list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Toy Story 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/Toy_Story/90113/default.aspx Title: Toy Story
Year: 1995
Director: John Lasseter
Plot: Toy Story was the first feature-length film animated entirely by computer. If this seems to be a sterile, mechanical means of moviemaking, be assured that the film is as chock-full of heart and warmth as any Disney cartoon feature. The star of the proceedings is Woody, a pull-string cowboy toy belonging to a wide-eyed youngster named Andy. Whenever Andy's out of the room, Woody revels in his status as the boy's Number One toy. His supremacy is challenged by a high-tech, space-ranger action figure named Buzz Lightyear, who, unlike Woody and his pals, believes that he is real and not merely a plaything. The rivalry between Woody and Buzz hilariously intensifies during the first half of the film, but when the well-being of Andy's toys is threatened by a nasty next-door neighbor kid named Sid -- whose idea of fun is feeding stuffed dolls to his snarling dog and reconstructing his own toys into hideous mutants -- Woody and Buzz join forces to save the day. Superb though the computer animation may be, what really heightens Toy Story are the voiceover performances by such celebrities as Tom Hanks (as Woody), Tim Allen (as Buzz), and Don Rickles (as an appropriately acerbic Mr. Potato Head). Director John Lasseter earned a special achievement Academy Award, while Randy Newman landed an Oscar nomination for his evocative musical score. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 72
Number of Lists: 106
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 11
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:15:24 GMTToy Story1995John LasseterToy Story was the first feature-length film animated entirely by computer. If this seems to be a sterile, mechanical means of moviemaking, be assured that the film is as chock-full of heart and warmth as any Disney cartoon feature. The star of the proceedings is Woody, a pull-string cowboy toy belonging to a wide-eyed youngster named Andy. Whenever Andy's out of the room, Woody revels in his status as the boy's Number One toy. His supremacy is challenged by a high-tech, space-ranger action figure named Buzz Lightyear, who, unlike Woody and his pals, believes that he is real and not merely a plaything. The rivalry between Woody and Buzz hilariously intensifies during the first half of the film, but when the well-being of Andy's toys is threatened by a nasty next-door neighbor kid named Sid -- whose idea of fun is feeding stuffed dolls to his snarling dog and reconstructing his own toys into hideous mutants -- Woody and Buzz join forces to save the day. Superb though the computer animation may be, what really heightens Toy Story are the voiceover performances by such celebrities as <a href="/players/P____93341/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Hanks</a> (as Woody), <a href="/players/P___194994/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tim Allen</a> (as Buzz), and <a href="/players/P____60156/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Don Rickles</a> (as an appropriately acerbic Mr. Potato Head). Director <a href="/players/P___202358/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Lasseter</a> earned a special achievement Academy Award, while <a href="/players/P___104393/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Randy Newman</a> landed an Oscar nomination for his evocative musical score. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide72Tag Target (>10)10612114http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s90113.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Toy_Story/90113/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/I_Love_Childrens_Movies/Re_Up/372/43041/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: I Love Childrens Movies
Post Date: 7/14/2009 2:25:27 PM
Body: [quote user="indieabby88"] Yes, I know this is rather belated (sorry for my extended absence from the boards--the KU J-school will do that to you), but I feel duty-bound to start a discussion of "Up," the latest slice of fried gold to be added to the Pixar canon. I thought this was a wonderfully whimsical, funny, and surprisingly poignant film. I don't know about you guys, but there were a couple of times where it got pretty dusty in the theater for me (read: tears running down my cheeks as I tried to keep from showing my emotion). What did you guys think? Favorite parts? I'm partial to the "cone of shame." Did anyone get to see this in 3D? My second-rate local 8-screen theater only showed it in regular 'ol 2D, so I didn't get the full effect. Let's discuss! [/quote] I wrote a blog about it. Here's what I wrote: Up I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:25:27 GMTRisseladaI Love Childrens Movies7/14/2009 2:25:27 PM[quote user="indieabby88"] Yes, I know this is rather belated (sorry for my extended absence from the boards--the KU J-school will do that to you), but I feel duty-bound to start a discussion of "Up," the latest slice of fried gold to be added to the Pixar canon. I thought this was a wonderfully whimsical, funny, and surprisingly poignant film. I don't know about you guys, but there were a couple of times where it got pretty dusty in the theater for me (read: tears running down my cheeks as I tried to keep from showing my emotion). What did you guys think? Favorite parts? I'm partial to the "cone of shame." Did anyone get to see this in 3D? My second-rate local 8-screen theater only showed it in regular 'ol 2D, so I didn't get the full effect. Let's discuss! [/quote] I wrote a blog about it. Here's what I wrote: Up I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/7/2/42900.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 7/2/2009 2:22:28 PM
Body: Up I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10
]]>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:22:28 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog7/2/2009 2:22:28 PMUp I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/7/42134.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2009 7:44:44 PM
Body: "Woody" (voiced by Tom Hanks) is "Andy's" (voiced by John Morris) favorite toy who has the honor of staying on the boy's bed. He is well respected by the other toys, who look to him as a leader. All the toys are preparing for two big events -- "Andy's" birthday, and the move to a new house, which requires the toys to pick a "moving buddy" in insure that they all make the move safely. However, they are surprised when they learn that "Andy's" birthday party has been moved up a week. The toys are real nervous about what the guests are giving the boy, as they may be replaced. All things seem fine, as there appears to be no toys that will replace any of the resident's of "Andy's" room. That is, unitl "Andy" and his party guests come in, and "Andy" knocks "Woody" off the bed and places a present his mother (voiced by Laurie Metcalf) gave him at the last second. The toys are anxious to meet the new toy, and are pretty surprised to find "Woody" on the floor. "Woody" climbs to the top of the bed, where he sees a crunched up box in the shape of a spaceship, he is then surprised by a plastic toy called "Buzz Lightyear" (voiced by Tim Allen). The toys are happy to meet the new toy, and are curious about him since he is much more advanced then they are. But "Woody" is unimpressed, and makes fun of the newcomer when it is obvious that "Lightyear" believes he's a real person and not a toy. It slowly becomes obvious that "Lightyear" has become "Andy's" new favorite, and it makes "Woody" quite jealous. He plans a scheme that would trap "Lightyear" behind the desk, but he accidentally knocks his competition for "Andy's" affection out the window, and the other toys become upset with him and accuse him of murder. Now "Woody" must go outside, find "Lightyear" and clear his name to regain the trust of the other toys. The first thing you notice is the excellent computer animation in this film. The details the animators put in the fictional world, which includes the reflection off "Lightyear's" visor" is well done. However, the human cast look pretty cartoonish, and sometimes the characters don't cast a shadow. The cast is really good in this film. They really are able to make you believe that the toys they play are alive and give them unique personalities. They are also good at delivering the the jokes as if they are just regular dialogue and not expecting a laugh. Just about every character, except for the humans, are nicely developed. The personalities of each character are established rather quickly, and are well written. Parents will like how that the writers are able to teach lessons like teamwork in this film, while the children will enjoy the movie as a form of entertainment. Parents will also like the chuckle-worthy jokes that will get past children (for example, look at the name of the realtor on the for sale sign outside the house). The songs, all written and performed by Randy Newman, helps advance the scenes emotions nicely. The only problem is that the songs pretty much sound the same. In my opinion, this would be a good rental as well as a good addition to the family's video library.
]]>Thu, 07 May 2009 23:44:44 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/7/2009 7:44:44 PM"Woody" (voiced by Tom Hanks) is "Andy's" (voiced by John Morris) favorite toy who has the honor of staying on the boy's bed. He is well respected by the other toys, who look to him as a leader. All the toys are preparing for two big events -- "Andy's" birthday, and the move to a new house, which requires the toys to pick a "moving buddy" in insure that they all make the move safely. However, they are surprised when they learn that "Andy's" birthday party has been moved up a week. The toys are real nervous about what the guests are giving the boy, as they may be replaced. All things seem fine, as there appears to be no toys that will replace any of the resident's of "Andy's" room. That is, unitl "Andy" and his party guests come in, and "Andy" knocks "Woody" off the bed and places a present his mother (voiced by Laurie Metcalf) gave him at the last second. The toys are anxious to meet the new toy, and are pretty surprised to find "Woody" on the floor. "Woody" climbs to the top of the bed, where he sees a crunched up box in the shape of a spaceship, he is then surprised by a plastic toy called "Buzz Lightyear" (voiced by Tim Allen). The toys are happy to meet the new toy, and are curious about him since he is much more advanced then they are. But "Woody" is unimpressed, and makes fun of the newcomer when it is obvious that "Lightyear" believes he's a real person and not a toy. It slowly becomes obvious that "Lightyear" has become "Andy's" new favorite, and it makes "Woody" quite jealous. He plans a scheme that would trap "Lightyear" behind the desk, but he accidentally knocks his competition for "Andy's" affection out the window, and the other toys become upset with him and accuse him of murder. Now "Woody" must go outside, find "Lightyear" and clear his name to regain the trust of the other toys. The first thing you notice is the excellent computer animation in this film. The details the animators put in the fictional world, which includes the reflection off "Lightyear's" visor" is well done. However, the human cast look pretty cartoonish, and sometimes the characters don't cast a shadow. The cast is really good in this film. They really are able to make you believe that the toys they play are alive and give them unique personalities. They are also good at delivering the the jokes as if they are just regular dialogue and not expecting a laugh. Just about every character, except for the humans, are nicely developed. The personalities of each character are established rather quickly, and are well written. Parents will like how that the writers are able to teach lessons like teamwork in this film, while the children will enjoy the movie as a form of entertainment. Parents will also like the chuckle-worthy jokes that will get past children (for example, look at the name of the realtor on the for sale sign outside the house). The songs, all written and performed by Randy Newman, helps advance the scenes emotions nicely. The only problem is that the songs pretty much sound the same. In my opinion, this would be a good rental as well as a good addition to the family's video library. http://www.spout.com/groups/I_Love_Childrens_Movies/Scarred_for_life/372/39027/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: I Love Childrens Movies
Post Date: 1/1/2009 11:51:37 PM
Body: Everyone's had some moment during their childhood when they saw a movie that seriously screwed them up. I'm not talking about the time you accidentally saw something you weren't supposed to (like that regrettable time you watched Friday the 13th at that sleepover in fifth grade). I'm talking about actual family films that, for one reason or another, contained material that made a mark on your young, impressionable self. Think Bambi's mom, or Old Yeller. For me, the definitive "scarring" movie was Toy Story. Yup, the groundbreaking Pixar film about toys that came to life. I remember pretty vividly going to see this with my dad and some family friends when I was six, and my dad telling me the next day (upon noticing my attachment to a new doll I had) that perhaps my other toys were getting jealous that I was spending so much time with the new doll. Boom. Scarred. From that point on, I was unable to sleep with just one stuffed animal when I went to bed. I had to have ALL of them, to make sure they were each getting the same amount of attention. Even today, I have problems getting rid of things I no longer use, or putting old toys in storage because of the resulting sense of guilt. I mean really...WTF? Has anyone else had similar experiences? Were there any movies that profoundly messed you up during childhood? It's time to air out those long-held cinematic traumas!
]]>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 04:51:37 GMTindieabby88I Love Childrens Movies1/1/2009 11:51:37 PMEveryone's had some moment during their childhood when they saw a movie that seriously screwed them up. I'm not talking about the time you accidentally saw something you weren't supposed to (like that regrettable time you watched Friday the 13th at that sleepover in fifth grade). I'm talking about actual family films that, for one reason or another, contained material that made a mark on your young, impressionable self. Think Bambi's mom, or Old Yeller. For me, the definitive "scarring" movie was Toy Story. Yup, the groundbreaking Pixar film about toys that came to life. I remember pretty vividly going to see this with my dad and some family friends when I was six, and my dad telling me the next day (upon noticing my attachment to a new doll I had) that perhaps my other toys were getting jealous that I was spending so much time with the new doll. Boom. Scarred. From that point on, I was unable to sleep with just one stuffed animal when I went to bed. I had to have ALL of them, to make sure they were each getting the same amount of attention. Even today, I have problems getting rid of things I no longer use, or putting old toys in storage because of the resulting sense of guilt. I mean really...WTF? Has anyone else had similar experiences? Were there any movies that profoundly messed you up during childhood? It's time to air out those long-held cinematic traumas! http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/11/38235.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/11/2008 11:01:42 AM
Body: The fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/11/2008 11:01:42 AMThe fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/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/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/17/35256.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/17/2008 4:01:25 PM
Body: If you took one look at the existence of the new movie Ghost Town and dismissed it on account of its familiarity, you’re ignoring the potential of one of the most valuable plot devices available to fiction. Sure, the employment of ghosts in a narrative may also be evidence of laziness, as the device is just as much a convenience as it is a useful tool for storytellers. Not everyone can be Shakespeare, and of course there is a lot of redundancy and (excuse the pun) lifelessness in the majority of movies involving ghosts. However, ghosts can also be highly representative and/or serve a film on a deeper level than the surface story. To use another pun, ghost movies are not always so transparent. Like zombies, their plot-device sibling, ghosts have a way of signifying greater ideas, subjects and themes, and aren’t always merely about scares and talking-to-thin-air gags. In a conversation with Cinematical’s Erik Davis, Ghost Town director/co-writer David Koepp had this to say about the significance of ghost stories: Part of the reason they’re so enduring is because, well, first off all they give hope — because if they are ghosts, then it means we don’t die when we die. But also because they work really well in a number of genres. Ya know, in a drama like Ghost, or a horror movie, suspense or comedy in our case — I just think they offer so many dramatic possibilities; to have someone that’s dead, but still around to talk about it really suggests a lot of great situations. Okay, so that bit of promotional fluff is actually more about the literal dramatic qualities of the ghost device than the figurative and subtextual, but the quote at least jumpstarted my thinking. Initially I had thought about simply outlining how ghosts have been applied to different film genres, but then I fortunately switched my goal to seek out ten specific ghost films (from the seemingly thousands out there) that utilize the device for more meaningful purpose. Poltergeist (1982) and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986) Ghosts = Threat to Middle-Class In his book Media Culture: Cutural Studies, Identity and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern, critical theorist Douglas Kellner points to a multitude of ideas represented by the ghosts haunting the Freeling family in Poltergeist. In fact, these ideas are discussed over 11 pages (viewable on Google Book Search), also concern the first sequel, Poltergeist II: The Other Side, and include everything from threats of TV’s hold on children to the disintegration of the 1960s counterculture. Generally, though, Kellner sees the first two Poltergeist movies as being about threats to the middle-class and nuclear family in an era of economic insecurity. The ghosts in Poltergeist, Kellner argues, stand in for working-class and racial “others,” and they signify in their actions the break-up of the family unit and fears of losing one’s home and job. With these representations in mind, it’s not so unnecessary, perhaps, that a remake of Poltergeist is currently in the works. The Amityville Horror (1979)  Ghosts = Financial Insecurity This is merely a companion to the Poltergeist films in terms of its ghosts’ representation, but seeing as it was released prior to the first Poltergeist film and it received its allegorical reading from none other than Stephen King (in an article titled “Why We Crave Horror Movies” published in Playboy, quoted in Kellner’s book), I had to include it. Here is what King had to say about the film: “The movie might as well have been subtitled ‘The Horror of the Shrinking Bank Account’…. The Amityville Horror, beneath its ghost-story exterior, is really a financial demolition derby.” Ghostbusters (1984)  Ghosts = Obesity or Scum of Old New York Although it was meant as a joke, the Volkswagon ad in which a projectionist argues his idea that Ghostbusters is a serious warning about the obesity epidemic facing America isn’t completely ridiculous. The points about blobby figures, Dana’s fridge and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man are fair evidence for such an argument. But I’m slightly more interested in the “libertarian” reading of the ghosts as representations of old New York, particularly the filthy, near-bankrupt old New York of the decade preceding the film’s release, which was recently proposed by Karina on this very blog. The Ghostbusters as gentrifying force and pre-Giuliani city-sweepers is interesting, though it might have been more clearly conveyed if some ghosts were in Warriors-like gangs and/or peddling porn in Times Square and/or getting kids hooked on “slime” that can be smoked through a pipe. But I do love the idea that the ghosts are a threat to primarily wealthy New Yorkers just as in real-life it was the homeless and other scum clashing with the new money Manhattanites. Karina also sees the ghosts in the film as a sort of reminder of the New York history that goes back further than the financial and criminal problems of the ‘60s and ‘70s: “Ghostbusters plays on an entire city’s anxieties that, as renters, our spaces don’t belong to us, that there’s a history to our homes that we’ll never know, and probably shouldn’t know.” The Sixth Sense (1999)  Ghosts = Insignificance I love facetious readings of movies, both because I think film scholarship is sometimes too serious and because I think such readings can often be taken more seriously than intended. I’ve already pointed to one example with the VW Ghostbusters ad (there’s a whole series of these ads, of which I find the Toy Story one to be the most hilarious and cogent). Now, I present a humorous address of the major plot hole in The Sixth Sense, part of a Cracked.com list, which asks, regarding the unlikelihood of Bruce Willis’ complete obliviousness to his ghostly existence, “What kind of lifestyle was he living before his death that would make him fail to notice that no one could see or hear him?” Implausible, sure, but it’s also representative of insecurities many of us have about our significance in the world. The Sixth Sense is therefore kind of like the antithesis to It’s a Wonderful Life by showcasing the possibility that your life is so meaningless that were you invisible or dead you would experience no difference. Ghost (1990)  Ghosts = Love’s Bond The fact that, in The Sixth Sense, Bruce Willis doesn’t notice his nonexistence even when in the presence of his wife says something about his character’s perception of and role in that marriage. On the other side of the coin, perhaps, is Demi Moore’s character in Ghost. A precursor and inferior film to Jonathan Glazer’s Birth, it deals more slightly with the same themes of faith and knowability as they pertain to love. This earlier film is far less cynical, though, evident in the employment of a literal ghost rather than simply an outlet for the dead (Ghost would be more similar to Birth if we, like Demi Moore’s character, only saw, heard and had to trust Whoopi Goldberg’s psychic character). There’s still a bit of initial skepticism that love’s bond is nothing more than shared secrets and memories (as if the first convincing evidence that Sam is there, the response “ditto,” couldn’t have been overheard by someone outside the relationship), but continued proof of the ghost’s existence turns the device into an allegory for the spiritual bond between lovers. And it’s apparently a strong enough bond to give Molly (Moore) the faith that she’s kissing her dead husband, even if it may look like she’s kissing a con woman (Goldberg). Over Her Dead Body (2008) Ghosts = Memories of Ex-Lovers Now, imagine if in Ghost, Goldberg’s character actually wanted to pursue a relationship with Molly and was unfortunately haunted by Molly’s previous lover. That’s kind of the premise behind this movie, which proves that even lame ghost movies can at least be allegorical. Here, a psychic character (Lake Bell) falls for a veterinarian (Paul Rudd) and must win his love while being literally haunted by his jealous former fiancée (Eva Longoria). Here the ghost represents that memory of an ex-lover (whether a dumper, dumped or deceased) that can torment the mind of either party in a new relationship, making it difficult to move on to or trust a new lover. Of course, Over Her Dead Body wasn’t the first movie to deal with such a theme, and you’d be better off watching something older and better, like Blithe Spirit, but I wanted to reference some bad films on this list, too. Just be glad I didn’t go ahead and include Ghost Dad as an allegory about inheritance. visit videodetective.com for more info The Univited (1944) Ghosts = Lesbians Continuing a link to the Demi Moore-Whoopi Goldberg kiss (in which Patrick Swazye’s ghost is superimposed over Goldberg to play it safe for the audience), here is a film in which a ghost actually allegorically represents the “spectral presence of lesbianism,” to borrow a phrase from film scholar Patricia White, who writes of this film and others in her look at the correlation between Hollywood ghost movies and lesbian movies in the book Uninvited: Classical Hollywood Cinema and Lesbian Representability. In addition to implying an actual lesbian relationship, which ended with the death of one of the women, the film’s ghost also seems to represent threats of maternal identification and the female Oedipus complex. Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003) Ghosts = Cross-Gendered Spectatorship The ghostly theater audience members in this Tsai Ming-liang film may represent the death of the moviegoer or of cinema itself, but I also see the transvestite ghost as being representative of cross-gendered identification experienced through film spectatorship. 13 Ghosts (1960) Ghosts = Communists Okay, this one is a total stretch, but it works for me because (1) thanks to Joe Dante’s Matinee, I’ve always looked at William Castle films as having a Cold War context and (2) I’m shocked that there aren’t actually any Cold War-era films that more clearly employ ghosts as representatives of a Communist threat. I guess monsters, pod people, witches and aliens were sufficient allegories, but I also think it a missed opportunity to relate ghosts to Karl Marx’s phrase “spectre of Communism.” Anyway, in forcing this film into my wanting of such a Communist allegory, I have only this argument: the goggles used both in the film and (as one of Castle’s many gimmicks) outside the film to detect ghosts could be taken as a sort of fantasy for Americans wishing they had special goggles that could detect any Reds living among them. It’s almost like a counterpart to the goggles that detect capitalistic aliens in They Live, right? No? Well, I tried, and hopefully someone can make a modern ghost story that at least employs ghosts as terrorist allegory. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:01:25 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/17/2008 4:01:25 PMIf you took one look at the existence of the new movie Ghost Town and dismissed it on account of its familiarity, you’re ignoring the potential of one of the most valuable plot devices available to fiction. Sure, the employment of ghosts in a narrative may also be evidence of laziness, as the device is just as much a convenience as it is a useful tool for storytellers. Not everyone can be Shakespeare, and of course there is a lot of redundancy and (excuse the pun) lifelessness in the majority of movies involving ghosts. However, ghosts can also be highly representative and/or serve a film on a deeper level than the surface story. To use another pun, ghost movies are not always so transparent. Like zombies, their plot-device sibling, ghosts have a way of signifying greater ideas, subjects and themes, and aren’t always merely about scares and talking-to-thin-air gags. In a conversation with Cinematical’s Erik Davis, Ghost Town director/co-writer David Koepp had this to say about the significance of ghost stories: Part of the reason they’re so enduring is because, well, first off all they give hope — because if they are ghosts, then it means we don’t die when we die. But also because they work really well in a number of genres. Ya know, in a drama like Ghost, or a horror movie, suspense or comedy in our case — I just think they offer so many dramatic possibilities; to have someone that’s dead, but still around to talk about it really suggests a lot of great situations. Okay, so that bit of promotional fluff is actually more about the literal dramatic qualities of the ghost device than the figurative and subtextual, but the quote at least jumpstarted my thinking. Initially I had thought about simply outlining how ghosts have been applied to different film genres, but then I fortunately switched my goal to seek out ten specific ghost films (from the seemingly thousands out there) that utilize the device for more meaningful purpose. Poltergeist (1982) and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986) Ghosts = Threat to Middle-Class In his book Media Culture: Cutural Studies, Identity and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern, critical theorist Douglas Kellner points to a multitude of ideas represented by the ghosts haunting the Freeling family in Poltergeist. In fact, these ideas are discussed over 11 pages (viewable on Google Book Search), also concern the first sequel, Poltergeist II: The Other Side, and include everything from threats of TV’s hold on children to the disintegration of the 1960s counterculture. Generally, though, Kellner sees the first two Poltergeist movies as being about threats to the middle-class and nuclear family in an era of economic insecurity. The ghosts in Poltergeist, Kellner argues, stand in for working-class and racial “others,” and they signify in their actions the break-up of the family unit and fears of losing one’s home and job. With these representations in mind, it’s not so unnecessary, perhaps, that a remake of Poltergeist is currently in the works. The Amityville Horror (1979)  Ghosts = Financial Insecurity This is merely a companion to the Poltergeist films in terms of its ghosts’ representation, but seeing as it was released prior to the first Poltergeist film and it received its allegorical reading from none other than Stephen King (in an article titled “Why We Crave Horror Movies” published in Playboy, quoted in Kellner’s book), I had to include it. Here is what King had to say about the film: “The movie might as well have been subtitled ‘The Horror of the Shrinking Bank Account’…. The Amityville Horror, beneath its ghost-story exterior, is really a financial demolition derby.” Ghostbusters (1984)  Ghosts = Obesity or Scum of Old New York Although it was meant as a joke, the Volkswagon ad in which a projectionist argues his idea that Ghostbusters is a serious warning about the obesity epidemic facing America isn’t completely ridiculous. The points about blobby figures, Dana’s fridge and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man are fair evidence for such an argument. But I’m slightly more interested in the “libertarian” reading of the ghosts as representations of old New York, particularly the filthy, near-bankrupt old New York of the decade preceding the film’s release, which was recently proposed by Karina on this very blog. The Ghostbusters as gentrifying force and pre-Giuliani city-sweepers is interesting, though it might have been more clearly conveyed if some ghosts were in Warriors-like gangs and/or peddling porn in Times Square and/or getting kids hooked on “slime” that can be smoked through a pipe. But I do love the idea that the ghosts are a threat to primarily wealthy New Yorkers just as in real-life it was the homeless and other scum clashing with the new money Manhattanites. Karina also sees the ghosts in the film as a sort of reminder of the New York history that goes back further than the financial and criminal problems of the ‘60s and ‘70s: “Ghostbusters plays on an entire city’s anxieties that, as renters, our spaces don’t belong to us, that there’s a history to our homes that we’ll never know, and probably shouldn’t know.” The Sixth Sense (1999)  Ghosts = Insignificance I love facetious readings of movies, both because I think film scholarship is sometimes too serious and because I think such readings can often be taken more seriously than intended. I’ve already pointed to one example with the VW Ghostbusters ad (there’s a whole series of these ads, of which I find the Toy Story one to be the most hilarious and cogent). Now, I present a humorous address of the major plot hole in The Sixth Sense, part of a Cracked.com list, which asks, regarding the unlikelihood of Bruce Willis’ complete obliviousness to his ghostly existence, “What kind of lifestyle was he living before his death that would make him fail to notice that no one could see or hear him?” Implausible, sure, but it’s also representative of insecurities many of us have about our significance in the world. The Sixth Sense is therefore kind of like the antithesis to It’s a Wonderful Life by showcasing the possibility that your life is so meaningless that were you invisible or dead you would experience no difference. Ghost (1990)  Ghosts = Love’s Bond The fact that, in The Sixth Sense, Bruce Willis doesn’t notice his nonexistence even when in the presence of his wife says something about his character’s perception of and role in that marriage. On the other side of the coin, perhaps, is Demi Moore’s character in Ghost. A precursor and inferior film to Jonathan Glazer’s Birth, it deals more slightly with the same themes of faith and knowability as they pertain to love. This earlier film is far less cynical, though, evident in the employment of a literal ghost rather than simply an outlet for the dead (Ghost would be more similar to Birth if we, like Demi Moore’s character, only saw, heard and had to trust Whoopi Goldberg’s psychic character). There’s still a bit of initial skepticism that love’s bond is nothing more than shared secrets and memories (as if the first convincing evidence that Sam is there, the response “ditto,” couldn’t have been overheard by someone outside the relationship), but continued proof of the ghost’s existence turns the device into an allegory for the spiritual bond between lovers. And it’s apparently a strong enough bond to give Molly (Moore) the faith that she’s kissing her dead husband, even if it may look like she’s kissing a con woman (Goldberg). Over Her Dead Body (2008) Ghosts = Memories of Ex-Lovers Now, imagine if in Ghost, Goldberg’s character actually wanted to pursue a relationship with Molly and was unfortunately haunted by Molly’s previous lover. That’s kind of the premise behind this movie, which proves that even lame ghost movies can at least be allegorical. Here, a psychic character (Lake Bell) falls for a veterinarian (Paul Rudd) and must win his love while being literally haunted by his jealous former fiancée (Eva Longoria). Here the ghost represents that memory of an ex-lover (whether a dumper, dumped or deceased) that can torment the mind of either party in a new relationship, making it difficult to move on to or trust a new lover. Of course, Over Her Dead Body wasn’t the first movie to deal with such a theme, and you’d be better off watching something older and better, like Blithe Spirit, but I wanted to reference some bad films on this list, too. Just be glad I didn’t go ahead and include Ghost Dad as an allegory about inheritance. visit videodetective.com for more info The Univited (1944) Ghosts = Lesbians Continuing a link to the Demi Moore-Whoopi Goldberg kiss (in which Patrick Swazye’s ghost is superimposed over Goldberg to play it safe for the audience), here is a film in which a ghost actually allegorically represents the “spectral presence of lesbianism,” to borrow a phrase from film scholar Patricia White, who writes of this film and others in her look at the correlation between Hollywood ghost movies and lesbian movies in the book Uninvited: Classical Hollywood Cinema and Lesbian Representability. In addition to implying an actual lesbian relationship, which ended with the death of one of the women, the film’s ghost also seems to represent threats of maternal identification and the female Oedipus complex. Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003) Ghosts = Cross-Gendered Spectatorship The ghostly theater audience members in this Tsai Ming-liang film may represent the death of the moviegoer or of cinema itself, but I also see the transvestite ghost as being representative of cross-gendered identification experienced through film spectatorship. 13 Ghosts (1960) Ghosts = Communists Okay, this one is a total stretch, but it works for me because (1) thanks to Joe Dante’s Matinee, I’ve always looked at William Castle films as having a Cold War context and (2) I’m shocked that there aren’t actually any Cold War-era films that more clearly employ ghosts as representatives of a Communist threat. I guess monsters, pod people, witches and aliens were sufficient allegories, but I also think it a missed opportunity to relate ghosts to Karl Marx’s phrase “spectre of Communism.” Anyway, in forcing this film into my wanting of such a Communist allegory, I have only this argument: the goggles used both in the film and (as one of Castle’s many gimmicks) outside the film to detect ghosts could be taken as a sort of fantasy for Americans wishing they had special goggles that could detect any Reds living among them. It’s almost like a counterpart to the goggles that detect capitalistic aliens in They Live, right? No? Well, I tried, and hopefully someone can make a modern ghost story that at least employs ghosts as terrorist allegory. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/8/26/34430.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 8/26/2008 10:01:11 PM
Body: Much like I’ve engaged in DIY film fests of The Godfather or Marx Brothers or other topics, I decided to watch all the Pixar films I currently own back to back. Starting off withToy Story and its sequel I then moved to Monsters, Inc, Finding Nemo and then Cars. Each film gets a little bit longer but also features a little more in the way of character shading. The characters of Cars are more fully realized than those of Toy Story (no easy task, it’s true) and so are able to inhabit a more fully realized larger world as a result. I think what most sticks out at me about these films is that they’re massively entertaining but in a way that does not require full brain shut-off. You don’t necessarily *need* to be fully engaged to enjoy them but it’s so much more rewarding if you’re paying attention to the breadth of Pixar’s creations. That’s not just in terms of the little visual easter eggs that are dropped into the movies but the character development and real honest-to-goodness story arcs that are created. Pixar does such a better job than any of their animated competitors are doing in creating films that don’t rely on cheap gags to be entertaining for all ages it’s a little sick. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:01:11 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog8/26/2008 10:01:11 PMMuch like I’ve engaged in DIY film fests of The Godfather or Marx Brothers or other topics, I decided to watch all the Pixar films I currently own back to back. Starting off withToy Story and its sequel I then moved to Monsters, Inc, Finding Nemo and then Cars. Each film gets a little bit longer but also features a little more in the way of character shading. The characters of Cars are more fully realized than those of Toy Story (no easy task, it’s true) and so are able to inhabit a more fully realized larger world as a result. I think what most sticks out at me about these films is that they’re massively entertaining but in a way that does not require full brain shut-off. You don’t necessarily *need* to be fully engaged to enjoy them but it’s so much more rewarding if you’re paying attention to the breadth of Pixar’s creations. That’s not just in terms of the little visual easter eggs that are dropped into the movies but the character development and real honest-to-goodness story arcs that are created. Pixar does such a better job than any of their animated competitors are doing in creating films that don’t rely on cheap gags to be entertaining for all ages it’s a little sick. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/24/33020.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/24/2008 11:01:19 AM
Body: Earlier this year, I thought that it was way too late for a Sex and the City movie. But then it made a ton of cash, so I guess I was wrong. Still, I’m going to continue similarly thinking it’s too late for another X-Files movie. And even if I’m proven wrong and the masses get out to theaters this weekend in search of the truth, I’ll keep on believing that X-Files: I Want to Believe is way past its time. To celebrate Mulder and Scully’s tardiness, here are 10 other movies that came out too late: The Godfather Part III (Released in: 1990; Should have been released in: 1976) - Never mind the fact that had this third installment been made years earlier, Sofia Coppola wouldn’t have been cast and therefore wouldn’t have given her terribly infamous performance. The more important matter is that sequels arriving more than a decade after the previous installment are almost always doomed. The longer the wait, the higher the expectations, and the greater the disappointment. Of course, not everyone agrees that it was also too late for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, etc. Snakes on a Plane (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - By the time it finally hit theaters, there was already a major backlash to the hype behind SoaP, and that backlash was apparently well-deserved when audiences saw just how lame the movie ended up being. It was an early indicator that a lot of internet buzz and popular viral marketing does not necessarily equal a lot of money at the box office. More than a year later, though, fears of another SoaP-like disappointment came with the hype behind Cloverfield, yet the monster movie fared much better. Of course, no movie seemed to be more ridiculous a web sensation than The Dark Knight, the record-breaking success of which could still prompt more SoaP-type disasters in the future. Home on the Range (Released in: 2004; Should have been released in: 1994) - When you Google the words “ill-timed” “release” and “film”, this is the first thing that comes up, probably because it’s legendary for marking the (temporary) end of 2-D Disney animation. It actually came out almost a decade after the first Pixar feature signaled the doomed future of these kinds of films, and a number of 2-D animations were actually quite successful in that ten years. But Home on the Range is notable for both having begun preproduction before the release of the first Toy Story and for having been announced as the last traditionally animated Disney feature. Now, of course, the studio has changed its mind, so we’ll just have to see if Home on the Range was indeed too late or simply too bad. Infamous (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - One of many unfortunate movies to come out on the heels of another film dealing with the same subject. Similarly late, similarly redundant efforts include Deep Impact, Mars Attacks!, Volcano, The Forbidden Dance, Red Planet, Wyatt Earp and Valmont. But Infamous seemed more the loser of its race because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar win for Capote. The Simpsons Movie (Released in: 2007; Should have been released in: 1997) - It may be funny enough, but this movie still suffered a bit from being past the TV series’ prime. A lot more people would have been a lot more excited about the spin-off if it had come out ten years earlier. The Onion Movie (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 2003) - Should this not be included because it actually never came out in theaters in the U.S.? Whatever. I’m still accepting it as one of the worst examples of shelving a film for way too long. From the unbearable bits I attempted to watch, the jokes were quite dated, though I have to admit they might not have been all that funny when (mostly) filmed five years ago. As an alternate, in case you don’t accept this title: The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which was also shelved for a few years, but which was probably made too late anyway. Get Smart (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 1978) - When it opened earlier this summer, I wrote a list about how this movie was obsolete before it was even made. Check out those 10 reasons here. Eyes Wide Shut (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1998) - It may still have been received as poorly, but if this film had been able to be finished and to come out before Stanley Kubrick’s death, it might have at least been a stronger work. Angela’s Ashes (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1995) - How long is too late for a film adaptation of a best-selling book? Considering there are still successful movies based on works such as “The Iliad” and “Beowulf”, there’s apparently no limit. But for some reason this cinematic version of Frank McCourt’s wildly popular memoir bombed at the box office. I guess compared to those early works, “Angela’s Ashes” had been read by everyone in America by the time the movie arrived, and few of its fans needed to go through the depressing events a second time. Glitter (Released in: 2001; Should have been released in: 1991) - Maybe if it had opened before 9/11, as it was supposed to, instead of directly following the tragedy. Or, better yet, maybe if it had opened in the mid ’90s before people stopped giving a damn about Mariah, it wouldn’t have bombed so horribly. Actually, because Mariah eventually became popular again, and thanks to VH1, so did the 1980s, Glitter may also be considered a movie that was too early. Perhaps one day it can find success as a Broadway show, a la Xanadu. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/24/2008 11:01:19 AM Earlier this year, I thought that it was way too late for a Sex and the City movie. But then it made a ton of cash, so I guess I was wrong. Still, I’m going to continue similarly thinking it’s too late for another X-Files movie. And even if I’m proven wrong and the masses get out to theaters this weekend in search of the truth, I’ll keep on believing that X-Files: I Want to Believe is way past its time. To celebrate Mulder and Scully’s tardiness, here are 10 other movies that came out too late: The Godfather Part III (Released in: 1990; Should have been released in: 1976) - Never mind the fact that had this third installment been made years earlier, Sofia Coppola wouldn’t have been cast and therefore wouldn’t have given her terribly infamous performance. The more important matter is that sequels arriving more than a decade after the previous installment are almost always doomed. The longer the wait, the higher the expectations, and the greater the disappointment. Of course, not everyone agrees that it was also too late for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, etc. Snakes on a Plane (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - By the time it finally hit theaters, there was already a major backlash to the hype behind SoaP, and that backlash was apparently well-deserved when audiences saw just how lame the movie ended up being. It was an early indicator that a lot of internet buzz and popular viral marketing does not necessarily equal a lot of money at the box office. More than a year later, though, fears of another SoaP-like disappointment came with the hype behind Cloverfield, yet the monster movie fared much better. Of course, no movie seemed to be more ridiculous a web sensation than The Dark Knight, the record-breaking success of which could still prompt more SoaP-type disasters in the future. Home on the Range (Released in: 2004; Should have been released in: 1994) - When you Google the words “ill-timed” “release” and “film”, this is the first thing that comes up, probably because it’s legendary for marking the (temporary) end of 2-D Disney animation. It actually came out almost a decade after the first Pixar feature signaled the doomed future of these kinds of films, and a number of 2-D animations were actually quite successful in that ten years. But Home on the Range is notable for both having begun preproduction before the release of the first Toy Story and for having been announced as the last traditionally animated Disney feature. Now, of course, the studio has changed its mind, so we’ll just have to see if Home on the Range was indeed too late or simply too bad. Infamous (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - One of many unfortunate movies to come out on the heels of another film dealing with the same subject. Similarly late, similarly redundant efforts include Deep Impact, Mars Attacks!, Volcano, The Forbidden Dance, Red Planet, Wyatt Earp and Valmont. But Infamous seemed more the loser of its race because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar win for Capote. The Simpsons Movie (Released in: 2007; Should have been released in: 1997) - It may be funny enough, but this movie still suffered a bit from being past the TV series’ prime. A lot more people would have been a lot more excited about the spin-off if it had come out ten years earlier. The Onion Movie (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 2003) - Should this not be included because it actually never came out in theaters in the U.S.? Whatever. I’m still accepting it as one of the worst examples of shelving a film for way too long. From the unbearable bits I attempted to watch, the jokes were quite dated, though I have to admit they might not have been all that funny when (mostly) filmed five years ago. As an alternate, in case you don’t accept this title: The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which was also shelved for a few years, but which was probably made too late anyway. Get Smart (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 1978) - When it opened earlier this summer, I wrote a list about how this movie was obsolete before it was even made. Check out those 10 reasons here. Eyes Wide Shut (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1998) - It may still have been received as poorly, but if this film had been able to be finished and to come out before Stanley Kubrick’s death, it might have at least been a stronger work. Angela’s Ashes (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1995) - How long is too late for a film adaptation of a best-selling book? Considering there are still successful movies based on works such as “The Iliad” and “Beowulf”, there’s apparently no limit. But for some reason this cinematic version of Frank McCourt’s wildly popular memoir bombed at the box office. I guess compared to those early works, “Angela’s Ashes” had been read by everyone in America by the time the movie arrived, and few of its fans needed to go through the depressing events a second time. Glitter (Released in: 2001; Should have been released in: 1991) - Maybe if it had opened before 9/11, as it was supposed to, instead of directly following the tragedy. Or, better yet, maybe if it had opened in the mid ’90s before people stopped giving a damn about Mariah, it wouldn’t have bombed so horribly. Actually, because Mariah eventually became popular again, and thanks to VH1, so did the 1980s, Glitter may also be considered a movie that was too early. Perhaps one day it can find success as a Broadway show, a la Xanadu. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_July_7_Foodie_Heaven/625/32708/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/18/2008 8:03:07 AM
Body: [quote user="unclefestering"] [quote user="leeroy711"] Also, am I the only one ever that thought Ratatouille was weak? I've liked pretty much all of the Disney/Pixar movies but this just did nothing for me. [/quote] And I thought I was the only person on the planet unmoved by Ratatouille. Thank god, I don't feel so alone any more. [/quote] Oooh. I disagree that Ratatouille was weak. Maybe your hunger pangs at the gourmet food were quashed at the sight of rats, but I think this is one of Pixar's finest. It's got an artistic sensibility to it matched or surpassed only by Wall-E (highly recommend the robot flick), a wonderful and inventive story, great voice performances (Peter O'Toole as the food critic, Come. On.), and beautiful animation. Also, I think it gets better with repeat viewings because you catch more of what you missed the first time. Sure, it's not all razzle dazzle like Lightning McQueen (Cars) or boffo superheroes (the Incredibles) or cute fishies (Finding Nemo) or Tom Hanks (Toy Stories), but it's far from weak. Though I acknowledge that the laughs aren't as instantaneous as in some of those other flicks, but Ellen DeGeneres and Tom Hanks can't be in all of their films (that's John Ratzenberger's job).
]]>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:03:07 GMTpippin06Weekly Theme7/18/2008 8:03:07 AM[quote user="unclefestering"] [quote user="leeroy711"] Also, am I the only one ever that thought Ratatouille was weak? I've liked pretty much all of the Disney/Pixar movies but this just did nothing for me. [/quote] And I thought I was the only person on the planet unmoved by Ratatouille. Thank god, I don't feel so alone any more. [/quote] Oooh. I disagree that Ratatouille was weak. Maybe your hunger pangs at the gourmet food were quashed at the sight of rats, but I think this is one of Pixar's finest. It's got an artistic sensibility to it matched or surpassed only by Wall-E (highly recommend the robot flick), a wonderful and inventive story, great voice performances (Peter O'Toole as the food critic, Come. On.), and beautiful animation. Also, I think it gets better with repeat viewings because you catch more of what you missed the first time. Sure, it's not all razzle dazzle like Lightning McQueen (Cars) or boffo superheroes (the Incredibles) or cute fishies (Finding Nemo) or Tom Hanks (Toy Stories), but it's far from weak. Though I acknowledge that the laughs aren't as instantaneous as in some of those other flicks, but Ellen DeGeneres and Tom Hanks can't be in all of their films (that's John Ratzenberger's job). http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hilarious/MemberTagFilms.aspxhilarious
Number of films tagged: 222

Number of people who tagged: 165

Number of times used: 331

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:04 GMT222165331Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 259

Number of people who tagged: 149

Number of times used: 416

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:38 GMT259149416Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fun/MemberTagFilms.aspxfun
Number of films tagged: 459

Number of people who tagged: 142

Number of times used: 296

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:09 GMT459142296Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brilliant/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT179137285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 228

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 368

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:03 GMT22895368Tag 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/children/MemberTagFilms.aspxchildren
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 270

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:28:15 GMT21266270Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/personal-classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpersonal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT18064274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/animation/MemberTagFilms.aspxanimation
Number of films tagged: 295

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 209

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:34:12 GMT29558209Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/original/MemberTagFilms.aspxoriginal
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:07 GMT775294Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/chase/MemberTagFilms.aspxchase
Number of films tagged: 880

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 109

]]>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:13:34 GMT88044109Tag