list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Showgirls 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/Showgirls/93033/default.aspx Title: Showgirls
Year: 1995
Director: Paul Verhoeven
Plot: "I'm gonna dance," Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) insists in the opening scene of Showgirls, and dance she does. In this quasi-update of All About Eve, Nomi is a drifter whose sole ambition is to headline the "Goddess" topless dance show at the Stardust in Las Vegas. Of course, even Nomi must pay her dues, and she does so at the Cheetah, grinding poles and lap dancing her way to a future. Fortunately, her roommate, Molly, works at the Stardust and invites Nomi to see the show, where she meets Crystal Conners (Gina Gershon, in the Bette Davis role), with whom she immediately forms a love/hate relationship. Nomi soon learns what she must do to get ahead, and the rest of the film documents her cat-like crawl up the showgirl ladder of success. Directed by Paul Verhoeven, (Robocop, Basic Instinct, The Fourth Man), Showgirls was conceived as the first big-budget "adult" film since 1977's Caligula, and the first such production to wear the NC-17 rating; its failure at the box-office discouraged further attempts at large-scale adult productions. ~ Dylan Wilcox, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 12
Number of Lists: 26
Number of blog posts: 7
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:52:29 GMTShowgirls1995Paul Verhoeven"I'm gonna dance," Nomi Malone (<a href="/players/P_____5694/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Elizabeth Berkley</a>) insists in the opening scene of Showgirls, and dance she does. In this quasi-update of <a href=/films/884/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>All About Eve</a>, Nomi is a drifter whose sole ambition is to headline the "Goddess" topless dance show at the Stardust in Las Vegas. Of course, even Nomi must pay her dues, and she does so at the Cheetah, grinding poles and lap dancing her way to a future. Fortunately, her roommate, Molly, works at the Stardust and invites Nomi to see the show, where she meets Crystal Conners (<a href="/players/P____26607/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gina Gershon</a>, in the <a href="/players/P____17295/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bette Davis</a> role), with whom she immediately forms a love/hate relationship. Nomi soon learns what she must do to get ahead, and the rest of the film documents her cat-like crawl up the showgirl ladder of success. Directed by Paul Verhoeven, (<a href=/films/29186/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Robocop</a>, <a href=/films/2445/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Basic Instinct</a>, <a href=/films/140/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Fourth Man</a>), Showgirls was conceived as the first big-budget "adult" film since 1977's <a href=/films/5002/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Caligula</a>, and the first such production to wear the NC-17 rating; its failure at the box-office discouraged further attempts at large-scale adult productions. ~ Dylan Wilcox, All Movie Guide12Tag Target (>10)26732http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u38662z0o8f.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Showgirls/93033/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_March_30_Strippers/625/41415/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/2/2009 3:52:29 PM
Body: Well, since it appears I picked another topic that nobody wants to talk about I'll just have to do the talking. Not the greatest movie ever made but a landmark film nonetheless, Showgirls made an impact by being one of the few NC-17 films to get a wide theatrical release. And of course it turned the innocent bookworm Jesse Spano from Saved By The Bell into a knife wielding nymphomaniac stripper. Another film that made a big splash was Striptease. Demi Moore showed just how good a mother in her thirties can look by exposing her recently enhanced assets to the world. Jessica Alba helped increase sales of chaps and lassos in Sin City. Natalie Portman showed up those critics of her work in the Star Wars prequels by showing some skin in Closer. Not the best adaptation of a Chuck Palahniuk novel, but Choke does have a number of choice scenes, one of which involving the main characters predilection for strip clubs. After remarking to one of the exotic dancers that blondes have a higher chance of skin cancer and that one of her moles should get checked out, said stripper returns next time with her hair dyed brown and thanks him for telling her the thing about blondes. Ha ha ha. Pecker taught me what muff and tea-bagging was. Thanks John Waters! And lastly, Gilda with Rita Hayworth showing just how sexy stripping can be without removing hardly any clothes at all.
]]>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:52:29 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme4/2/2009 3:52:29 PMWell, since it appears I picked another topic that nobody wants to talk about I'll just have to do the talking. Not the greatest movie ever made but a landmark film nonetheless, Showgirls made an impact by being one of the few NC-17 films to get a wide theatrical release. And of course it turned the innocent bookworm Jesse Spano from Saved By The Bell into a knife wielding nymphomaniac stripper. Another film that made a big splash was Striptease. Demi Moore showed just how good a mother in her thirties can look by exposing her recently enhanced assets to the world. Jessica Alba helped increase sales of chaps and lassos in Sin City. Natalie Portman showed up those critics of her work in the Star Wars prequels by showing some skin in Closer. Not the best adaptation of a Chuck Palahniuk novel, but Choke does have a number of choice scenes, one of which involving the main characters predilection for strip clubs. After remarking to one of the exotic dancers that blondes have a higher chance of skin cancer and that one of her moles should get checked out, said stripper returns next time with her hair dyed brown and thanks him for telling her the thing about blondes. Ha ha ha. Pecker taught me what muff and tea-bagging was. Thanks John Waters! And lastly, Gilda with Rita Hayworth showing just how sexy stripping can be without removing hardly any clothes at all. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/30/41351.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/30/2009 7:01:17 PM
Body: It’s certainly no accident that The Wrap’s Sharon Waxman found out about and reported on Bruno initially receiving an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. After all, what raunchy docu-comedy wouldn’t want additional buzz focused on how “objectionable” some scenes were? Universal and Sacha Baron Cohen obviously pushed the envelope in order to both see how much they could get away with and to draw attention to themselves with a desired NC-17. Hasn’t anyone been following Hollywood the past 10 years? Here are a few benefits to both garnering the unacceptable rating and having news of that “unfortunate” rating leaked to all the fanboy bloggers: Typical outrage over the MPAA’s dealings guarantee postings (including this one), which continue to give attention to the film. Excitement over how hard the ultimate R-rating will likely be continues the interest from moviegoers interested in raunchy content. And if they’re upset that it won’t be as dirty as the original NC-17 version they can always… …look forward to the Unrated DVD release, which will most definitely include the censored “objectionable” scenes either in the movie or as supplement material. Of course, news of the ratings controversy does draw potentially unfair complaints regarding the MPAA’s reputation for typically having problems with homosexual themes. For once, though, the gay community can leave the ratings board alone on this one, since the studio and filmmakers most certainly wanted all of this. Of course, if you do decide to protest, make sure you mention the film title often. That will help the marketing, too. And now some of the unnecessary complaints from my fellow internerds helping with the film’s buzz: Ryan Adams at Awards Daily knows what I’m talking about, though he’s as guilty as the rest of us for keeping the buzz flowing: We know Sharon Waxman knows exactly what’s going on here, and understands the game being played. Maybe she thinks nobody else does, because this gets reported in breathless gasps, as if we’re all supposed to be shocked and concerned…Where does Waxman think we think the scenes for unrated DVD editions come from? Eric Melin at Scene Stealers is right on the money: It’s not uncommon, actually, for filmmakers to submit a first cut that is way raunchier than anything they actually hope to get a way with. Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and Kevin Smith do it all the time. The hope is, that after the board goes back and forth with the film asking the director to snip a little penis here or a poop joke there, that the filmmaker will end up with something that’s still pretty raunchy. Jim Vejvoda at IGN appears to get it in his parenthetical comment below, but I’m not sure: Sacha Baron Cohen’s follow-up to his wildly successful Borat, has reportedly been branded with the commercially dreaded (or maybe not so much in this case) NC-17 rating. Erik Davis at Cinematical also seems to see the ultimate benefit of the NC-17 footage, even if he plays a bit more into the buzz machinery: Since Universal won’t release a film that’s rated NC-17 — especially because they know this sucker will make a ton of money for them assuming it gets its R rating — you can bet Baron Cohen will be forced to cut or trim the scenes the MPAA deems not appropriate and leave them for an unrated DVD. So fear not, friends, this will find its way to theaters — it’ll just take a little more time to hash out the ratings snafu. Lane Brown at Vulture provides an update from the comment’s section of Waxman’s original post. An earlier version of Waxman’s story, posted last night, said another part deemed unacceptable was one in which “two naked men attempt oral sex in a hot tub, while one of them holds a baby.” But in the comments, Waxman says a Universal spokesperson contacted her to clarify that “the hot tub scene is not on the list that the MPAA finds objectionable.” So we won’t even have to wait for the DVD to see that one. Alex Billington at FirstShowing.net catches the bait, though of course he’s right in his response, too: why is this good news? Because as ludicrous and awesome as Borat was, it sounds like Bruno is going to kick things up another notch, especially in the sexual department. Did anyone really think that Cohen would be able to top that 3-minute naked fight scene? “The rating is a blow as the film is unlikely to be given a release unless the downgraded ‘R’ rating is achieved,” writes The Playlist, also missing the obvious intent. A blow? More like the opposite. Neil Miller at Film School Rejects reminds us of what the MPAA board is like. As for his question at the end there, I think I’ve answered it. Now, as a securely heterosexual man, I can’t say that any of this would bother me in a movie, especially if it were to be used for humorous effect — but I can see how the MPAA might not like it. It’s a long-held theory of many in the industry that they are a very prude group, consistently being more harsh on sexuality than violence. Then again, who knows what kind of footage Baron Cohen has put into this movie Peter Knegt at indieWIRE takes the opportunity to point out that the top-grossing NC-17 film was Showgirls, which made just a little more than $20 million. But of course that isn’t the only reason Universal wants Bruno to release with an R. “So a guy has butt sex on camera with another guy and suddenly it’s NC-17? Pfft!,” complains Omar Aviles at JoBlo.com, regarding the MPAA’s typical behavior before concluding with the obvious understanding that this “isn’t a total loss because Bruno in all his astoundingly gay glory will likely be unleashed uncensored on DVD at some point.” “Disembowelment and limb-tearing still ok but simulated buttsecks might send kids the wrong message,” reads part of the Fark.com link headline, addressing the MPAA’s usual double standard (as usual, the comments there are worth a read). Richard at Defamer also jokingly complains that it is indeed homosexual content that is unfortunately being cited as “objectionable”: [Borat] had a famous naked men wrestling sequence, though it wasn’t as overtly homocentric as Bruno butt fucking or going on a talk show to discuss same-sex parenting, adopted black baby in tow. The notoriously homo and dick-phobic ratings board just can’t abide that. Baron Cohen has appealed and the film will go back to the editing room to try and come up with a more palatable version. Meanwhile the gratuitous tits of a movie not trying to say anything at all except “Straight men! Whoo!” like the abysmal College sail comfortably under the radar. Boys will be boys, not do them. Update: Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere posted this just as the Bloggery went live, but since he’s so on point about both the benefit of the rating “snag” and the MPAA’s double standard, he just had to be added in: This is surprising? What kind of rep would this 7.10 Universal release have if the MPAA’s ratings board had given it a nice obliging R? Please…We’re experiencing the Fall of the Roman Empire and the End of Civilization as we know it– why not allow such scenes to be included in adult fare? Why can’t we be more like Scandanavia or Sweden or Denmark? They aren’t so wang-averse over there, I thought that Billy Crudup’s blue schlong in Watchmen signified a sea change in U.S. values. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:01:17 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/30/2009 7:01:17 PMIt’s certainly no accident that The Wrap’s Sharon Waxman found out about and reported on Bruno initially receiving an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. After all, what raunchy docu-comedy wouldn’t want additional buzz focused on how “objectionable” some scenes were? Universal and Sacha Baron Cohen obviously pushed the envelope in order to both see how much they could get away with and to draw attention to themselves with a desired NC-17. Hasn’t anyone been following Hollywood the past 10 years? Here are a few benefits to both garnering the unacceptable rating and having news of that “unfortunate” rating leaked to all the fanboy bloggers: Typical outrage over the MPAA’s dealings guarantee postings (including this one), which continue to give attention to the film. Excitement over how hard the ultimate R-rating will likely be continues the interest from moviegoers interested in raunchy content. And if they’re upset that it won’t be as dirty as the original NC-17 version they can always… …look forward to the Unrated DVD release, which will most definitely include the censored “objectionable” scenes either in the movie or as supplement material. Of course, news of the ratings controversy does draw potentially unfair complaints regarding the MPAA’s reputation for typically having problems with homosexual themes. For once, though, the gay community can leave the ratings board alone on this one, since the studio and filmmakers most certainly wanted all of this. Of course, if you do decide to protest, make sure you mention the film title often. That will help the marketing, too. And now some of the unnecessary complaints from my fellow internerds helping with the film’s buzz: Ryan Adams at Awards Daily knows what I’m talking about, though he’s as guilty as the rest of us for keeping the buzz flowing: We know Sharon Waxman knows exactly what’s going on here, and understands the game being played. Maybe she thinks nobody else does, because this gets reported in breathless gasps, as if we’re all supposed to be shocked and concerned…Where does Waxman think we think the scenes for unrated DVD editions come from? Eric Melin at Scene Stealers is right on the money: It’s not uncommon, actually, for filmmakers to submit a first cut that is way raunchier than anything they actually hope to get a way with. Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and Kevin Smith do it all the time. The hope is, that after the board goes back and forth with the film asking the director to snip a little penis here or a poop joke there, that the filmmaker will end up with something that’s still pretty raunchy. Jim Vejvoda at IGN appears to get it in his parenthetical comment below, but I’m not sure: Sacha Baron Cohen’s follow-up to his wildly successful Borat, has reportedly been branded with the commercially dreaded (or maybe not so much in this case) NC-17 rating. Erik Davis at Cinematical also seems to see the ultimate benefit of the NC-17 footage, even if he plays a bit more into the buzz machinery: Since Universal won’t release a film that’s rated NC-17 — especially because they know this sucker will make a ton of money for them assuming it gets its R rating — you can bet Baron Cohen will be forced to cut or trim the scenes the MPAA deems not appropriate and leave them for an unrated DVD. So fear not, friends, this will find its way to theaters — it’ll just take a little more time to hash out the ratings snafu. Lane Brown at Vulture provides an update from the comment’s section of Waxman’s original post. An earlier version of Waxman’s story, posted last night, said another part deemed unacceptable was one in which “two naked men attempt oral sex in a hot tub, while one of them holds a baby.” But in the comments, Waxman says a Universal spokesperson contacted her to clarify that “the hot tub scene is not on the list that the MPAA finds objectionable.” So we won’t even have to wait for the DVD to see that one. Alex Billington at FirstShowing.net catches the bait, though of course he’s right in his response, too: why is this good news? Because as ludicrous and awesome as Borat was, it sounds like Bruno is going to kick things up another notch, especially in the sexual department. Did anyone really think that Cohen would be able to top that 3-minute naked fight scene? “The rating is a blow as the film is unlikely to be given a release unless the downgraded ‘R’ rating is achieved,” writes The Playlist, also missing the obvious intent. A blow? More like the opposite. Neil Miller at Film School Rejects reminds us of what the MPAA board is like. As for his question at the end there, I think I’ve answered it. Now, as a securely heterosexual man, I can’t say that any of this would bother me in a movie, especially if it were to be used for humorous effect — but I can see how the MPAA might not like it. It’s a long-held theory of many in the industry that they are a very prude group, consistently being more harsh on sexuality than violence. Then again, who knows what kind of footage Baron Cohen has put into this movie Peter Knegt at indieWIRE takes the opportunity to point out that the top-grossing NC-17 film was Showgirls, which made just a little more than $20 million. But of course that isn’t the only reason Universal wants Bruno to release with an R. “So a guy has butt sex on camera with another guy and suddenly it’s NC-17? Pfft!,” complains Omar Aviles at JoBlo.com, regarding the MPAA’s typical behavior before concluding with the obvious understanding that this “isn’t a total loss because Bruno in all his astoundingly gay glory will likely be unleashed uncensored on DVD at some point.” “Disembowelment and limb-tearing still ok but simulated buttsecks might send kids the wrong message,” reads part of the Fark.com link headline, addressing the MPAA’s usual double standard (as usual, the comments there are worth a read). Richard at Defamer also jokingly complains that it is indeed homosexual content that is unfortunately being cited as “objectionable”: [Borat] had a famous naked men wrestling sequence, though it wasn’t as overtly homocentric as Bruno butt fucking or going on a talk show to discuss same-sex parenting, adopted black baby in tow. The notoriously homo and dick-phobic ratings board just can’t abide that. Baron Cohen has appealed and the film will go back to the editing room to try and come up with a more palatable version. Meanwhile the gratuitous tits of a movie not trying to say anything at all except “Straight men! Whoo!” like the abysmal College sail comfortably under the radar. Boys will be boys, not do them. Update: Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere posted this just as the Bloggery went live, but since he’s so on point about both the benefit of the rating “snag” and the MPAA’s double standard, he just had to be added in: This is surprising? What kind of rep would this 7.10 Universal release have if the MPAA’s ratings board had given it a nice obliging R? Please…We’re experiencing the Fall of the Roman Empire and the End of Civilization as we know it– why not allow such scenes to be included in adult fare? Why can’t we be more like Scandanavia or Sweden or Denmark? They aren’t so wang-averse over there, I thought that Billy Crudup’s blue schlong in Watchmen signified a sea change in U.S. values. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_17_In_The_Nude/625/37420/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/18/2008 8:43:22 PM
Body: So many to list . . . so how about I go with the most shocking (to me). Julianne Moore / Heather Graham / Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights Kevin Bacon in Wild Things Never have I wanted to rip out my eyes so badly before. Denise Richards in Wild Things Makes up for Kevin Bacon. Kate WInslet in Titanic Jennifer Connelly in Requiem for a Dream Holly Hunter in Crash Mena Suvari in American Beauty Michael Pitt in The Dreamers Kate Hudson in Almost Famous Get your pause buttons ready. Dina Meyer in Starship Troopers Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love Monica Bellucci in Irreversible Laura Harring in Mulholland Dr. Out of the middle of nowhere, BAM! Lesbian Sex Scene! Elizabeth Berkley / Gina Gershon in Showgirls From Saved By The Bell to this. Nice transition. Jaime King in Sin City Vinessa Shaw in Eyes Wide Shut Wait? She was wearing a mask? I didn't notice. Milla Jovovich in The Fifth Element Selma Blair in Storytelling Some people only saw a big black censored square over her. Find the unrated version of the film. Selma Blair in A Dirty Shame So they are obviously fake, but holy &#$%! Uma Thurman in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen So she's almost completely naked. Who cares! Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me They couldn't do that on television! Rose McGowan in The Doom Generation Erika Eleniak in Under Siege Happy Birthday to me! Erika Eleniak in Chasers Amy Adams in Psycho Beach Party Before she was an Academy Award Nominee. Natalie Portman in Hotel Chevalier Heather Matarazzo in Hostel 2 Christina Ricci in The Opposite of Sex Christina Ricci in Black Snake Moan WOW! Isabella Rossellini in Blue Velvet Ewan McGregor in Velvet Goldmine Emmanuelle Seigner in The Ninth Gate Straddling Johnny Depp next to a burning castle. Hot! Demi Moore in Striptease I think that's enough for now. And yes, I am a pervert.
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:43:22 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme11/18/2008 8:43:22 PMSo many to list . . . so how about I go with the most shocking (to me). Julianne Moore / Heather Graham / Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights Kevin Bacon in Wild Things Never have I wanted to rip out my eyes so badly before. Denise Richards in Wild Things Makes up for Kevin Bacon. Kate WInslet in Titanic Jennifer Connelly in Requiem for a Dream Holly Hunter in Crash Mena Suvari in American Beauty Michael Pitt in The Dreamers Kate Hudson in Almost Famous Get your pause buttons ready. Dina Meyer in Starship Troopers Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love Monica Bellucci in Irreversible Laura Harring in Mulholland Dr. Out of the middle of nowhere, BAM! Lesbian Sex Scene! Elizabeth Berkley / Gina Gershon in Showgirls From Saved By The Bell to this. Nice transition. Jaime King in Sin City Vinessa Shaw in Eyes Wide Shut Wait? She was wearing a mask? I didn't notice. Milla Jovovich in The Fifth Element Selma Blair in Storytelling Some people only saw a big black censored square over her. Find the unrated version of the film. Selma Blair in A Dirty Shame So they are obviously fake, but holy &amp;#$%! Uma Thurman in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen So she's almost completely naked. Who cares! Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me They couldn't do that on television! Rose McGowan in The Doom Generation Erika Eleniak in Under Siege Happy Birthday to me! Erika Eleniak in Chasers Amy Adams in Psycho Beach Party Before she was an Academy Award Nominee. Natalie Portman in Hotel Chevalier Heather Matarazzo in Hostel 2 Christina Ricci in The Opposite of Sex Christina Ricci in Black Snake Moan WOW! Isabella Rossellini in Blue Velvet Ewan McGregor in Velvet Goldmine Emmanuelle Seigner in The Ninth Gate Straddling Johnny Depp next to a burning castle. Hot! Demi Moore in Striptease I think that's enough for now. And yes, I am a pervert. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/6/24/31636.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 6/24/2008 6:00:56 PM
Body: Benten Film’s latest release, the award-winning The Free Will (otherwise known as “that 3-hour German rape movie”), is available today. I’ll be posting a longish piece on the film when I get back to New York next week, but in the meantime, check out comments from Cinematical, The ScreenGrab, and Hammer to Nail. Fleshbot notes that the editor of Showgirls/director of last year’s Dane Cook/Jessica Alba bomb Good Luck Chuck is also a published photographer of art porn. The Approval Matrix may need to be redrawn to reflect such achievements in middlebrow sleaze. Speaking of dubious filmmakers: is Madonna turning into Mae West? Michael Musto is all for it, as long as we all agree to “pass a law that in 30 years she must start covering shit up.” New Magnet release Shrooms leads Craig Keller at Cinemasparagus to ask an immortal question: “If, in a film, a character has to have his penis bitten off within the first 35 minutes, wouldn’t it be more interesting to let him live until the story’s end?” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:00:56 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog6/24/2008 6:00:56 PM Benten Film’s latest release, the award-winning The Free Will (otherwise known as “that 3-hour German rape movie”), is available today. I’ll be posting a longish piece on the film when I get back to New York next week, but in the meantime, check out comments from Cinematical, The ScreenGrab, and Hammer to Nail. Fleshbot notes that the editor of Showgirls/director of last year’s Dane Cook/Jessica Alba bomb Good Luck Chuck is also a published photographer of art porn. The Approval Matrix may need to be redrawn to reflect such achievements in middlebrow sleaze. Speaking of dubious filmmakers: is Madonna turning into Mae West? Michael Musto is all for it, as long as we all agree to “pass a law that in 30 years she must start covering shit up.” New Magnet release Shrooms leads Craig Keller at Cinemasparagus to ask an immortal question: “If, in a film, a character has to have his penis bitten off within the first 35 minutes, wouldn’t it be more interesting to let him live until the story’s end?” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/24/31635.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/24/2008 6:00:42 PM
Body: Benten Film’s latest release, the award-winning The Free Will (otherwise known as “that 3-hour German rape movie”), is available today. I’ll be posting a longish piece on the film when I get back to New York next week, but in the meantime, check out comments from Cinematical, The ScreenGrab, and Hammer to Nail. Fleshbot notes that the editor of Showgirls/director of last year’s Dane Cook/Jessica Alba bomb Good Luck Chuck is also a published photographer of art porn. The Approval Matrix may need to be redrawn to reflect such achievements in middlebrow sleaze. Speaking of dubious filmmakers: is Madonna turning into Mae West? Michael Musto is all for it, as long as we all agree to “pass a law that in 30 years she must start covering shit up.” New Magnet release Shrooms leads Craig Keller at Cinemasparagus to ask an immortal question: “If, in a film, a character has to have his penis bitten off within the first 35 minutes, wouldn’t it be more interesting to let him live until the story’s end?” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:00:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/24/2008 6:00:42 PM Benten Film’s latest release, the award-winning The Free Will (otherwise known as “that 3-hour German rape movie”), is available today. I’ll be posting a longish piece on the film when I get back to New York next week, but in the meantime, check out comments from Cinematical, The ScreenGrab, and Hammer to Nail. Fleshbot notes that the editor of Showgirls/director of last year’s Dane Cook/Jessica Alba bomb Good Luck Chuck is also a published photographer of art porn. The Approval Matrix may need to be redrawn to reflect such achievements in middlebrow sleaze. Speaking of dubious filmmakers: is Madonna turning into Mae West? Michael Musto is all for it, as long as we all agree to “pass a law that in 30 years she must start covering shit up.” New Magnet release Shrooms leads Craig Keller at Cinemasparagus to ask an immortal question: “If, in a film, a character has to have his penis bitten off within the first 35 minutes, wouldn’t it be more interesting to let him live until the story’s end?” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/7/25/16232.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/25/2007 6:00:46 PM
Body: See that graphic above? According to Armin Vit at the graphic design community blog Speak Up, it’s empirical evidence that in order for a G-rated film to succeed, its poster needs to be predominantly white and blue. In what he describes as “an exercise in color trends,” Vit analyzed the predominant color breakdowns of the theatrical posters representing the five highest grossing films from each MPAA rating. The top grossing NC-17 films (none of which grossed more than about $20 million, due to the restricted release that rating brings) were all advertised via posters predominantly made up of black and red tones. Successful films with more lenient ratings are marketed with lighter colors; blue begins to replace black as the dominant background color, and imagery moves from stark and high-conrast to soft and airy. In terms of color psychology, it all makes sense. While Showgirls (rated NC-17) and Finding Nemo (rated G) are each the highest grossing films in their rating’s rubric, in terms of design elements, their posters could not be more diametrically opposed. I haven’t seen Finding Nemo, but from what I remember of Showgirls, I imagine the films are equally discrepant in terms of content. Unless Nemo is a manipulative, glorified prostitute with a taste for Ver-sayss. Vit’s full, illustrated analysis can be found here, via BoingBoing. Originally posted on:Spoutblog
]]>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:00:46 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/25/2007 6:00:46 PM See that graphic above? According to Armin Vit at the graphic design community blog Speak Up, it’s empirical evidence that in order for a G-rated film to succeed, its poster needs to be predominantly white and blue. In what he describes as “an exercise in color trends,” Vit analyzed the predominant color breakdowns of the theatrical posters representing the five highest grossing films from each MPAA rating. The top grossing NC-17 films (none of which grossed more than about $20 million, due to the restricted release that rating brings) were all advertised via posters predominantly made up of black and red tones. Successful films with more lenient ratings are marketed with lighter colors; blue begins to replace black as the dominant background color, and imagery moves from stark and high-conrast to soft and airy. In terms of color psychology, it all makes sense. While Showgirls (rated NC-17) and Finding Nemo (rated G) are each the highest grossing films in their rating’s rubric, in terms of design elements, their posters could not be more diametrically opposed. I haven’t seen Finding Nemo, but from what I remember of Showgirls, I imagine the films are equally discrepant in terms of content. Unless Nemo is a manipulative, glorified prostitute with a taste for Ver-sayss. Vit’s full, illustrated analysis can be found here, via BoingBoing. Originally posted on:Spoutblog http://www.spout.com/blogs/animerion/archive/2007/6/12/10920.aspx Post By: animerion
Post To: Movie Musings
Post Date: 6/12/2007 1:41:03 PM
Body: There is something that can be said for a good B-movie. Personally, they are a good way to humble cinematic snobbery. They can generally offer something that somewhat unique and fun, pure escapist entertainment. Then there are those movies that are just plain bad. They try to do something with absolutely nothing going for it. Now this can be OK if the actors are self aware that they are performing in crap, but it is almost pathetic when they take it seriously. Showgirls is an example of such a film. I must first note that I am a huge fan of movies that generally aren’t that great. Personally, I love movies like Dude, Where’s my Car, The Toxic Avenger, Supergirl and countless others. What those have that Showgirls doesn’t have is character, plus the fact that I think those other movies weren’t trying to be something they are not. The problem with Showgirls is that it set out to be the great erotic thriller and there is very little that is erotic, or thrilling in it. Smutty, maybe. Erotic, no. Honestly this movie is a series of random events tied together by another series of almost completely illogical events. For example, in the first six minutes of the film, Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) hitchhikes to Las Vegas, pulls a knife on the driver, wins money, loses money, gets her luggage stolen, gets in a fight with someone, gets consoled by the same person, throws French Fries.Despite the strange plot, the rest of the elements of this movie are just as off the wall. Elizabeth Berkley and her minimalist “acting” (I don’t consider staring acting) doesn’t really help much. Gina Gershon seems to be the only person in this movie who is having fun with it as opposed to being serious and treating this movie as high art. Kyle MacLachlan is doing some sort of “I’m a goofy character and suddenly a badass at the end of the film” shtick.So yes, not a great movie, yet some how, its fun and I want to see it again. I purposefully didn’t say much about about the plot because it really needs to be discovered on its own. I’ve read elsewhere that this is supposed to be a cautionary tale directed towards women on how the pursuit of power can ruin your life, and I can see that. With all the flaws this movie has, however, that message seems to get lost under the bad acting and generally poor execution. If the script was tighter and the talent honed in bringing out said message, this could have been a more effective film. This is an extremely flawed film, almost so flawed it loses the cheese appeal, but I think it’s a prime example on how not to do a movie.
]]>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:41:03 GMTanimerionMovie Musings6/12/2007 1:41:03 PMThere is something that can be said for a good B-movie. Personally, they are a good way to humble cinematic snobbery. They can generally offer something that somewhat unique and fun, pure escapist entertainment. Then there are those movies that are just plain bad. They try to do something with absolutely nothing going for it. Now this can be OK if the actors are self aware that they are performing in crap, but it is almost pathetic when they take it seriously. Showgirls is an example of such a film. I must first note that I am a huge fan of movies that generally aren&rsquo;t that great. Personally, I love movies like Dude, Where&rsquo;s my Car, The Toxic Avenger, Supergirl and countless others. What those have that Showgirls doesn&rsquo;t have is character, plus the fact that I think those other movies weren&rsquo;t trying to be something they are not. The problem with Showgirls is that it set out to be the great erotic thriller and there is very little that is erotic, or thrilling in it. Smutty, maybe. Erotic, no. Honestly this movie is a series of random events tied together by another series of almost completely illogical events. For example, in the first six minutes of the film, Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) hitchhikes to Las Vegas, pulls a knife on the driver, wins money, loses money, gets her luggage stolen, gets in a fight with someone, gets consoled by the same person, throws French Fries.Despite the strange plot, the rest of the elements of this movie are just as off the wall. Elizabeth Berkley and her minimalist &ldquo;acting&rdquo; (I don&rsquo;t consider staring acting) doesn&rsquo;t really help much. Gina Gershon seems to be the only person in this movie who is having fun with it as opposed to being serious and treating this movie as high art. Kyle MacLachlan is doing some sort of &ldquo;I&rsquo;m a goofy character and suddenly a badass at the end of the film&rdquo; shtick.So yes, not a great movie, yet some how, its fun and I want to see it again. I purposefully didn&rsquo;t say much about about the plot because it really needs to be discovered on its own. I&rsquo;ve read elsewhere that this is supposed to be a cautionary tale directed towards women on how the pursuit of power can ruin your life, and I can see that. With all the flaws this movie has, however, that message seems to get lost under the bad acting and generally poor execution. If the script was tighter and the talent honed in bringing out said message, this could have been a more effective film. This is an extremely flawed film, almost so flawed it loses the cheese appeal, but I think it&rsquo;s a prime example on how not to do a movie. http://www.spout.com/blogs/halo1205/archive/2007/5/25/9340.aspx Post By: halo1205
Post To: halo1205 Blog
Post Date: 5/25/2007 3:09:00 PM
Body: If popularity breeds contempt, the critical beating this movie took endeared it to me all the more. I listened to podcast after podcast and read movie news galore that took pleasure in shredding the movie sight unseen. The biggest bone of contention was that Sharon Stone, over the age of 40, was putting herself out there as sexual being once again, and that she should be put out to pasture. As saddened as I was that in a time when MILF has become part of the popular vernacular this was still a prevailing attitude, it was countered by the excitement of seeing Catherine Trammel on screen again, one of my favorite film characters. She is the devil in red lipstick and took the original Basic Instinct from standard thriller fare and made it a must see, as well making Stone a star. Is Basic Instinct 2 a good movie? Hell no! But it is a fun, fun watch! Stone unhinges her jaw and swallows the scenery, taking Trammel from a temptation-evoking sexual provocateur to a lip-smacking man-eater. Throw in a high-speed hand-job, some erotic asphyxiation, acrobatic rough sex, beautiful architecture, Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis for international dramatic cred (granted, it’s squandered, and Thewlis gives Stone a run for her money taking it over the top), and a half-baked thriller plot and pack it all into a well shot glossy package and you have 90+minutes of solid entertainment. Entertainment! BI2 was not designed to change the world, provoke deep thought or be a metaphor for the world’s woes, it is simply titillating adult oriented entertainment. Much has been said about the movie, but I have never heard it called dull! Have fun with it… Go crazy and Double feature it with Showgirls! :o)
]]>Fri, 25 May 2007 19:09:00 GMThalo1205halo1205 Blog5/25/2007 3:09:00 PMIf popularity breeds contempt, the critical beating this movie took endeared it to me all the more. I listened to podcast after podcast and read movie news galore that took pleasure in shredding the movie sight unseen. The biggest bone of contention was that Sharon Stone, over the age of 40, was putting herself out there as sexual being once again, and that she should be put out to pasture. As saddened as I was that in a time when MILF has become part of the popular vernacular this was still a prevailing attitude, it was countered by the excitement of seeing Catherine Trammel on screen again, one of my favorite film characters. She is the devil in red lipstick and took the original Basic Instinct from standard thriller fare and made it a must see, as well making Stone a star. Is Basic Instinct 2 a good movie? Hell no! But it is a fun, fun watch! Stone unhinges her jaw and swallows the scenery, taking Trammel from a temptation-evoking sexual provocateur to a lip-smacking man-eater. Throw in a high-speed hand-job, some erotic asphyxiation, acrobatic rough sex, beautiful architecture, Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis for international dramatic cred (granted, it&rsquo;s squandered, and Thewlis gives Stone a run for her money taking it over the top), and a half-baked thriller plot and pack it all into a well shot glossy package and you have 90+minutes of solid entertainment. Entertainment! BI2 was not designed to change the world, provoke deep thought or be a metaphor for the world&rsquo;s woes, it is simply titillating adult oriented entertainment. Much has been said about the movie, but I have never heard it called dull! Have fun with it&hellip; Go crazy and Double feature it with Showgirls! :o) http://www.spout.com/groups/Introduce_Yourself/Re_Introduce_Yourself/291/9114/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: halo1205
Post To: Introduce Yourself
Post Date: 5/21/2007 4:27:02 PM
Body: Hey there… My name is Allen. I am a not-yet-forty-thanks mental health worker in the suburbs of Vancouver BC, Canada. Thank you very much for the invite to the group. I grew up in a small rural town in southern Saskatchewan (population 500) which was the possessor of the only movie theatre in a sixty mile radius which became the gateway drug to my movie addiction. Advancing technology took over as my pusher as the VCR and Satellite Dish satiated my need for a wider variety of films to consume. At seventeen I left for the big city (um, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan – yes, it really exists!) and after high school got a job in a video store that fed my two-movie-a-day habit. When it closed down I headed west to BC and secured a position once again managing yet another video store. (My love for Clerks is rather self-explanatory! :o)) When I hit the wall working with “the public” I moved on to the mental health field (you have no idea how closely the two are related!), but my love of film never waned, and technology gave us the greatest gift of all… the DVD player. I have since been amassing an obscene collection of disks that is beginning to outgrow the wall dedicated to it. My tastes in film tend to run a little all over the place. I love a good-bad movie as much as good-good movie… even though films are made for the masses the connections they make with us are personal. While 1.000,000,000 Titanic fans can’t be all wrong (even if I think they are), the trash masterpiece Showgirls can’t be all bad either. I tend to follow directors more than stars of films. Often the choices a director makes over his career can give a broader picture of who they are and what they are trying to say. Some of my favorites include David Cronenberg, Peter Greenaway, Ken Russell, Stephen Frears, Kevin Smith, Paul Verhoeven and John Carpenter to name a few. When these guys are good they are brilliant, when they misstep they fall with a “thud” but are always interesting! I discovered this site from the Fimspotting podcast. I generally don’t take heed to the views of critics (opinions and assholes… everybody’s got ‘em!) but I do love listening to, and participating in, discussion of film, which is what this site is all about and I am excited about being a member. Thanks for reading-Allen
]]>Mon, 21 May 2007 20:27:02 GMThalo1205Introduce Yourself5/21/2007 4:27:02 PMHey there&hellip; My name is Allen. I am a not-yet-forty-thanks mental health worker in the suburbs of Vancouver BC, Canada. Thank you very much for the invite to the group. I grew up in a small rural town in southern Saskatchewan (population 500) which was the possessor of the only movie theatre in a sixty mile radius which became the gateway drug to my movie addiction. Advancing technology took over as my pusher as the VCR and Satellite Dish satiated my need for a wider variety of films to consume. At seventeen I left for the big city (um, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan &ndash; yes, it really exists!) and after high school got a job in a video store that fed my two-movie-a-day habit. When it closed down I headed west to BC and secured a position once again managing yet another video store. (My love for Clerks is rather self-explanatory! :o)) When I hit the wall working with &ldquo;the public&rdquo; I moved on to the mental health field (you have no idea how closely the two are related!), but my love of film never waned, and technology gave us the greatest gift of all&hellip; the DVD player. I have since been amassing an obscene collection of disks that is beginning to outgrow the wall dedicated to it. My tastes in film tend to run a little all over the place. I love a good-bad movie as much as good-good movie&hellip; even though films are made for the masses the connections they make with us are personal. While 1.000,000,000 Titanic fans can&rsquo;t be all wrong (even if I think they are), the trash masterpiece Showgirls can&rsquo;t be all bad either. I tend to follow directors more than stars of films. Often the choices a director makes over his career can give a broader picture of who they are and what they are trying to say. Some of my favorites include David Cronenberg, Peter Greenaway, Ken Russell, Stephen Frears, Kevin Smith, Paul Verhoeven and John Carpenter to name a few. When these guys are good they are brilliant, when they misstep they fall with a &ldquo;thud&rdquo; but are always interesting! I discovered this site from the Fimspotting podcast. I generally don&rsquo;t take heed to the views of critics (opinions and assholes&hellip; everybody&rsquo;s got &lsquo;em!) but I do love listening to, and participating in, discussion of film, which is what this site is all about and I am excited about being a member. Thanks for reading-Allen http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/3/14/6525.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/14/2007 11:30:08 AM
Body: Our regular guest writer, Dodd (moviedodd at spout.com), tells us what's the latest in movie rating news, and shares his mixed feelings about the proposed changes. Dodd is finishing up a Master's degree in Film Studies at Ohio University. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the current film rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Filmmakers have raised hell about it all on their own for the past few years, but now the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has served as an expose on the selective standards of MPAA members. The film seems to have had an affect already. Since its release, MPAA head honcho Dan Glickman has admitted to the organization's vague guidelines for what sets an R picture apart from an NC-17 one, and that proper actions would be taken to fix that problem. It seems that Glickman was not just throwing words around for publicity purposes. According to a recent Variety article, Dan Glickman has announced that the MPAA is developing a "hard R" rating, which is not to be confused with the original "soft R." In other words, films like Little Miss Sunshine, with its occasional F-bomb and sex joke, will be branded with a regular R. However, movies with blood-spurting decapitations, hardcore sex scenes, and f**k thrown into every sentence will be awarded the new, hard R rating. Not only will there be a new R-rating, but the NC-17 rating may be eliminated. The hardcore rating limits film distribution and advertising on television, so the organization wishes to lump anything that is extremely graphic in nature under the new hard R-rating, with hopes that audiences, exhibitors, and advertisers will embrace it more than the much-feared NC-17. I feel a little torn on this issue. Apparently, the new hard R-rating is the result of parents complaining that their children are being exposed to graphic content in R films. First off, the film is rated R, which means that the content is not appropriate for those under 17. Parents who choose to allow minors to watch these films have been warned to be cautious. Secondly, R-ratings currently contain little descriptions indicting the nature of the content--anything from drug use to angry sex to graphic conversations. Finally, if these descriptors prove to be too vague, there is a wealth of information about the graphic content of movies on the Internet, from movie reviews to the MPAA's website to Yahoo's Movie Mom. Therefore, my question is whether or not a new R-rating will stop parents from complaining. Teens will be teens, and they will always figure out ways to see hardcore content. While the rating system is useful, it will never magically babysit kids. On the other hand, I am happy to see the elimination of the NC-17 system. Yes, it can be affiliated with the cult disaster known only as Showgirls, but the rating has also sunk potential pictures like a rock for miniscule details. It has also locked its sights on unconventional sex rather than violence. It will be nice to see art house gems such as Bad Education not being ostracized like a sleazy snuff film. What do you think? Does the MPAA need a new R categorization, or will people complain about it anyway? Are you ready to see NC-17 get tossed aside, or does it still serve a useful purpose? Syndicated Feed From:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:30:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/14/2007 11:30:08 AMOur regular guest writer, Dodd (moviedodd at spout.com), tells us what's the latest in movie rating news, and shares his mixed feelings about the proposed changes. Dodd is finishing up a Master's degree in Film Studies at Ohio University. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the current film rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Filmmakers have raised hell about it all on their own for the past few years, but now the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has served as an expose on the selective standards of MPAA members. The film seems to have had an affect already. Since its release, MPAA head honcho Dan Glickman has admitted to the organization's vague guidelines for what sets an R picture apart from an NC-17 one, and that proper actions would be taken to fix that problem. It seems that Glickman was not just throwing words around for publicity purposes. According to a recent Variety article, Dan Glickman has announced that the MPAA is developing a "hard R" rating, which is not to be confused with the original "soft R." In other words, films like Little Miss Sunshine, with its occasional F-bomb and sex joke, will be branded with a regular R. However, movies with blood-spurting decapitations, hardcore sex scenes, and f**k thrown into every sentence will be awarded the new, hard R rating. Not only will there be a new R-rating, but the NC-17 rating may be eliminated. The hardcore rating limits film distribution and advertising on television, so the organization wishes to lump anything that is extremely graphic in nature under the new hard R-rating, with hopes that audiences, exhibitors, and advertisers will embrace it more than the much-feared NC-17. I feel a little torn on this issue. Apparently, the new hard R-rating is the result of parents complaining that their children are being exposed to graphic content in R films. First off, the film is rated R, which means that the content is not appropriate for those under 17. Parents who choose to allow minors to watch these films have been warned to be cautious. Secondly, R-ratings currently contain little descriptions indicting the nature of the content--anything from drug use to angry sex to graphic conversations. Finally, if these descriptors prove to be too vague, there is a wealth of information about the graphic content of movies on the Internet, from movie reviews to the MPAA's website to Yahoo's Movie Mom. Therefore, my question is whether or not a new R-rating will stop parents from complaining. Teens will be teens, and they will always figure out ways to see hardcore content. While the rating system is useful, it will never magically babysit kids. On the other hand, I am happy to see the elimination of the NC-17 system. Yes, it can be affiliated with the cult disaster known only as Showgirls, but the rating has also sunk potential pictures like a rock for miniscule details. It has also locked its sights on unconventional sex rather than violence. It will be nice to see art house gems such as Bad Education not being ostracized like a sleazy snuff film. What do you think? Does the MPAA need a new R categorization, or will people complain about it anyway? Are you ready to see NC-17 get tossed aside, or does it still serve a useful purpose? Syndicated Feed From:SpoutBlog 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/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2414

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 549

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:22 GMT2414126549Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rape/MemberTagFilms.aspxrape
Number of films tagged: 1050

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 125

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:25 GMT105054125Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awful/MemberTagFilms.aspxawful
Number of films tagged: 81

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 88

]]>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:48:37 GMT814188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/guiltypleasure/MemberTagFilms.aspxguiltypleasure
Number of films tagged: 25

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 27

]]>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:20:06 GMT251627Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/behindthescenes/MemberTagFilms.aspxbehindthescenes
Number of films tagged: 2757

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 16

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:02:41 GMT27571516Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/stripper/MemberTagFilms.aspxstripper
Number of films tagged: 315

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 30

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:57:23 GMT3151530Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dance-art/MemberTagFilms.aspxdance-art
Number of films tagged: 1505

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 12

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT15051012Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hitchhiker/MemberTagFilms.aspxhitchhiker
Number of films tagged: 238

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 8

]]>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:02:33 GMT23888Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/showgirl/MemberTagFilms.aspxshowgirl
Number of films tagged: 126

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:42:59 GMT12644Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/choreographer/MemberTagFilms.aspxchoreographer
Number of films tagged: 128

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:08:01 GMT12822Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scariest-movie-ever/MemberTagFilms.aspxscariest-movie-ever
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:28:55 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Saved-by-the-Bell/MemberTagFilms.aspxSaved-by-the-Bell
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Mon, 01 May 2006 03:33:03 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/stars-celebrities/MemberTagFilms.aspxstars-celebrities
Number of films tagged: 1347

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:08:16 GMT134711Tag