list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Blankman 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/Blankman/90010/default.aspx Title: Blankman
Year: 1994
Director: Mike Binder
Plot: Are you ready for a new kind of superhero -- a thirty-something virgin in long underwear? Darryl Walker (Damon Wayans) is a bright but socially inept man with a gift for inventing things but little skill for functioning in the real world. His brother Kevin (David Alan Grier) works on a low-class tabloid news show featuring beautiful anchorwoman Kimberley Jonz (Robin Givens), whom he secretly loves. The Walkers live in Metro City, Illinois, a city that's been hit with a massive crime wave after the mayor is kidnapped by gangsters. After his grandmother is killed, Darryl builds a collection of crime-fighting robots from household junk, invents bullet-proof long underwear (made from his grandmother's old housecoat), and becomes Metro City's newest crime fighter, Blankman. Blankman's escapades put fear into the heart of mob boss Michael Minelli (Jon Polito), and when Kevin turns out to have an inside track on Blankman's activities, it brings him closer to Kimberley. But how long can a superhero with no superpowers last against the forces of organized crime? Damon Wayans wrote the original story for Blankman as well as co-writing the screenplay and playing the title role, which was based in part on his "Handi-Man" character from the TV comedy series In Living Color. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 2
Number of Lists: 4
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:06:18 GMTBlankman1994Mike BinderAre you ready for a new kind of superhero -- a thirty-something virgin in long underwear? Darryl Walker (<a href="/players/P____75075/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Damon Wayans</a>) is a bright but socially inept man with a gift for inventing things but little skill for functioning in the real world. His brother Kevin (<a href="/players/P____28767/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>David Alan Grier</a>) works on a low-class tabloid news show featuring beautiful anchorwoman Kimberley Jonz (<a href="/players/P____27154/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robin Givens</a>), whom he secretly loves. The Walkers live in Metro City, Illinois, a city that's been hit with a massive crime wave after the mayor is kidnapped by gangsters. After his grandmother is killed, Darryl builds a collection of crime-fighting robots from household junk, invents bullet-proof long underwear (made from his grandmother's old housecoat), and becomes Metro City's newest crime fighter, Blankman. Blankman's escapades put fear into the heart of mob boss Michael Minelli (<a href="/players/P____57215/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jon Polito</a>), and when Kevin turns out to have an inside track on Blankman's activities, it brings him closer to Kimberley. But how long can a superhero with no superpowers last against the forces of organized crime? <a href="/players/P____75075/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Damon Wayans</a> wrote the original story for Blankman as well as co-writing the screenplay and playing the title role, which was based in part on his "Handi-Man" character from the TV comedy series <a href=/films/243947/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>In Living Color</a>. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide2Slightly Tagged (1-5)4312http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t142645ubeh.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Blankman/90010/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/7/42190.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2009 11:48:14 PM
Body: "Darryl" (Damon Williams) and "Kevin" (David Allen Grier) are brothers from Chicago who were raised by their grandmother (the late Lynne Thigpen). The boys care more about the classic live-action television series, "Batman" than politics like their grandmother. As they grew up, "Kevin" becomes a cameraman for WWHY-TV who can easily get s date on Friday night. While "Darryl" becomes a nerdy inventor-wannabe who has never been with a woman. Then the unthinkable happens. "Darryl" and "Kevin's" grandmother is murdered by some assailants who barge into the campaign office of a top candidate for mayor. This eventually gives "Darryl" the idea to become a masked superhero like "Batman" using his inventions that are made from home appliances. Naming himself "Blankman", "Darryl" gets the attention of not only the criminal element who are trying to purchase the newly elected mayor, who was suppored by "Darryl" and "Kevin's" grandmother, and the "Lois Lane"-type television reporter, "Kimberly Jonz" (Robin Givens), who catches the eye of "Kevin," but has eyes for "Blankman". Yet another not-so-great recommendation from Yahoo Movies Personalized Recommendations. However, this one has its moments. The first problem is the comedy. Too few jokes produce a chuckle. In fact, none of the jokes produce a good laugh. Another problem is that the supporting cast is not well written, and the script is predictable beyond words. When it comes to predictability, you just knew that the grandmother was going to be killed near the beginning of the movie just seconds before it happened. You also knew that the lead female role, which was not well written if you ask me, would fall head over heels for "Blankman" instead of "Kevin" even before they had their first face-to-face meeting in the film. One thing that makes the movie worth seeing, other than Williams and Grier, are the inventions created by "Darryl" for his alter-ego. If you laughed at "Data's" "Jaws of Life" in "The Goonies", then the ones in this movie should make you laugh as well. Another problem with this film is the chemistry of the cast. To me, most of the cast were just there to collect a check and did very little to make the relationships of the characters believable. The strongest chemistry was between Williams, Grier and Givens. Personally, I wanted to see "Kevin" and "Kimberly" get together more than "Robin" and "Darryl"/"Blankman". I think that the blooming romance between "Kimbnerly" and "Blankman" was poorly written in fact, as I felt no chemistry between the two characters. If you ask me, don't even rent this one. Wait until it comes on HBO or another movie channel. Then wait for a rainy day when there is nothing else on television.
]]>Fri, 08 May 2009 03:48:14 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/7/2009 11:48:14 PM"Darryl" (Damon Williams) and "Kevin" (David Allen Grier) are brothers from Chicago who were raised by their grandmother (the late Lynne Thigpen). The boys care more about the classic live-action television series, "Batman" than politics like their grandmother. As they grew up, "Kevin" becomes a cameraman for WWHY-TV who can easily get s date on Friday night. While "Darryl" becomes a nerdy inventor-wannabe who has never been with a woman. Then the unthinkable happens. "Darryl" and "Kevin's" grandmother is murdered by some assailants who barge into the campaign office of a top candidate for mayor. This eventually gives "Darryl" the idea to become a masked superhero like "Batman" using his inventions that are made from home appliances. Naming himself "Blankman", "Darryl" gets the attention of not only the criminal element who are trying to purchase the newly elected mayor, who was suppored by "Darryl" and "Kevin's" grandmother, and the "Lois Lane"-type television reporter, "Kimberly Jonz" (Robin Givens), who catches the eye of "Kevin," but has eyes for "Blankman". Yet another not-so-great recommendation from Yahoo Movies Personalized Recommendations. However, this one has its moments. The first problem is the comedy. Too few jokes produce a chuckle. In fact, none of the jokes produce a good laugh. Another problem is that the supporting cast is not well written, and the script is predictable beyond words. When it comes to predictability, you just knew that the grandmother was going to be killed near the beginning of the movie just seconds before it happened. You also knew that the lead female role, which was not well written if you ask me, would fall head over heels for "Blankman" instead of "Kevin" even before they had their first face-to-face meeting in the film. One thing that makes the movie worth seeing, other than Williams and Grier, are the inventions created by "Darryl" for his alter-ego. If you laughed at "Data's" "Jaws of Life" in "The Goonies", then the ones in this movie should make you laugh as well. Another problem with this film is the chemistry of the cast. To me, most of the cast were just there to collect a check and did very little to make the relationships of the characters believable. The strongest chemistry was between Williams, Grier and Givens. Personally, I wanted to see "Kevin" and "Kimberly" get together more than "Robin" and "Darryl"/"Blankman". I think that the blooming romance between "Kimbnerly" and "Blankman" was poorly written in fact, as I felt no chemistry between the two characters. If you ask me, don't even rent this one. Wait until it comes on HBO or another movie channel. Then wait for a rainy day when there is nothing else on television. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/5/40839.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/5/2009 10:00:20 AM
Body: Many smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/5/2009 10:00:20 AMMany smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/1/31952.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/1/2008 11:00:51 AM
Body: Will Smith’s new superhero movie, Hancock, may be receiving terrible reviews, but it’s sure to make a lot of money. It is a Will Smith movie, after all. The fact that it’s an original superhero title (meaning not adapted from a comic book or other source material), however, means that if it is a success, it will be the rare movie of its kind to be such. Superhero movies may be huge right now, but really only the pre-sold properties, those with a build-in audience, make the big bucks. A number of original superhero movies are just as worthy of your attention as the Spider-Mans, the Iron Mans, the Batmans and the X-Mens. Sure, much of the time, non-adapted superheroes are lame, as in the cases of Blankman and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But just check out any of the following ten titles and see why it sometimes pays off to put your trust in an unfamiliar hero. The Incredibles - This one did it all: won an Oscar; received favorable reviews across the board; did blockbuster business in theaters and ancillaries (its the sole original superhero movie to break $100 million, domestically, a feat it far surpassed by actually grossing more than $260 million); and featured the single greatest superhero gag (above) ever seen. So there’s proof that a superhero movie can be good and do well without being based on another property. Unbreakable - The only film by M. Night Shyamalan I can enjoy repeatedly and perhaps the only superhero movie besides Batman Begins that audiences can kind of believe might be plausible in the real world. Also, it is perhaps the one origin-story superhero tale that doesn’t necessitate a sequel. The ending may have been anticlimactic, but the scene shown above (I wish the clip began earlier, from the train station scene forward) is one of the greatest superhero fight sequences ever put on film. The Matrix - Meanwhile, this is one origin-story superhero movie that shouldn’t have received a sequel, despite it’s needing one. Or maybe it just shouldn’t have been given the sequels it was given. In a way, the first installment is the perfect superhero movie for the age of video games, because Neo really only has powers in the virtual world. Unfortunately, the subsequent installments ruin this concept. Sky High - It looks really cheesy, but this Harry Potter for the superhero set is actually really clever and consistently entertaining. The common high school plot, in which an unpopular kid becomes popular and ends up screwing over his old friends, is ingeniously lent to the superteen subgenre. It may not hold a candle to the teen metaphors of X2: X-Men United, but it makes those initial Xavier School scenes from the first X-Men look wasteful. Darkman - Long before he sold his soul to the Spider-Man franchise, Sam Raimi created this original superhero tale. I wasn’t really a fan when it came out, but I’d now take it over any of the Spidey movies — even Spider-Man 2. RoboCop - The best superhero tales are really about humanity, not superhumanity, and this satirical sci-fi actioner certainly fits that qualification. It’s not surprising that for the sequel to RoboCop, comic book legend Frank Miller was brought in as a screenwriter, nor is it surprising that the franchise spawned multiple comic book series. Super Fuzz - This one is purely a guilty pleasure, as it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s kind of like Police Academy meets Superman meets Ernest Borgnine. Supah Supah! The Toxic Avenger - Another guilty pleasure, but also a great idea for a superhero movie. These days it’s uncommon to see such a ruthlessly violent superhero, but in his time, Toxie was like a parallel to supervillain protagonists of horror movies, like Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger, for who we continually rooted. Mr. Freedom - Change the communist villains to terrorists, and this would have been ripe for a remake a few years back. The Bush Administration was actually referring to this 1969 superhero farce, about a costumed crusader single-handedly battling the Cold War, whenever it uttered the phrase “enemies of freedom.” Special - I haven’t actually seen this movie, and I’ve been told it’s not quite as great as I expect it to be, but the trailer alone is good enough for me. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:00:51 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/1/2008 11:00:51 AM Will Smith’s new superhero movie, Hancock, may be receiving terrible reviews, but it’s sure to make a lot of money. It is a Will Smith movie, after all. The fact that it’s an original superhero title (meaning not adapted from a comic book or other source material), however, means that if it is a success, it will be the rare movie of its kind to be such. Superhero movies may be huge right now, but really only the pre-sold properties, those with a build-in audience, make the big bucks. A number of original superhero movies are just as worthy of your attention as the Spider-Mans, the Iron Mans, the Batmans and the X-Mens. Sure, much of the time, non-adapted superheroes are lame, as in the cases of Blankman and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But just check out any of the following ten titles and see why it sometimes pays off to put your trust in an unfamiliar hero. The Incredibles - This one did it all: won an Oscar; received favorable reviews across the board; did blockbuster business in theaters and ancillaries (its the sole original superhero movie to break $100 million, domestically, a feat it far surpassed by actually grossing more than $260 million); and featured the single greatest superhero gag (above) ever seen. So there’s proof that a superhero movie can be good and do well without being based on another property. Unbreakable - The only film by M. Night Shyamalan I can enjoy repeatedly and perhaps the only superhero movie besides Batman Begins that audiences can kind of believe might be plausible in the real world. Also, it is perhaps the one origin-story superhero tale that doesn’t necessitate a sequel. The ending may have been anticlimactic, but the scene shown above (I wish the clip began earlier, from the train station scene forward) is one of the greatest superhero fight sequences ever put on film. The Matrix - Meanwhile, this is one origin-story superhero movie that shouldn’t have received a sequel, despite it’s needing one. Or maybe it just shouldn’t have been given the sequels it was given. In a way, the first installment is the perfect superhero movie for the age of video games, because Neo really only has powers in the virtual world. Unfortunately, the subsequent installments ruin this concept. Sky High - It looks really cheesy, but this Harry Potter for the superhero set is actually really clever and consistently entertaining. The common high school plot, in which an unpopular kid becomes popular and ends up screwing over his old friends, is ingeniously lent to the superteen subgenre. It may not hold a candle to the teen metaphors of X2: X-Men United, but it makes those initial Xavier School scenes from the first X-Men look wasteful. Darkman - Long before he sold his soul to the Spider-Man franchise, Sam Raimi created this original superhero tale. I wasn’t really a fan when it came out, but I’d now take it over any of the Spidey movies — even Spider-Man 2. RoboCop - The best superhero tales are really about humanity, not superhumanity, and this satirical sci-fi actioner certainly fits that qualification. It’s not surprising that for the sequel to RoboCop, comic book legend Frank Miller was brought in as a screenwriter, nor is it surprising that the franchise spawned multiple comic book series. Super Fuzz - This one is purely a guilty pleasure, as it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s kind of like Police Academy meets Superman meets Ernest Borgnine. Supah Supah! The Toxic Avenger - Another guilty pleasure, but also a great idea for a superhero movie. These days it’s uncommon to see such a ruthlessly violent superhero, but in his time, Toxie was like a parallel to supervillain protagonists of horror movies, like Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger, for who we continually rooted. Mr. Freedom - Change the communist villains to terrorists, and this would have been ripe for a remake a few years back. The Bush Administration was actually referring to this 1969 superhero farce, about a costumed crusader single-handedly battling the Cold War, whenever it uttered the phrase “enemies of freedom.” Special - I haven’t actually seen this movie, and I’ve been told it’s not quite as great as I expect it to be, but the trailer alone is good enough for me. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/iSpy_Worst_Movie_Ever_Version/104/12401/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: davisfreeberg
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 6/27/2007 8:47:42 PM
Body: The difference between a great film and an ok film can sometimes come down to just one or two variables, but when it comes to terrible movies, it's usually only one or two variables that they get right. Since there are so many different ways that films can break down, I thought it would be fun to play a game of iSpy with the worst movies and try to find the repeat offenders. The rules are that you have to pick a movie that you really think is bad and you have to explain the connection between the two films.For example, if I nominated Blankman, you could pick Major Payne for having Damon Wayons in both films or someone could pick, Leonard Part 6 because both leading actors will end up regreting their roles in these particular superhero films. The more creative the connections, the more bonus points you get. If you feel like playing, feel free to jump in with a movie and your answer. For the first nominee, I'm going to pick Dude Where's My Car?
]]>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:47:42 GMTdavisfreebergWorst Movie Ever6/27/2007 8:47:42 PMThe difference between a great film and an ok film can sometimes come down to just one or two variables, but when it comes to terrible movies, it&#39;s usually only one or two variables that they get right. Since there are so many different ways that films can break down, I thought it would be fun to play a game of iSpy with the worst movies and try to find the repeat offenders. The rules are that you have to pick a movie that you really think is bad and you have to explain the connection between the two films.For example, if I nominated Blankman, you could pick Major Payne for having Damon Wayons in both films or someone could pick, Leonard Part 6 because both leading actors will end up regreting their roles in these particular superhero films. The more creative the connections, the more bonus points you get. If you feel like playing, feel free to jump in with a movie and your answer. For the first nominee, I&#39;m going to pick Dude Where&#39;s My Car? http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gangster/MemberTagFilms.aspxgangster
Number of films tagged: 4065

Number of people who tagged: 60

Number of times used: 145

]]>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:37:08 GMT406560145Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/inventor/MemberTagFilms.aspxinventor
Number of films tagged: 623

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 33

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:41:17 GMT6231733Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suckfest/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuckfest
Number of films tagged: 62

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 70

]]>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:25:04 GMT621670Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gadgets/MemberTagFilms.aspxgadgets
Number of films tagged: 110

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 23

]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:08:46 GMT1101123Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crimefighter/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrimefighter
Number of films tagged: 72

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

]]>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:02:56 GMT72710Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tabloid/MemberTagFilms.aspxtabloid
Number of films tagged: 71

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:03:11 GMT7122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superzero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperzero
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:31:06 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/newsperson/MemberTagFilms.aspxnewsperson
Number of films tagged: 56

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:02:03 GMT5600Tag