list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Hudsucker Proxy on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Hudsucker_Proxy/89428/default.aspx Title: The Hudsucker Proxy
Year: 1994
Director: Joel Coen
Plot: Joel Coen and Ethan Coen concocted this stylish screwball comedic amalgam of Frank Capra and Howard Hawks. Tim Robbins stars as Norville Barnes, a dull-wit from Muncie, Indiana who wrangles a job with the big Hudsucker Industries. He has a singular idea for a new children's toy that he wants to present to corporate executive Sidney J. Mussberger (Paul Newman). As he makes his way up to Mussberger's office, the company president Waring Hudsucker (Charles Durning) is on his way down -- through the window of the forty-fourth floor boardroom! Hudsucker's death sets off a panic that Mussberger sees as an opportunity for taking over the company -- by installing a total incompetent in Hudsucker's place and devaluing the stock. When Barnes stumbles into Mussberger's office, Mussberger sees his pigeon and appoints Barnes as the new company president. The only problem is that the new product Barnes proposes for the company, the Hula Hoop, turns out to be a tremendous success, and Mussberger has difficulty manipulating his new corporate president. ~ Paul Brenner, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 23
Number of Lists: 43
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 7
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:56:18 GMTThe Hudsucker Proxy1994Joel Coen<a href="/players/P____85375/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Joel Coen</a> and <a href="/players/P____85372/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ethan Coen</a> concocted this stylish screwball comedic amalgam of <a href="/players/P____84082/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Frank Capra</a> and <a href="/players/P____93764/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Howard Hawks</a>. <a href="/players/P___108437/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tim Robbins</a> stars as Norville Barnes, a dull-wit from Muncie, Indiana who wrangles a job with the big Hudsucker Industries. He has a singular idea for a new children's toy that he wants to present to corporate executive Sidney J. Mussberger (<a href="/players/P___104390/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Paul Newman</a>). As he makes his way up to Mussberger's office, the company president Waring Hudsucker (<a href="/players/P____20780/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Charles Durning</a>) is on his way down -- through the window of the forty-fourth floor boardroom! Hudsucker's death sets off a panic that Mussberger sees as an opportunity for taking over the company -- by installing a total incompetent in Hudsucker's place and devaluing the stock. When Barnes stumbles into Mussberger's office, Mussberger sees his pigeon and appoints Barnes as the new company president. The only problem is that the new product Barnes proposes for the company, the Hula Hoop, turns out to be a tremendous success, and Mussberger has difficulty manipulating his new corporate president. ~ Paul Brenner, All Movie Guide23Tag Target (>10)43673http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t02924dbkxl.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Hudsucker_Proxy/89428/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/4/24/41725.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 4/24/2009 11:53:53 AM
Body: This blog entry is part of my "movie year countdown round #2". Read more about that here. The Big Clock This movie is an exciting piece of film-noir. The main character, George, is a bit stupid and unsympathetic at times, at least to me. The crux of the movie is supposed to lie in the fact that you are sympathetic to him for trying to change his life around and start spending more time with his wife who he loves rather than working his life away at his job. He quits his job so he can go on a retreat with his wife. It's clear that making the decision to go on this retreat is what he needs to invest in completely as a last effort to prove to his wife he really cares about her more than his job. He quits his high paying job to go on this trip. And then after he quits, he goes to a bar and starts drinking with some other woman to waste time. Then he misses his train!! From there it's hard to be sympathetic. But nonetheless, the movie is saved by the fact that Charles Laughton's performances as despicable boss is so loathsome that it completely draws you in to see how everything will end up. He's the epitome of the lowlife at the top of the ladder. I bet the titular Big Clock was at least partially in the minds of the Coens when they made The Hudsucker Proxy (amongst a plethora of other movies from the same era of course). Rating: 8/10
]]>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:53:53 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog4/24/2009 11:53:53 AMThis blog entry is part of my "movie year countdown round #2". Read more about that here. The Big Clock This movie is an exciting piece of film-noir. The main character, George, is a bit stupid and unsympathetic at times, at least to me. The crux of the movie is supposed to lie in the fact that you are sympathetic to him for trying to change his life around and start spending more time with his wife who he loves rather than working his life away at his job. He quits his job so he can go on a retreat with his wife. It's clear that making the decision to go on this retreat is what he needs to invest in completely as a last effort to prove to his wife he really cares about her more than his job. He quits his high paying job to go on this trip. And then after he quits, he goes to a bar and starts drinking with some other woman to waste time. Then he misses his train!! From there it's hard to be sympathetic. But nonetheless, the movie is saved by the fact that Charles Laughton's performances as despicable boss is so loathsome that it completely draws you in to see how everything will end up. He's the epitome of the lowlife at the top of the ladder. I bet the titular Big Clock was at least partially in the minds of the Coens when they made The Hudsucker Proxy (amongst a plethora of other movies from the same era of course). Rating: 8/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/jenn/archive/2008/12/31/38990.aspx Post By: Jenn
Post To: Jenn Blog
Post Date: 12/31/2008 10:32:11 AM
Body: The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) How did I miss this gem of a corporate slam back in the mid 90's? Certainly then I wasn't entrenched in corporate culture. It's sweet and funny. Granted it could move a little quicker, but I wonder if back in the 90s we weren't multi-tasking so much and now expect so more from our films to keep us engaged. Of course, I watched this while sewing and piecing together various fabrics for my designs.
]]>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:32:11 GMTJennJenn Blog12/31/2008 10:32:11 AMThe Hudsucker Proxy (1994) How did I miss this gem of a corporate slam back in the mid 90's? Certainly then I wasn't entrenched in corporate culture. It's sweet and funny. Granted it could move a little quicker, but I wonder if back in the 90s we weren't multi-tasking so much and now expect so more from our films to keep us engaged. Of course, I watched this while sewing and piecing together various fabrics for my designs. http://www.spout.com/blogs/captainryannn/archive/2008/12/4/37956.aspx Post By: CaptainRyannn
Post To: CaptainRyannn Blog
Post Date: 12/4/2008 4:41:49 PM
Body: Well, let me start off by saying that I originally saw this two weeks ago and loved it. So I decided to go back and see it again. The Coen Brothers seem to have formed a pattern that has worked for them over the years. After putting out a serious film, the switch gears to a comedy one. Blood Simple brought Raising Arizona. Miller’s Crossing brought The Hudsucker Proxy. Fargro brought The Big Lebowski. The Man Who Wasn’t There brought Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers (both of which kind of sucked.). Now, it is fitting that after their most acclaimed film, they up the ante for their newest comedy, Burn After Reading. With the zoom-in effect used to open the film, we are given the impression that something important is happening. Well, it is important in the sense that without it, we would not have a film. But it’s so trivial because of it’s cause. CIA agent Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich) gets demoted for too much drinking. We immediately get a glimpse into his hilarious character that is somewhat of an elitist. He gets to come home to his bitch-of-a-wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton) and decides to write some memoirs, or as Osbourne likes to call them, “mem-wah’s”. Well his darling Katie happens to be cheating on him with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) who is not only cheating on his wife (Patricia Clarkson) with Katie, but also the kind-hearted Linda Litzke (Frances McDomand). Confusing, I know. Well, in an attempt to ‘prepare’ for the divorce, Katie copies Cox’s financial as well as his memoirs. Through a couple of plain-forgetful actions, the disc containing these items is found on the floor of Hard Bodies, a gym that is run by Linda, Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), and the well-mannered sensitive man, Ted (Richard Jenkins). Chad and Linda end up thinking that they really have something important and demand a ransom from Cox. Chaos and hilarity ensues as the term ‘making a mountain out of an anthill’ comes to life. But in this case, the anthill has actually become a mountain forged out of stupidity, infidelity, and murder.
]]>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:41:49 GMTCaptainRyannnCaptainRyannn Blog12/4/2008 4:41:49 PMWell, let me start off by saying that I originally saw this two weeks ago and loved it. So I decided to go back and see it again. The Coen Brothers seem to have formed a pattern that has worked for them over the years. After putting out a serious film, the switch gears to a comedy one. Blood Simple brought Raising Arizona. Miller&rsquo;s Crossing brought The Hudsucker Proxy. Fargro brought The Big Lebowski. The Man Who Wasn&rsquo;t There brought Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers (both of which kind of sucked.). Now, it is fitting that after their most acclaimed film, they up the ante for their newest comedy, Burn After Reading. With the zoom-in effect used to open the film, we are given the impression that something important is happening. Well, it is important in the sense that without it, we would not have a film. But it&rsquo;s so trivial because of it&rsquo;s cause. CIA agent Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich) gets demoted for too much drinking. We immediately get a glimpse into his hilarious character that is somewhat of an elitist. He gets to come home to his bitch-of-a-wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton) and decides to write some memoirs, or as Osbourne likes to call them, &ldquo;mem-wah&rsquo;s&rdquo;. Well his darling Katie happens to be cheating on him with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) who is not only cheating on his wife (Patricia Clarkson) with Katie, but also the kind-hearted Linda Litzke (Frances McDomand). Confusing, I know. Well, in an attempt to &lsquo;prepare&rsquo; for the divorce, Katie copies Cox&rsquo;s financial as well as his memoirs. Through a couple of plain-forgetful actions, the disc containing these items is found on the floor of Hard Bodies, a gym that is run by Linda, Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), and the well-mannered sensitive man, Ted (Richard Jenkins). Chad and Linda end up thinking that they really have something important and demand a ransom from Cox. Chaos and hilarity ensues as the term &lsquo;making a mountain out of an anthill&rsquo; comes to life. But in this case, the anthill has actually become a mountain forged out of stupidity, infidelity, and murder. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_10_Whatchamacallit/625/37338/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/14/2008 8:09:06 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] I don't think we have to always label the Deus Ex Machina as something pejorative. Those who recognize basic narrative devices may use it ironically or for some other purpose. Such as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Do you find this use of Deus Ex Machina sloppy or completely intentional and aware? [/quote] I don't think of a deus ex machina within a film as an inherently bad thing. More often than not, I find myself enjoying its various uses. Terry Gilliam has more or less embraced the idea of a deus ex machina in great films like Time Bandits and Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
]]>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:09:06 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme11/14/2008 8:09:06 PM[quote user="Risselada"] I don't think we have to always label the Deus Ex Machina as something pejorative. Those who recognize basic narrative devices may use it ironically or for some other purpose. Such as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Do you find this use of Deus Ex Machina sloppy or completely intentional and aware? [/quote] I don't think of a deus ex machina within a film as an inherently bad thing. More often than not, I find myself enjoying its various uses. Terry Gilliam has more or less embraced the idea of a deus ex machina in great films like Time Bandits and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_10_Whatchamacallit/625/37314/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/14/2008 1:25:06 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="mercurial"] [quote user="Risselada"] Wasn't it also a virus that kills the aliens suddenly in The War of the Worlds? [/quote] I was thinking of this movie too, but then I read a little article saying that the demise of the aliens by the simplest of organisms was actually apropos. But then again, it could just have been someone trying to make excuses for it. [/quote] I see what you are saying. So is it incorrect to refer to a conclusion that seems to come out of nowhere in terms of plot, but upon review it seems appropriate thematically? I don't think we have to always label the Deus Ex Machina as something pejorative. Those who recognize basic narrative devices may use it ironically or for some other purpose. Such as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Do you find this use of Deus Ex Machina sloppy or completely intentional and aware? [/quote] I would say the latter, but then again, I think a lot of people would refer to Rizzo & I as "Coen bros. apologists" I think this is why you can't always say that the DEM aspect always takes away from the story. A good definition I read referred to the fact that, when inappropriatly used, it contradicts the inner logic of the rest of the story. Sometimes it's just a good surprise ending though.
]]>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:25:06 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme11/14/2008 1:25:06 PM[quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="mercurial"] [quote user="Risselada"] Wasn't it also a virus that kills the aliens suddenly in The War of the Worlds? [/quote] I was thinking of this movie too, but then I read a little article saying that the demise of the aliens by the simplest of organisms was actually apropos. But then again, it could just have been someone trying to make excuses for it. [/quote] I see what you are saying. So is it incorrect to refer to a conclusion that seems to come out of nowhere in terms of plot, but upon review it seems appropriate thematically? I don't think we have to always label the Deus Ex Machina as something pejorative. Those who recognize basic narrative devices may use it ironically or for some other purpose. Such as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Do you find this use of Deus Ex Machina sloppy or completely intentional and aware? [/quote] I would say the latter, but then again, I think a lot of people would refer to Rizzo &amp; I as "Coen bros. apologists" I think this is why you can't always say that the DEM aspect always takes away from the story. A good definition I read referred to the fact that, when inappropriatly used, it contradicts the inner logic of the rest of the story. Sometimes it's just a good surprise ending though. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_10_Whatchamacallit/625/37313/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/14/2008 1:22:59 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="mercurial"] [quote user="Risselada"] Wasn't it also a virus that kills the aliens suddenly in The War of the Worlds? [/quote] I was thinking of this movie too, but then I read a little article saying that the demise of the aliens by the simplest of organisms was actually apropos. But then again, it could just have been someone trying to make excuses for it. [/quote] I see what you are saying. So is it incorrect to refer to a conclusion that seems to come out of nowhere in terms of plot, but upon review it seems appropriate thematically? I don't think we have to always label the Deus Ex Machina as something pejorative. Those who recognize basic narrative devices may use it ironically or for some other purpose. Such as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Do you find this use of Deus Ex Machina sloppy or completely intentional and aware? [/quote] And also, the Deus Ex Machina scenarios are actually sometimes more true to life. Often as we go through life, things pop into our lives out of nowwhere, sometimes resolving issues that we considered part of our internal narrative. But there is no way we could have known this was comming. Most typical movie making, the kind that really entertains most audiences is not very realistic. Real life includes lots of extraneous information in terms of trying to follow a tight narrative. And often few of the clues and information about what is coming up in our lives, at least when you compare your real life to what happens in many movies. But then maybe that's why lots of people say that movies that are really true to life are boring.
]]>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:22:59 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme11/14/2008 1:22:59 PM[quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="mercurial"] [quote user="Risselada"] Wasn't it also a virus that kills the aliens suddenly in The War of the Worlds? [/quote] I was thinking of this movie too, but then I read a little article saying that the demise of the aliens by the simplest of organisms was actually apropos. But then again, it could just have been someone trying to make excuses for it. [/quote] I see what you are saying. So is it incorrect to refer to a conclusion that seems to come out of nowhere in terms of plot, but upon review it seems appropriate thematically? I don't think we have to always label the Deus Ex Machina as something pejorative. Those who recognize basic narrative devices may use it ironically or for some other purpose. Such as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Do you find this use of Deus Ex Machina sloppy or completely intentional and aware? [/quote] And also, the Deus Ex Machina scenarios are actually sometimes more true to life. Often as we go through life, things pop into our lives out of nowwhere, sometimes resolving issues that we considered part of our internal narrative. But there is no way we could have known this was comming. Most typical movie making, the kind that really entertains most audiences is not very realistic. Real life includes lots of extraneous information in terms of trying to follow a tight narrative. And often few of the clues and information about what is coming up in our lives, at least when you compare your real life to what happens in many movies. But then maybe that's why lots of people say that movies that are really true to life are boring. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_10_Whatchamacallit/625/37312/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/14/2008 1:15:53 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] [quote user="Risselada"] Wasn't it also a virus that kills the aliens suddenly in The War of the Worlds? [/quote] I was thinking of this movie too, but then I read a little article saying that the demise of the aliens by the simplest of organisms was actually apropos. But then again, it could just have been someone trying to make excuses for it. [/quote] I see what you are saying. So is it incorrect to refer to a conclusion that seems to come out of nowhere in terms of plot, but upon review it seems appropriate thematically? I don't think we have to always label the Deus Ex Machina as something pejorative. Those who recognize basic narrative devices may use it ironically or for some other purpose. Such as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Do you find this use of Deus Ex Machina sloppy or completely intentional and aware?
]]>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:15:53 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme11/14/2008 1:15:53 PM[quote user="mercurial"] [quote user="Risselada"] Wasn't it also a virus that kills the aliens suddenly in The War of the Worlds? [/quote] I was thinking of this movie too, but then I read a little article saying that the demise of the aliens by the simplest of organisms was actually apropos. But then again, it could just have been someone trying to make excuses for it. [/quote] I see what you are saying. So is it incorrect to refer to a conclusion that seems to come out of nowhere in terms of plot, but upon review it seems appropriate thematically? I don't think we have to always label the Deus Ex Machina as something pejorative. Those who recognize basic narrative devices may use it ironically or for some other purpose. Such as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Do you find this use of Deus Ex Machina sloppy or completely intentional and aware? http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_10_Whatchamacallit/625/37241/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/12/2008 12:08:22 AM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] Probably one of the most flagrant uses of a deus ex machina in recent film history has to be in Magnolia (I won't give any spoilers for those who haven't seen the film, so let's just say it involves one of the biblical plagues occurring in the center of Los Angeles). [/quote] Along the same lines as Magnolia, you would have to mention The Hudsucker Proxy. It's weird, in both of those cases, I actually liked the how the movie turned out. I think that if mechinism used it sooo illogical and far out, it kinda works. I think it's just because it still shows creativity on the part of the screenwriter. Where as in the case of Shakespeare in Love, the mechinism makes it seem like the writer was stuck in a corner and this is a ditch effort to fix it.
]]>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:08:22 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme11/12/2008 12:08:22 AM[quote user="mercurial"] Probably one of the most flagrant uses of a deus ex machina in recent film history has to be in Magnolia (I won't give any spoilers for those who haven't seen the film, so let's just say it involves one of the biblical plagues occurring in the center of Los Angeles). [/quote] Along the same lines as Magnolia, you would have to mention The Hudsucker Proxy. It's weird, in both of those cases, I actually liked the how the movie turned out. I think that if mechinism used it sooo illogical and far out, it kinda works. I think it's just because it still shows creativity on the part of the screenwriter. Where as in the case of Shakespeare in Love, the mechinism makes it seem like the writer was stuck in a corner and this is a ditch effort to fix it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/28/35661.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/28/2008 3:01:55 PM
Body: Paul Newman passed away on Friday after a long battle with cancer, and he will be sorely missed. As early as May he had been planning to direct a stage version of John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, but he had to cancel due to his health. He’s a winner of every major award an actor can pull down, from Oscar to Emmy, and he appeared in over 50 feature films. Besides his work in film, television and on the stage, he also served in World War II, and has been a longtime humanitarian. Paul Newman retired from acting in May of 2007, but he left behind a large body of work that should be in your Netflix queue or on your shelf at home. Here’s a look at some of his best films, and why you should be watching them in tribute. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Arguably the film Newman is the most famous for, this was the first pairing of Redford and Newman. Although originally it was to be Steve McQueen and Paul Newman, and then a handful of other stars, including Jack Lemmon, until Redford finally got the part. However, Newman was originally supposed to play Sundance, and Redford to play Butch. What a different movie that would have been. A great followup to this pairing is The Sting, but avoid the sequel that doesn’t have Newman or Redford in it. The Hustler The Hustler stands to this day as a cinematic masterpiece, and Newman’s performance in it stands among his very best. Singer/actor Bobby Darrin was supposed to star in this film, but Newman made the role his own and made “Fast Eddie” Felton into a film legend. The far inferior 1986 sequel The Color of Money with Tom Cruise doesn’t hold a candle to the original, but Newman won his Best Actor Oscar for his reprisal of the Felton role, but most critics agree this was a nod to his role in The Hustler. Hud This movie is an adaptation of Larry McMurtry’s early novella Horseman, Pass By, and saw Newman nominated for Best Actor in his portrayal of the “man with the barbed-wire soul.” It actually won for Best Supporting Actor, Actress, and Cinematography, but it is Newman’s selfishly hard-hearted modern day cowboy that holds this movie together and makes it worth watching more than once. Cool Hand Luke Newman’s portrayal of a prisoner who just won’t submit to the system and the will of the warden will be remembered forever, and it’ll come to mind every time you eat a hard-boiled egg. It’s famous for the line “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate,” and some of the best scenes ever of Newman grinning from ear to ear. If you’re a nonconformist, like Newman often was in his acting choice, you’ll love this movie. The Hudsucker Proxy This is a dark horse among the Coen Brothers films, but it’s my favorite of theirs right after Miller’s Crossing. Newman’s portrayal of a cigar-chomping business executive who growls out all of his lines is classic, although this film only grossed $3 million dollars at the box office, and was the Coens biggest flop. Still, it is well worth watching, if just for Newman. He literally chews up the scenery. Road to Perdition This was Paul Newman’s final feature film, although he did go on to star in HBO’s Empire Falls and to lend his voice to the Disney/Pixar hit Cars. Newman plays Irish mob boss John Rooney to Tom Hanks’ Michael Sullivan, and reportedly had author Frank McCourt send him tapes of himself speaking so he could get the voice right. It’s a tragic role for Newman, and a fitting swan song to his entire career. They definitely don’t make ‘em like him anymore. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:01:55 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/28/2008 3:01:55 PM Paul Newman passed away on Friday after a long battle with cancer, and he will be sorely missed. As early as May he had been planning to direct a stage version of John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, but he had to cancel due to his health. He’s a winner of every major award an actor can pull down, from Oscar to Emmy, and he appeared in over 50 feature films. Besides his work in film, television and on the stage, he also served in World War II, and has been a longtime humanitarian. Paul Newman retired from acting in May of 2007, but he left behind a large body of work that should be in your Netflix queue or on your shelf at home. Here’s a look at some of his best films, and why you should be watching them in tribute. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Arguably the film Newman is the most famous for, this was the first pairing of Redford and Newman. Although originally it was to be Steve McQueen and Paul Newman, and then a handful of other stars, including Jack Lemmon, until Redford finally got the part. However, Newman was originally supposed to play Sundance, and Redford to play Butch. What a different movie that would have been. A great followup to this pairing is The Sting, but avoid the sequel that doesn’t have Newman or Redford in it. The Hustler The Hustler stands to this day as a cinematic masterpiece, and Newman’s performance in it stands among his very best. Singer/actor Bobby Darrin was supposed to star in this film, but Newman made the role his own and made “Fast Eddie” Felton into a film legend. The far inferior 1986 sequel The Color of Money with Tom Cruise doesn’t hold a candle to the original, but Newman won his Best Actor Oscar for his reprisal of the Felton role, but most critics agree this was a nod to his role in The Hustler. Hud This movie is an adaptation of Larry McMurtry’s early novella Horseman, Pass By, and saw Newman nominated for Best Actor in his portrayal of the “man with the barbed-wire soul.” It actually won for Best Supporting Actor, Actress, and Cinematography, but it is Newman’s selfishly hard-hearted modern day cowboy that holds this movie together and makes it worth watching more than once. Cool Hand Luke Newman’s portrayal of a prisoner who just won’t submit to the system and the will of the warden will be remembered forever, and it’ll come to mind every time you eat a hard-boiled egg. It’s famous for the line “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate,” and some of the best scenes ever of Newman grinning from ear to ear. If you’re a nonconformist, like Newman often was in his acting choice, you’ll love this movie. The Hudsucker Proxy This is a dark horse among the Coen Brothers films, but it’s my favorite of theirs right after Miller’s Crossing. Newman’s portrayal of a cigar-chomping business executive who growls out all of his lines is classic, although this film only grossed $3 million dollars at the box office, and was the Coens biggest flop. Still, it is well worth watching, if just for Newman. He literally chews up the scenery. Road to Perdition This was Paul Newman’s final feature film, although he did go on to star in HBO’s Empire Falls and to lend his voice to the Disney/Pixar hit Cars. Newman plays Irish mob boss John Rooney to Tom Hanks’ Michael Sullivan, and reportedly had author Frank McCourt send him tapes of himself speaking so he could get the voice right. It’s a tragic role for Newman, and a fitting swan song to his entire career. They definitely don’t make ‘em like him anymore. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/9/14/35134.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 9/14/2008 10:36:27 PM
Body: I can envision moviegoers exiting “Burn After Reading” with the same befuddlement some have stated upon witnessing Joel and Ethan Coen's Oscar-winning “No Country for Old Men.” In fact, the directors are gracious enough to have one of the characters (a hilariously deadpan J.K. Simmons) say it for them: “So just what have we learned from all this?” His fellow C.I.A. officer squirms and kind of shrugs. I could sense the audience grumbling in agreement. But I could not join my fellow patrons in their dissatisfaction, for “Reading” was as unexpected, meandering, and precision-crafted as any of the brothers' comedic outputs. And it was a hell of a lot of fun. In fact, if I may commit an act of heresy amidst my fellow film-loving friends, I had more enjoyable time here than on my initial viewing of “The Big Lebowski.” While it may fall in the middle of the Coens comedic library (wedged above “The Hudsucker Proxy” and slightly below “Fargo” -- with “Raising Arizona” being the pinnacle, and “The Ladykillers the nadir), it's worth it if only for the inspired insanity they allow from their cast, better known for its dramatic endeavors. Those who seek sleek narrative construction in a Coen Brothers film are more likely to find an Oscar on the shelf of Larry The Cable Guy. For they have spent the latter part of their careers rearranging the blocks of structure, repeatedly flipping the bird to cinematic expectations. They make it clear that in “Reading” we are not entering the world in which you and I dwell. It is far distanced from the harsh realism that soaked “No Country.” Sure, they look like humans we may recognize, but they are more akin to live-action cartoons. John Malkovich plays an uptight C.I.A. Desk monkey named Osbourne Cox who is unceremoniously dumped from his rather slight job within the agency. In a profanity-filled tantrum, he stomps out, threatening to burn things to its foundation with a scathing tell-all. Unfortunately, Cox is but a mere Dilbert-esque drone whose words ring rather hollow to an indifferent employer. Things are no better at home, either. His zamboni of a wife (Tilda Swinton) icily plows over his every statement, paving over it with her own dilemmas, like, did he pick up the right cheese for the evening's dinner party. She wants things picture-perfect, for one of the guests in Harry Pfarrer (played by George Clooney), a married, philandering Treasury employee proud of the fact that he's never fired his gun in 20 years of service and an apparent connoisseur of hardwood floors. As their affair deepens, Cox's wife secretly begins amassing information from her husband's various accounts to hand over to her divorce lawyer. The information is compiled on a compact disc that gets left on the floor of Hardbodies Gym, which had the misfortune of having Chad Feldheimer (played by Brad Pitt) and Linda Lidzke (played by Frances McDormand) as employees. Chad, with hair piled high like an encroaching tidal wave, gets it into his whiffle-ball-like head that this disc's owner must be really important because there are lots of numbers and codes and stuff located within (to Chad, a disc of Sudoku puzzles would be equally confusing). Linda, who longs for a series of expensive plastic surgeries to battle time is more than happy to be his accomplice in trying to extort cash for the found information. The series of events that unfold are, at turns, hysterical, violent (sometimes simultaneously), irreverent and irrelevant. It's the enthusiasm in which each actors attacks his or her role that stokes “Reading's” flames. McDormand is so caught up in her attempts at vanity, she's blind to a fellow employee who not-so-subtly longs for her; Clooney successfully hides his striking features under a number of obnoxious tics and crippling paranoia; Malkovich is at his arrogant best, referring to his self-indulgent musings of life at the agency as his phonetically correct “mem-wah.” But from the moment he bops onto the screen about 20 minutes into the picture, there is no mistaking that this is Pitt's picture. When confined to such dramatic mush as “Seven Years in Tibet,” “Meet Joe Black” and “Legends of the Fall,” the actor can come off as a stilted mannequin, hired more for marquee value. But throughout his career, in smaller roles such as “True Romance,” and “12 Monkeys” when he's able to let his freak flag fly, Pitt's a comedic tsunami. Nowhere is it more evident than in “Reading.” Chad is a man so blissfully unaware of just how over his head he is when he hatches his plot, it's surprising that he even remembers to wear pants in public. What you may not find in “Reading” is something that neatly wraps up it's tale in a traditional fashion. For some, this will be unforgivable, but for those who happily vibe along with the cast until, quite literally, the book is closed on this tale, they will find the eccentric comedy is just the right shade of black.
]]>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:36:27 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog9/14/2008 10:36:27 PMI can envision moviegoers exiting &ldquo;Burn After Reading&rdquo; with the same befuddlement some have stated upon witnessing Joel and Ethan Coen's Oscar-winning &ldquo;No Country for Old Men.&rdquo; In fact, the directors are gracious enough to have one of the characters (a hilariously deadpan J.K. Simmons) say it for them: &ldquo;So just what have we learned from all this?&rdquo; His fellow C.I.A. officer squirms and kind of shrugs. I could sense the audience grumbling in agreement. But I could not join my fellow patrons in their dissatisfaction, for &ldquo;Reading&rdquo; was as unexpected, meandering, and precision-crafted as any of the brothers' comedic outputs. And it was a hell of a lot of fun. In fact, if I may commit an act of heresy amidst my fellow film-loving friends, I had more enjoyable time here than on my initial viewing of &ldquo;The Big Lebowski.&rdquo; While it may fall in the middle of the Coens comedic library (wedged above &ldquo;The Hudsucker Proxy&rdquo; and slightly below &ldquo;Fargo&rdquo; -- with &ldquo;Raising Arizona&rdquo; being the pinnacle, and &ldquo;The Ladykillers the nadir), it's worth it if only for the inspired insanity they allow from their cast, better known for its dramatic endeavors. Those who seek sleek narrative construction in a Coen Brothers film are more likely to find an Oscar on the shelf of Larry The Cable Guy. For they have spent the latter part of their careers rearranging the blocks of structure, repeatedly flipping the bird to cinematic expectations. They make it clear that in &ldquo;Reading&rdquo; we are not entering the world in which you and I dwell. It is far distanced from the harsh realism that soaked &ldquo;No Country.&rdquo; Sure, they look like humans we may recognize, but they are more akin to live-action cartoons. John Malkovich plays an uptight C.I.A. Desk monkey named Osbourne Cox who is unceremoniously dumped from his rather slight job within the agency. In a profanity-filled tantrum, he stomps out, threatening to burn things to its foundation with a scathing tell-all. Unfortunately, Cox is but a mere Dilbert-esque drone whose words ring rather hollow to an indifferent employer. Things are no better at home, either. His zamboni of a wife (Tilda Swinton) icily plows over his every statement, paving over it with her own dilemmas, like, did he pick up the right cheese for the evening's dinner party. She wants things picture-perfect, for one of the guests in Harry Pfarrer (played by George Clooney), a married, philandering Treasury employee proud of the fact that he's never fired his gun in 20 years of service and an apparent connoisseur of hardwood floors. As their affair deepens, Cox's wife secretly begins amassing information from her husband's various accounts to hand over to her divorce lawyer. The information is compiled on a compact disc that gets left on the floor of Hardbodies Gym, which had the misfortune of having Chad Feldheimer (played by Brad Pitt) and Linda Lidzke (played by Frances McDormand) as employees. Chad, with hair piled high like an encroaching tidal wave, gets it into his whiffle-ball-like head that this disc's owner must be really important because there are lots of numbers and codes and stuff located within (to Chad, a disc of Sudoku puzzles would be equally confusing). Linda, who longs for a series of expensive plastic surgeries to battle time is more than happy to be his accomplice in trying to extort cash for the found information. The series of events that unfold are, at turns, hysterical, violent (sometimes simultaneously), irreverent and irrelevant. It's the enthusiasm in which each actors attacks his or her role that stokes &ldquo;Reading's&rdquo; flames. McDormand is so caught up in her attempts at vanity, she's blind to a fellow employee who not-so-subtly longs for her; Clooney successfully hides his striking features under a number of obnoxious tics and crippling paranoia; Malkovich is at his arrogant best, referring to his self-indulgent musings of life at the agency as his phonetically correct &ldquo;mem-wah.&rdquo; But from the moment he bops onto the screen about 20 minutes into the picture, there is no mistaking that this is Pitt's picture. When confined to such dramatic mush as &ldquo;Seven Years in Tibet,&rdquo; &ldquo;Meet Joe Black&rdquo; and &ldquo;Legends of the Fall,&rdquo; the actor can come off as a stilted mannequin, hired more for marquee value. But throughout his career, in smaller roles such as &ldquo;True Romance,&rdquo; and &ldquo;12 Monkeys&rdquo; when he's able to let his freak flag fly, Pitt's a comedic tsunami. Nowhere is it more evident than in &ldquo;Reading.&rdquo; Chad is a man so blissfully unaware of just how over his head he is when he hatches his plot, it's surprising that he even remembers to wear pants in public. What you may not find in &ldquo;Reading&rdquo; is something that neatly wraps up it's tale in a traditional fashion. For some, this will be unforgivable, but for those who happily vibe along with the cast until, quite literally, the book is closed on this tale, they will find the eccentric comedy is just the right shade of black. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/deception/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeception
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 123

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:18:11 GMT109055123Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/visual/MemberTagFilms.aspxvisual
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 161

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT14028161Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/business/MemberTagFilms.aspxbusiness
Number of films tagged: 1747

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 70

]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:05:14 GMT17472770Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/reporter/MemberTagFilms.aspxreporter
Number of films tagged: 1590

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 52

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT15902252Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/capitalism/MemberTagFilms.aspxcapitalism
Number of films tagged: 96

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 16

]]>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:02:43 GMT961216Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/coenbrothers/MemberTagFilms.aspxcoenbrothers
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 28

]]>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:04:00 GMT131228Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/industry/MemberTagFilms.aspxindustry
Number of films tagged: 204

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 16

]]>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 05:18:09 GMT2041216Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scheme/MemberTagFilms.aspxscheme
Number of films tagged: 1069

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 19

]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:05:14 GMT10691219Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/coen/MemberTagFilms.aspxcoen
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 21

]]>Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:50:27 GMT13921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/clock/MemberTagFilms.aspxclock
Number of films tagged: 39

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:52:06 GMT39810Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/allegory/MemberTagFilms.aspxallegory
Number of films tagged: 45

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 9

]]>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:02:14 GMT4579Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/feel-good/MemberTagFilms.aspxfeel-good
Number of films tagged: 23

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 26

]]>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:54:10 GMT23726Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/naive/MemberTagFilms.aspxnaive
Number of films tagged: 155

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:56:05 GMT155710Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bigcity/MemberTagFilms.aspxbigcity
Number of films tagged: 462

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 7

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:02:23 GMT46267Tag