden's disillusionment concerning Stark when we never get a feel for what attracts Burden to him in the first place. More ambiguity. Is it that he is drawn to the underdog? Does he respect Stark's resume? Does he want to undermine his newspaper's line on the election? The principal problem with Burden is that he simply is not a likeable or empathic character. From the opening frame of this film he is cold and unhappy. We never really understand the hopes and aspirations of the character, or why he takes some very dramatic decisions. Clearly there is a reason he is drawn to Stark but by not letting us share Burden's journey, it is hard not to be baffled by one major decision the character takes. Perhaps the film's broken narrative structure is also to blame. We do not follow the relationship between Burden and Stark as it happens but we begin near the end of the narrative. A more conventional chronological timeline may have been less flashy but it would have made the story and the characters more accessible. The film attempts to guide us emotionally through its style but the music is too brash and the visual design tries far too hard to be eye-catching. Both the music and art design end up being counter-productive, being distracting rather than aiding the telling of the story. For instance, in one scene the production suddenly switches from colour to black and white and when blood appears it is the sole colour on the screen. A nice effect certainly, but it is very reminiscent of a scene in Schindler's List (which Zaillian also scripted) and feels like it was only shot that way to show off the effect. Zaillian forgets that design should always be in service of the story, clumsily pulling the focus away from the actors and towards the direction. All the King's Men is a disenaging and disappointing work that fails to make the most of its elements. Given its cast, which contains the likes of Anthony Hopkins and Kate Winslet, and the pedigree of its crew it is astonishing how this picture could end up falling so wide of the mark. This is a film that never decides what it wants to say or why its messages, whatever they are meant to be, are relevant to today's audience. It is clear that the makers have a love of the original text, the excruciating voice-overs culled and stitched together from the novel are evidence of an admiration for Warren's poetic prose, but the film needed to go further to make a connection from the politicking of the mid-20th century to that of the start of the 21st century. Zaillian himself recognises this problem, explaining that this was the reason he moved the setting of the story from 1930s Louisiana to the 1950s. Yet in terms of campaigning style there is little difference between the two. The original novel's success was in its daring examination of the political machine at a time when we lacked cynicism. What could have been a biting satire with relevance to today's politics feels like a record of a bygone age and a missed opportunity.
]]>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:47:49 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture8/23/2008 8:47:49 PMThere are occassions when you look at the cast list, look at the crew and look at the source material for a film and are forced to ponder how so many promising elements turn into a turkey. Based on Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel that was to Louisiana Governor Huey P. Long what Primary Colors was to Bill Clinton, the film tells the story of a fiery, populist politician (Sean Penn) who takes on the oil industry. We see the events from the perspective of Jack Burden (Jude Law), a newspaper writer who is drawn into Willie Stark's campaign for Governor and subsequently his administration. Stark, who was based upon Governor Long, is urged to run by a political schemer named Tiny Duffy who is trying to use Stark to get his own candidate elected Governor. When Burden reveals to Stark that Tiny is using him, the politician responds with a verbal tirade at his next stump stop against the fat cats - a theme that resonates with the crowd. Sean Penn's Stark is a curious beast that never really settles for me. I can admire the way he physically apes Long when giving speeches, most noticeable in the way he moves his hands as he talks, but his personality feels indistinct. It is almost as if he had decided that Stark is a morally ambigious character and so should be "grey". Not a mixture of motives, not a mixture of actions - just soft, "grey" ambiguity. Now, I have nothing against ambiguity in and of itself in a character's motivations if we are presented with a character and asked to make judgements. However, Zaillian's script never lets us see Stark clearly, keeping him at ambigious middle-distance and shrowding the impeachment proceedings in mystery. In doing so it becomes ambigious as to whether those charges, whatever they are, are trumped up or based on evidence of some kind. We never know Stark so how can we judge him? We also cannot share in Burden's disillusionment concerning Stark when we never get a feel for what attracts Burden to him in the first place. More ambiguity. Is it that he is drawn to the underdog? Does he respect Stark's resume? Does he want to undermine his newspaper's line on the election? The principal problem with Burden is that he simply is not a likeable or empathic character. From the opening frame of this film he is cold and unhappy. We never really understand the hopes and aspirations of the character, or why he takes some very dramatic decisions. Clearly there is a reason he is drawn to Stark but by not letting us share Burden's journey, it is hard not to be baffled by one major decision the character takes. Perhaps the film's broken narrative structure is also to blame. We do not follow the relationship between Burden and Stark as it happens but we begin near the end of the narrative. A more conventional chronological timeline may have been less flashy but it would have made the story and the characters more accessible. The film attempts to guide us emotionally through its style but the music is too brash and the visual design tries far too hard to be eye-catching. Both the music and art design end up being counter-productive, being distracting rather than aiding the telling of the story. For instance, in one scene the production suddenly switches from colour to black and white and when blood appears it is the sole colour on the screen. A nice effect certainly, but it is very reminiscent of a scene in Schindler's List (which Zaillian also scripted) and feels like it was only shot that way to show off the effect. Zaillian forgets that design should always be in service of the story, clumsily pulling the focus away from the actors and towards the direction. All the King's Men is a disenaging and disappointing work that fails to make the most of its elements. Given its cast, which contains the likes of Anthony Hopkins and Kate Winslet, and the pedigree of its crew it is astonishing how this picture could end up falling so wide of the mark. This is a film that never decides what it wants to say or why its messages, whatever they are meant to be, are relevant to today's audience. It is clear that the makers have a love of the original text, the excruciating voice-overs culled and stitched together from the novel are evidence of an admiration for Warren's poetic prose, but the film needed to go further to make a connection from the politicking of the mid-20th century to that of the start of the 21st century. Zaillian himself recognises this problem, explaining that this was the reason he moved the setting of the story from 1930s Louisiana to the 1950s. Yet in terms of campaigning style there is little difference between the two. The original novel's success was in its daring examination of the political machine at a time when we lacked cynicism. What could have been a biting satire with relevance to today's politics feels like a record of a bygone age and a missed opportunity. http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/8/15/34035.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/15/2008 8:32:17 AM
Body: I was seventeen when I first read Wuthering Heights in an English Literature class. Like most of the boys in the class (of which there were about 4) I was sceptical about the novel, believing it to be a soppy romance. I could not have been more wrong and four hundred pages later I was labelling it the greatest novel I have ever read. I still do. This 1992 adaptation of Emily Bronte's novel is not the first attempt to put the book on the big screen but it was the first attempt to adapt the entire novel on film. Usually the emphasis is solidly on the first half of the novel which contains the "love story" as opposed to the second half which is much more focused on Heathcliff's revenge. Ralph Fiennes is wonderful as Heathcliff, balancing energy and passion without ever venturing into gothic excess. The character could easily descend into charicature but here he manages to elicit sympathy and disgust simultaneously. He invests Heathcliff with such a dark coldness and emotional reserve that it is easy to see why he was cast as Amon Goeth in Schindler's List a year later. It is hard not to appreciate the ambition of this adaptation, unfortunately it is equally hard to brand it a success. Aside from Fiennes as Heathcliff, the casting is so low key and the characters so weakly established that a good knowledge of the novel is required simply to follow who each of the characters are and how they are related to one another. There are also superfluous elements that could easily have been chopped to make more time for the central threads of the story. Lockwood, although the narrator of the novel, adds little because his appearance is so brief, whilst Sinead O'Connor's role as Emily Bronte is an addition that is utterly unnecessary. Worse yet, Juliette Binoche is badly miscast here as Catherine (and later Cathy) Earnshaw. Certainly she is striking but her accent perplexes and she is completely overwhelmed by her more charismatic and impressive male co-star. The production design is underwhelming and the camerawork fails to make the most of Yorkshire's impressive geography. For instance there is a scene with Heathcliff and Cathy on this impressive field of rocks, yet the camerawork is so drab that what could have been a memorable and awe-inspiring scene just blends into the body of the picture. With edits to the script and more time devoted to the minor characters being established this film could have been substantially better, although Binoche's lack of screen presence here would have remained. I commend the production for demonstrating some ambition but the results here suggest that Bronte's novel is better suited to the slow unfolding of character possible in a mini-series than the faster pace that films require.
]]>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:32:17 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture8/15/2008 8:32:17 AMI was seventeen when I first read Wuthering Heights in an English Literature class. Like most of the boys in the class (of which there were about 4) I was sceptical about the novel, believing it to be a soppy romance. I could not have been more wrong and four hundred pages later I was labelling it the greatest novel I have ever read. I still do. This 1992 adaptation of Emily Bronte's novel is not the first attempt to put the book on the big screen but it was the first attempt to adapt the entire novel on film. Usually the emphasis is solidly on the first half of the novel which contains the "love story" as opposed to the second half which is much more focused on Heathcliff's revenge. Ralph Fiennes is wonderful as Heathcliff, balancing energy and passion without ever venturing into gothic excess. The character could easily descend into charicature but here he manages to elicit sympathy and disgust simultaneously. He invests Heathcliff with such a dark coldness and emotional reserve that it is easy to see why he was cast as Amon Goeth in Schindler's List a year later. It is hard not to appreciate the ambition of this adaptation, unfortunately it is equally hard to brand it a success. Aside from Fiennes as Heathcliff, the casting is so low key and the characters so weakly established that a good knowledge of the novel is required simply to follow who each of the characters are and how they are related to one another. There are also superfluous elements that could easily have been chopped to make more time for the central threads of the story. Lockwood, although the narrator of the novel, adds little because his appearance is so brief, whilst Sinead O'Connor's role as Emily Bronte is an addition that is utterly unnecessary. Worse yet, Juliette Binoche is badly miscast here as Catherine (and later Cathy) Earnshaw. Certainly she is striking but her accent perplexes and she is completely overwhelmed by her more charismatic and impressive male co-star. The production design is underwhelming and the camerawork fails to make the most of Yorkshire's impressive geography. For instance there is a scene with Heathcliff and Cathy on this impressive field of rocks, yet the camerawork is so drab that what could have been a memorable and awe-inspiring scene just blends into the body of the picture. With edits to the script and more time devoted to the minor characters being established this film could have been substantially better, although Binoche's lack of screen presence here would have remained. I commend the production for demonstrating some ambition but the results here suggest that Bronte's novel is better suited to the slow unfolding of character possible in a mini-series than the faster pace that films require. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/18/32714.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/18/2008 11:01:08 AM
Body: Blake Edwards will exec produce a redo of his 1979 comedy 10 along with son Geoffrey, who was an assistant editor on the original. I’d ask what young starlet you’d most like to see in cornrows, but of course a newcomer is being sought to fill the iconic Bo Derek role. A new version of Papillon, or at least a new adaptation of Henri Charriere’s autobiography, will be produced by two-time Oscar winner Branko Lustig (Schindler’s List; Gladiator). Could a remake receive more love from the Academy than did the original? It’s been done before… Like, totally bitchin: MGM is developing a musical remake of Valley Girl. Isn’t the ’80s music nostalgia thing over yet? The “remake” of Tim Burton’s Batman (don’t you remember this video?) is now in theaters, and blah blah blah record-breaking theater count blah blah blah possible record-breaking non-holiday weekend gross blah blah blah, as Karina would put it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/18/2008 11:01:08 AM Blake Edwards will exec produce a redo of his 1979 comedy 10 along with son Geoffrey, who was an assistant editor on the original. I’d ask what young starlet you’d most like to see in cornrows, but of course a newcomer is being sought to fill the iconic Bo Derek role. A new version of Papillon, or at least a new adaptation of Henri Charriere’s autobiography, will be produced by two-time Oscar winner Branko Lustig (Schindler’s List; Gladiator). Could a remake receive more love from the Academy than did the original? It’s been done before… Like, totally bitchin: MGM is developing a musical remake of Valley Girl. Isn’t the ’80s music nostalgia thing over yet? The “remake” of Tim Burton’s Batman (don’t you remember this video?) is now in theaters, and blah blah blah record-breaking theater count blah blah blah possible record-breaking non-holiday weekend gross blah blah blah, as Karina would put it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_June_30_Post_Apocalyptic_Funt/625/32238/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/7/2008 4:03:35 PM
Body: [quote user="indieabby88"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="mercurial"]Lastly, Wall-E, which is apparently the best movie ever.[/quote] Well according to the current IMDB Top 250, it's not the best movie ever, but it is the sixth best movie ever right after Pulp Fiction at #5 and right before Schindler's List at #7 [/quote] How is that determined? Is it number of hits on the site? Percentage of positive reviews? Box office returns? I mean, I love Wall-e as much as the next person, but dontcha think it's a little soon to call it a classic? [/quote] It's based entirely on user ratings. Although there is some complicated algorithm involved that they won't release so that people can't try to manipulate the list. Nonetheless, when a movie first comes out that people really love it usually shoots really high on the list and then starts to move down a bit after a while.
]]>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:03:35 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme7/7/2008 4:03:35 PM[quote user="indieabby88"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="mercurial"]Lastly, Wall-E, which is apparently the best movie ever.[/quote] Well according to the current IMDB Top 250, it's not the best movie ever, but it is the sixth best movie ever right after Pulp Fiction at #5 and right before Schindler's List at #7 [/quote] How is that determined? Is it number of hits on the site? Percentage of positive reviews? Box office returns? I mean, I love Wall-e as much as the next person, but dontcha think it's a little soon to call it a classic? [/quote] It's based entirely on user ratings. Although there is some complicated algorithm involved that they won't release so that people can't try to manipulate the list. Nonetheless, when a movie first comes out that people really love it usually shoots really high on the list and then starts to move down a bit after a while. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6177

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 608

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT6177179608Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226101215Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/moving/MemberTagFilms.aspxmoving
Number of films tagged: 286

Number of people who tagged: 68

Number of times used: 160

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT28668160Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/powerful/MemberTagFilms.aspxpowerful
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 70

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:29 GMT484370Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/WWII/MemberTagFilms.aspxWWII
Number of films tagged: 58

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 75

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:49:02 GMT584175Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nazi/MemberTagFilms.aspxnazi
Number of films tagged: 428

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 67

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:50:17 GMT4283667Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/truth/MemberTagFilms.aspxtruth
Number of films tagged: 359

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 63

]]>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:23:51 GMT3593663Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hope/MemberTagFilms.aspxhope
Number of films tagged: 278

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 78

]]>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:03:04 GMT2783578Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/germany/MemberTagFilms.aspxgermany
Number of films tagged: 873

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 53

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT8733153Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rescue/MemberTagFilms.aspxrescue
Number of films tagged: 4080

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 142

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:36 GMT408031142Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/jewish/MemberTagFilms.aspxjewish
Number of films tagged: 452

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 60

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:45 GMT4522860Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pain/MemberTagFilms.aspxpain
Number of films tagged: 127

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 69

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:20 GMT1272869Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Changed-My-Life/MemberTagFilms.aspxChanged-My-Life
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 60

]]>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:22:35 GMT462760Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/holocaust/MemberTagFilms.aspxholocaust
Number of films tagged: 363

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 42

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT3632742Tag