list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Trainspotting 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/Trainspotting/93107/default.aspx Title: Trainspotting
Year: 1996
Director: Danny Boyle
Plot: Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor), a young man with few prospects and fewer ambitions, lives in economically depressed Edinburgh. Like most of his friends, Renton is a heroin addict who loves the drug's blissful nothingness; financing his habit also provides excitement and challenges that his life otherwise lacks. Renton's two best friends are also junkies: Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), a snappy dresser obsessed with James Bond, and Spud (Ewan Bremner), a guileless nerd who suggests Pee Wee Herman's debauched cousin. Renton and his pals also hang out with Begbie (Robert Carlyle), a borderline psychotic who loathes junkies even though he drinks like a fish. After one too many brushes with the law, Renton kicks heroin and moves to London, where he finds a job, a flat, and something close to peace of mind. However, Sick Boy, Begbie, and Spud all arrive at his doorstep on the trail of a big score, leading Renton back into drugs and crime. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 107
Number of Lists: 99
Number of blog posts: 14
Number of discussion threads: 11
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:09:34 GMTTrainspotting1996Danny BoyleMark Renton (<a href="/players/P___196980/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ewan McGregor</a>), a young man with few prospects and fewer ambitions, lives in economically depressed Edinburgh. Like most of his friends, Renton is a heroin addict who loves the drug's blissful nothingness; financing his habit also provides excitement and challenges that his life otherwise lacks. Renton's two best friends are also junkies: Sick Boy (<a href="/players/P___200487/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jonny Lee Miller</a>), a snappy dresser obsessed with James Bond, and Spud (Ewan Bremner), a guileless nerd who suggests Pee Wee Herman's debauched cousin. Renton and his pals also hang out with Begbie (<a href="/players/P____11052/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Carlyle</a>), a borderline psychotic who loathes junkies even though he drinks like a fish. After one too many brushes with the law, Renton kicks heroin and moves to London, where he finds a job, a flat, and something close to peace of mind. However, Sick Boy, Begbie, and Spud all arrive at his doorstep on the trail of a big score, leading Renton back into drugs and crime. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide107Tag Target (>10)9914114http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t42368x4dz6.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Trainspotting/93107/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2009/1/17/39619.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 1/17/2009 12:18:18 PM
Body: Over the past decade or so, the film community has watched a surge of independent directors make outstanding films that get absolutely no awards recognition except perhaps on the festival circuit. Some of these directors include David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Christopher Nolan, and Danny Boyle. Their movies prior to this year's releases expressed their talent significantly, and yet have been largely ignored by most "major" organizations, most notably the Academy and the Golden Globes--however, they have received awards or nominations from several of the other prestigious associations: aside from various critics awards, Christopher Nolan has a DGA nomination under his belt for Memento; Danny Boyle has been praised and awarded multiple times in the UK, most notably the BAFTA awards; David Fincher, apart from critics awards, has won a DGA for commercials (of all things); and Darren Aronofsky has tragically been shut out of all major awards circles. And then there's this year. Christopher Nolan has another DGA nomination for The Dark Knight, and that along with the multitudes of accolades that the film's receiving, with the exception of the lack of love the Globes showed (cue self-indulgent and inevitable reference to Heath Ledger's Joker...); David Fincher now has a BAFTA nomination to brag about as well as two more DGA nominations (one for commercials), a Golden Globe nomination, and an NBR win--all for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Darren Aronofsky has directed one of the most acclaimed performances of the year in one of the most acclaimed films of the year (The Wrestler), although he has been mostly shut-out of recognition (his most well-known appearance has been flipping off Rourke); and Danny Boyle, a director no longer to be ignored, has been raking in endless attention, from a Golden Globe win, to a DGA nomination, to another BAFTA nomination, and all the way to what is shaping up to be a definite Oscar nomination, and if all goes well, a win. And now to the movie that is the catalyst of his exaltations: Slumdog Millionaire, a film about an Indian "slumdog" who is chosen to be a contestant on India's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? However, most people know almost everything there is to know about this movie already, so I won't continue to bombard you with the same synopsis and review. It's a terrific movie. It's interminably entertaining, with great performances and a love-story that can only be described by the film's overlying theme: destiny. The love between the two leads is not necessarily fully developed, but that's the point. Jamal knows he loves Latika, and would go to the end of the earth to be with her, but the viewer never receives much explanation. Because of this, the film is mystical; it's a seemingly doomed romance, pushing onwards against all odds, with nothing but fate to tie it together. Latika at first seems confused at Jamal's passion, as is the audience, but she is soon enveloped in it, realizing with maturity beyond her age that it will never work. But Jamal sticks with his belief in love and destiny, and that is what brings him to the final round of the show, and an ultimate reunion with his love, and a tragic sacrifice by his brother. Kevin Buist on Spoutblog referred to the film as "hectic and sloppy." I did not perceive that in the least. Slumdog Millionaire definitely has a frenetic, insatiable energy--but I saw it as the allure of youthfulness, which the characters all maintain despite their encounters with situations far beyond their levels of maturity. A particularly magnificent scene occurs when there is a montage of Jamal and Salim, his brother, hustling people on a train, with MIA's Paper Planes blaring on the soundtrack. It brings what I previously knew as a stoner tune, one to blast while driving down a college avenue in a shitty SUV, a whole new level of meaning; it was music and image meshed beautifully to form a scene of childlike wonder. Danny Boyle's masterful direction, as well as miraculously timed editing and grainy, dreamlike photography, allows the film to maintain the viewer's concentration, to captivate them, up to the final shot (of the story), where the magical realism of the film is summed up in a corny, cliched, and wonderful final exchange between lovers, including lines such as "It is destiny" and "Kiss Me." Needless to say, the Bollywood dance sequence slaps a huge goofy smile on your face, no matter what your feelings about the film are--an intoxicatingly happy ending, punctuated by a final tribute to the country that the film owes its liveliness. The film is becoming the subject of slight backlash, like Little Miss Sunshine and Juno before it--however, unlike those two films, I don't feel that Slumdog is deserving of the contrarian treatment. Crash began an era of awards contention is which films undeserving of major awards speculation are pushed to the top of year-end lists and critics awards. The awards season is driven not necessarily by quality of films but by the frenzied, rabid support that they draw from the louder patrons of Hollywood; Crash may not have even been nominated had it not been for an aggressive campaign strategy and an anti-Brokeback backlash. Crash was not a good film. It was an unsubtle, in-your-face anti-racism film--in other words, nothing but white noise. Little Miss Sunshine was a cute, entertaining little film that made it to the top through the support it gained at film festivals. Juno just rode the independent film wave, effortlessly driving its way to the top of contention despite it being corny fluff piece, a crowd pleaser that hid behind a too-hip-for-its-own-good script. Juno isn't necessarily a festival film even--it seemed to pretend it was, but it's my belief that it pretended to be to give it a lovable underdog status. I don't dislike any of the films I just mentioned (except Crash--Paul Haggis sucks). However, I agree with the cynics in that all of them were undeserving of the infinite praise that they received. Slumdog Millionaire is slightly different. It really is an underslumdog (I'm sorry) film--it was made with a low budget in the actual slums of Mumbai, with an entirely Indian cast and a British/Indian film crew. The only reason it is being recognized is because it is being loved consistently by (nearly) all that see it. It is incredible entertainment, a crowd-pleaser with timeless themes of love and destiny, as well as a genuine aesthetic achievement. Something about the film works in a way that none of the aforementioned films do--it is not in the least self-important, and despite its reliance on coincidence and fate, it never once feels forced. It flows, from the chase scene through the slums to the beautiful sequence on the train to the hokey Bollywood finale. It's escapism at its best. Although some Indians are claiming the film as their own with pride, others are denouncing the film for depicting India as a slum. The movie is called SLUMdog Millionaire. It's about a kid from a slum who makes it on a gameshow. It's not claiming to represent India as a whole. It's merely depicting the struggles someone from a slum in Mumbai may face. And do people really begrudge Danny Boyle the attention he's getting? The distinguished auteur behind Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, and Sunshine is getting his due for a film that almost no one had heard about less than a year ago. That's amazing. I'm not saying the film is perfect--it has its flaws. I would not call it the best film of the year--yet. The Dark Knight was magnificent, and Christopher Nolan is overdue for some attention (although he has an Oscar nomination for writing already), as was Benjamin Button, and David Fincher is aching for a statue with such an impressive repertoire (let's just forget Panic Room). I have yet to see The Wrestler, let alone most of the other films in contention. This year is going to be a tight race for the Oscars. I'm suggesting that people not focus on the mania behind films and actually watch the movies and make their own opinions about them. It isn't fair to renounce a movie just because of the attention it's getting; see the movie, and find out for yourself if it's deserving. Seeing movies with an open mind is the key to enjoying them, and fanatical incrimination of films prevents unbiased movie-watching from happening. It's a shame, because when it's time for a movie to receive its due, its achievements are often clouded by rancid smoke, expelled from the black and unwelcoming lungs of deliriously pretentious critics.
]]>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:18:18 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog1/17/2009 12:18:18 PMOver the past decade or so, the film community has watched a surge of independent directors make outstanding films that get absolutely no awards recognition except perhaps on the festival circuit. Some of these directors include David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Christopher Nolan, and Danny Boyle. Their movies prior to this year's releases expressed their talent significantly, and yet have been largely ignored by most "major" organizations, most notably the Academy and the Golden Globes--however, they have received awards or nominations from several of the other prestigious associations: aside from various critics awards, Christopher Nolan has a DGA nomination under his belt for Memento; Danny Boyle has been praised and awarded multiple times in the UK, most notably the BAFTA awards; David Fincher, apart from critics awards, has won a DGA for commercials (of all things); and Darren Aronofsky has tragically been shut out of all major awards circles. And then there's this year. Christopher Nolan has another DGA nomination for The Dark Knight, and that along with the multitudes of accolades that the film's receiving, with the exception of the lack of love the Globes showed (cue self-indulgent and inevitable reference to Heath Ledger's Joker...); David Fincher now has a BAFTA nomination to brag about as well as two more DGA nominations (one for commercials), a Golden Globe nomination, and an NBR win--all for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Darren Aronofsky has directed one of the most acclaimed performances of the year in one of the most acclaimed films of the year (The Wrestler), although he has been mostly shut-out of recognition (his most well-known appearance has been flipping off Rourke); and Danny Boyle, a director no longer to be ignored, has been raking in endless attention, from a Golden Globe win, to a DGA nomination, to another BAFTA nomination, and all the way to what is shaping up to be a definite Oscar nomination, and if all goes well, a win. And now to the movie that is the catalyst of his exaltations: Slumdog Millionaire, a film about an Indian "slumdog" who is chosen to be a contestant on India's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? However, most people know almost everything there is to know about this movie already, so I won't continue to bombard you with the same synopsis and review. It's a terrific movie. It's interminably entertaining, with great performances and a love-story that can only be described by the film's overlying theme: destiny. The love between the two leads is not necessarily fully developed, but that's the point. Jamal knows he loves Latika, and would go to the end of the earth to be with her, but the viewer never receives much explanation. Because of this, the film is mystical; it's a seemingly doomed romance, pushing onwards against all odds, with nothing but fate to tie it together. Latika at first seems confused at Jamal's passion, as is the audience, but she is soon enveloped in it, realizing with maturity beyond her age that it will never work. But Jamal sticks with his belief in love and destiny, and that is what brings him to the final round of the show, and an ultimate reunion with his love, and a tragic sacrifice by his brother. Kevin Buist on Spoutblog referred to the film as "hectic and sloppy." I did not perceive that in the least. Slumdog Millionaire definitely has a frenetic, insatiable energy--but I saw it as the allure of youthfulness, which the characters all maintain despite their encounters with situations far beyond their levels of maturity. A particularly magnificent scene occurs when there is a montage of Jamal and Salim, his brother, hustling people on a train, with MIA's Paper Planes blaring on the soundtrack. It brings what I previously knew as a stoner tune, one to blast while driving down a college avenue in a shitty SUV, a whole new level of meaning; it was music and image meshed beautifully to form a scene of childlike wonder. Danny Boyle's masterful direction, as well as miraculously timed editing and grainy, dreamlike photography, allows the film to maintain the viewer's concentration, to captivate them, up to the final shot (of the story), where the magical realism of the film is summed up in a corny, cliched, and wonderful final exchange between lovers, including lines such as "It is destiny" and "Kiss Me." Needless to say, the Bollywood dance sequence slaps a huge goofy smile on your face, no matter what your feelings about the film are--an intoxicatingly happy ending, punctuated by a final tribute to the country that the film owes its liveliness. The film is becoming the subject of slight backlash, like Little Miss Sunshine and Juno before it--however, unlike those two films, I don't feel that Slumdog is deserving of the contrarian treatment. Crash began an era of awards contention is which films undeserving of major awards speculation are pushed to the top of year-end lists and critics awards. The awards season is driven not necessarily by quality of films but by the frenzied, rabid support that they draw from the louder patrons of Hollywood; Crash may not have even been nominated had it not been for an aggressive campaign strategy and an anti-Brokeback backlash. Crash was not a good film. It was an unsubtle, in-your-face anti-racism film--in other words, nothing but white noise. Little Miss Sunshine was a cute, entertaining little film that made it to the top through the support it gained at film festivals. Juno just rode the independent film wave, effortlessly driving its way to the top of contention despite it being corny fluff piece, a crowd pleaser that hid behind a too-hip-for-its-own-good script. Juno isn't necessarily a festival film even--it seemed to pretend it was, but it's my belief that it pretended to be to give it a lovable underdog status. I don't dislike any of the films I just mentioned (except Crash--Paul Haggis sucks). However, I agree with the cynics in that all of them were undeserving of the infinite praise that they received. Slumdog Millionaire is slightly different. It really is an underslumdog (I'm sorry) film--it was made with a low budget in the actual slums of Mumbai, with an entirely Indian cast and a British/Indian film crew. The only reason it is being recognized is because it is being loved consistently by (nearly) all that see it. It is incredible entertainment, a crowd-pleaser with timeless themes of love and destiny, as well as a genuine aesthetic achievement. Something about the film works in a way that none of the aforementioned films do--it is not in the least self-important, and despite its reliance on coincidence and fate, it never once feels forced. It flows, from the chase scene through the slums to the beautiful sequence on the train to the hokey Bollywood finale. It's escapism at its best. Although some Indians are claiming the film as their own with pride, others are denouncing the film for depicting India as a slum. The movie is called SLUMdog Millionaire. It's about a kid from a slum who makes it on a gameshow. It's not claiming to represent India as a whole. It's merely depicting the struggles someone from a slum in Mumbai may face. And do people really begrudge Danny Boyle the attention he's getting? The distinguished auteur behind Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, and Sunshine is getting his due for a film that almost no one had heard about less than a year ago. That's amazing. I'm not saying the film is perfect--it has its flaws. I would not call it the best film of the year--yet. The Dark Knight was magnificent, and Christopher Nolan is overdue for some attention (although he has an Oscar nomination for writing already), as was Benjamin Button, and David Fincher is aching for a statue with such an impressive repertoire (let's just forget Panic Room). I have yet to see The Wrestler, let alone most of the other films in contention. This year is going to be a tight race for the Oscars. I'm suggesting that people not focus on the mania behind films and actually watch the movies and make their own opinions about them. It isn't fair to renounce a movie just because of the attention it's getting; see the movie, and find out for yourself if it's deserving. Seeing movies with an open mind is the key to enjoying them, and fanatical incrimination of films prevents unbiased movie-watching from happening. It's a shame, because when it's time for a movie to receive its due, its achievements are often clouded by rancid smoke, expelled from the black and unwelcoming lungs of deliriously pretentious critics. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/14/39525.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/14/2009 2:01:32 PM
Body: Each day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Scott Hicks’ Shine (1996). 1996 was a monumental year for independent film. It began with a Sundance Film Festival that, according to Peter Biskind’s book Down and Dirty Pictures “would go down as Ten Days That Shook the Indie World,” because of the tremendous buying frenzy that occurred, including the infamous acquisition of The Spitfire Grill by Castle Rock for $10 million. The year then transpired with a slew of popular specialty titles that boosted business at many arthouse multiplexes while also exposing them as being unsuited for large crowds (the boom in indie film attendance was something I experienced first hand, having that year begun my first career at NYC’s Angelika Film Center). And the year ended (in 14-month Hollywood terms) with an unprecedented number of specialty films receiving nominations for Academy Awards. Most astonishing, certainly, was the fact that four of the five Oscar nominees for Best Picture were specialty titles, one of which had been discovered at Sundance. The film, Shine, might not have had a chance at such an honor, however, if Miramax and Harvey Weinstein had gotten their way. As much as the 1996 Sundance Film Festival was remarkable for its number of films sold, it was also noteworthy for producing negative stories, too. Before The Spitfire Grill opened to empty theaters that summer to become the greatest embarrassment of that year’s festival, Harvey Weinstein and Miramax had a particularly humiliating experience during the fest involving their unsuccessful bid for Shine. The full details of the story can be found in Down and Dirty Pictures, but basically Weinstein thought Miramax had picked up the film until he heard official word stating otherwise, that Shine had in fact been bought by Fine Line. The incident was defended as a miscommunication but treated by Weinstein as a boldface lie and resulted in a nasty fight between him and Shine producer Jonathan Taplin. Miramax’s Tony Safford, who ended up getting fired as a result, was hardly at fault, despite it being his task to seal the deal on the film. There was never any way that Miramax was going to get Shine, because its director, Scott Hicks, had had a bad experience with the distributor and had no intention of working with them. As Biskind puts it, “the Shine folks would rather have taken less money than go with Miramax.” And there was great reason why Shine was better off anywhere else but at Harvey’s house — well, besides the fact that Weinstein was known for being a jerk with scissors for hands. Miramax had the Oscar-bait epic The English Patient (not to mention fellow eventual Oscar nominees Sling Blade, Kolya, Ridicule, Emma, Marvin’s Room and Trainspotting), and although Shine likely would have still picked up at least a Best Actor nod (and win) for Geoffrey Rush, it probably wouldn’t have received all of its six other nominations, especially not the one for Best Picture, with Weinstein’s attention primarily on that other, more costly film. Of course, The English Patient won the top award and earned more than twice the box office gross of Shine. But the film’s reputation and esteem were still positively affected by the controversial sell to Fine Line over Miramax. And hopefully it taught subsequent Sundance filmmakers about the need to sell to the distributor that’ll give the best attention to the film, instead of the distributor that’ll pay the most. Below is a clip from Shine featuring Rush’s Oscar-winning portrayal of pianist David Helfgott. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:01:32 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/14/2009 2:01:32 PMEach day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Scott Hicks’ Shine (1996). 1996 was a monumental year for independent film. It began with a Sundance Film Festival that, according to Peter Biskind’s book Down and Dirty Pictures “would go down as Ten Days That Shook the Indie World,” because of the tremendous buying frenzy that occurred, including the infamous acquisition of The Spitfire Grill by Castle Rock for $10 million. The year then transpired with a slew of popular specialty titles that boosted business at many arthouse multiplexes while also exposing them as being unsuited for large crowds (the boom in indie film attendance was something I experienced first hand, having that year begun my first career at NYC’s Angelika Film Center). And the year ended (in 14-month Hollywood terms) with an unprecedented number of specialty films receiving nominations for Academy Awards. Most astonishing, certainly, was the fact that four of the five Oscar nominees for Best Picture were specialty titles, one of which had been discovered at Sundance. The film, Shine, might not have had a chance at such an honor, however, if Miramax and Harvey Weinstein had gotten their way. As much as the 1996 Sundance Film Festival was remarkable for its number of films sold, it was also noteworthy for producing negative stories, too. Before The Spitfire Grill opened to empty theaters that summer to become the greatest embarrassment of that year’s festival, Harvey Weinstein and Miramax had a particularly humiliating experience during the fest involving their unsuccessful bid for Shine. The full details of the story can be found in Down and Dirty Pictures, but basically Weinstein thought Miramax had picked up the film until he heard official word stating otherwise, that Shine had in fact been bought by Fine Line. The incident was defended as a miscommunication but treated by Weinstein as a boldface lie and resulted in a nasty fight between him and Shine producer Jonathan Taplin. Miramax’s Tony Safford, who ended up getting fired as a result, was hardly at fault, despite it being his task to seal the deal on the film. There was never any way that Miramax was going to get Shine, because its director, Scott Hicks, had had a bad experience with the distributor and had no intention of working with them. As Biskind puts it, “the Shine folks would rather have taken less money than go with Miramax.” And there was great reason why Shine was better off anywhere else but at Harvey’s house — well, besides the fact that Weinstein was known for being a jerk with scissors for hands. Miramax had the Oscar-bait epic The English Patient (not to mention fellow eventual Oscar nominees Sling Blade, Kolya, Ridicule, Emma, Marvin’s Room and Trainspotting), and although Shine likely would have still picked up at least a Best Actor nod (and win) for Geoffrey Rush, it probably wouldn’t have received all of its six other nominations, especially not the one for Best Picture, with Weinstein’s attention primarily on that other, more costly film. Of course, The English Patient won the top award and earned more than twice the box office gross of Shine. But the film’s reputation and esteem were still positively affected by the controversial sell to Fine Line over Miramax. And hopefully it taught subsequent Sundance filmmakers about the need to sell to the distributor that’ll give the best attention to the film, instead of the distributor that’ll pay the most. Below is a clip from Shine featuring Rush’s Oscar-winning portrayal of pianist David Helfgott. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_17_In_The_Nude/625/37699/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: chrismorrell
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/26/2008 8:23:28 PM
Body: I've got ...David thewliss and Jane Horrocks in "Life is Sweet"..and more Mike Leigh ,with David Thewliss (again) and Catrin Cartlidge in "Naked" Chocolate sauce and hair whipping respectively ...and how about Ewan McGregor and Kelly MacDonald in "Trainspotting" ..pretty unglam' Oh and how about Julianne Moore from the waist down in "Short-Cuts"
]]>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:23:28 GMTchrismorrellWeekly Theme11/26/2008 8:23:28 PM I've got ...David thewliss and Jane Horrocks in "Life is Sweet"..and more Mike Leigh ,with David Thewliss (again) and Catrin Cartlidge in "Naked" Chocolate sauce and hair whipping respectively ...and how about Ewan McGregor and Kelly MacDonald in "Trainspotting" ..pretty unglam' Oh and how about Julianne Moore from the waist down in "Short-Cuts" http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/11/25/37619.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 11/25/2008 12:44:47 PM
Body: During last year’s “Juno” zeitgeist, I received a response from a reader who took umbrage with me slamming the film. “I guess you don’t remember what’s it’s like to be a 16-year-old girl who is unpopular, non-conforming and pregnant,” she sniffed. I always thought this to be an odd line of reasoning for an argument. By that statement, does that mean I must have spent time as a gladiator to enjoy “300?” Must I have gone through heroin withdraw after cutting short my career in punk music to appreciate “Sid and Nancy?” A film need not have leads with character traits that duplicate my own in order for me to appreciate it (“Trainspotting” immediately comes to mind). It does not even have to have leads that I respect, for that matter (say hello to my little friend “Scarface”). What it does have to contain is an involving story and, in lieu of, or addition to that, characters which captivate my attention long enough for me to want to spend two hours with them in a darkened theater. The novel “Twilight,” written by Stephanie Meyers, is not meant for me. Nor, I gather, is the film. It was meant for the two texting tweeners sitting next to me in the theater – the ones who giggled at the first sight of Edward, the ones who cheered on Bella, but also the ones who spent the majority of film bathed in the blue light of their flipped-open cell phones, apparently interested in anything else but what was on the screen. (Maybe we could find common ground.) But there were certainly enough fans to give this film a record-breaking weekend at the box office last weekend. Fandango, the online pre-sale ticket hub, reported that tickets for “Twilight” were being sold at a rate of five per second prior to the first screenings. And they are not going away any time soon; after a phenomenal Friday box office, Summit, the tiny studio that produced the film, announced plans for a sequel and perhaps a third to be filmed back to back. And for that audience, I certainly understand (and even, at times, appreciate) the appeal. For beneath “Twilight’s” façade of forbidden love, mortal danger and blood-sucking vampires lies a very chaste, safe escapist fantasy for young girls who want their films with more danger than awaiting what college Zac Efron will select upon graduating high school. And when it comes to sexuality, a subject typically intertwined with the vampire mythology, these beasties don’t even grow those phallic fangs when they get excited, but rather just chomp away with normal incisors and bicuspids. These young girls can sit in the theater and completely ignore the sociological underpinnings of “Twilight,” and instead choose to retreat into the more fairy tale aspects of the story. There are certainly worse role models for young girls than that of young Bella (played by Kristen Stewart). She’s apparently smart, plainly pretty, a little tomboyish, and the new kid at school. She’s also immediately the center of attention of fellow classmates, the object of desire from the hunky, mysterious, aloof Edward (played by Robert Pattinson) and apparently responsible enough to be given carte blanche by her separated parents. There is a kernel of an interesting tragic story in the forbidden love of its leads (too bad neither actor seems interested in really emoting it, though). The fact that she’s human and Edward’s like, totally undead and could at any moment get all bitey on Bella makes this aspect compelling, especially for a youngster. Yet for anyone old enough to drive, though, is where “Twilight” begins to wither and shrivel under scrutiny. For vampire enthusiasts, this is perhaps one of the worst treatments of the mythology since Don Rickles turned into a vampire in the woefully bad John Landis mobster-vampire hybrid “Innocent Blood.” In fact, it tosses so many of the elements that make up the creatures’ mythology (the most long-standing in film history, by the way), one wonders why Meyers did not create a mythological beast all her own. For example, when these vampires are exposed to sunlight, their skin does not singe, it twinkles. Also, Edward and his surrogate “family” are “vegetarian vampires,” meaning they feast not on humans, but tear into woodland creatures like Sarah Palin on a weekend hunting expedition. But the lack of doom and gloom with its vampires are not the stake through “Twilight’s” heart. Between their sporting more pancake makeup than a crown at a Cure concert, Edward’s family’s passion for playing a good ol-fashioned game of baseball, or even their superhuman abilities, (which are amusingly in need of a larger budget), they are extremely difficult to take as seriously as director Catherine Hardwicke wants us to. The other splash of holy water is Stewart as Bella. Edward, who is revealed to be about 90 (that’s a lot of high school biology classes to slog through!), claims he’s waited his life for someone like her. Really? Why? Do you want to borrow her lipstick? Honestly, Stewart plays her as such a serious, mopey bore, it’s really hard to see just what it is about her that is so striking to anyone, particularly someone who has spent the last nine decades chasing high school chicks. Look, I am happy to see film aimed at an oft-neglected segment of film-goers, giving them a fantasy world that does not involve crass commercialism or power through sexualization (and I hope after this initial encounter Bella goes home and has some serious “Buffy: The Vampire Slayer” marathons for tips on being more strong willed). But the fact that this was apparently based on a wildly popular young adult novel makes me sad to realize just how few options there must be out there for our daughters to read.
]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:44:47 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog11/25/2008 12:44:47 PMDuring last year&rsquo;s &ldquo;Juno&rdquo; zeitgeist, I received a response from a reader who took umbrage with me slamming the film. &ldquo;I guess you don&rsquo;t remember what&rsquo;s it&rsquo;s like to be a 16-year-old girl who is unpopular, non-conforming and pregnant,&rdquo; she sniffed. I always thought this to be an odd line of reasoning for an argument. By that statement, does that mean I must have spent time as a gladiator to enjoy &ldquo;300?&rdquo; Must I have gone through heroin withdraw after cutting short my career in punk music to appreciate &ldquo;Sid and Nancy?&rdquo; A film need not have leads with character traits that duplicate my own in order for me to appreciate it (&ldquo;Trainspotting&rdquo; immediately comes to mind). It does not even have to have leads that I respect, for that matter (say hello to my little friend &ldquo;Scarface&rdquo;). What it does have to contain is an involving story and, in lieu of, or addition to that, characters which captivate my attention long enough for me to want to spend two hours with them in a darkened theater. The novel &ldquo;Twilight,&rdquo; written by Stephanie Meyers, is not meant for me. Nor, I gather, is the film. It was meant for the two texting tweeners sitting next to me in the theater &ndash; the ones who giggled at the first sight of Edward, the ones who cheered on Bella, but also the ones who spent the majority of film bathed in the blue light of their flipped-open cell phones, apparently interested in anything else but what was on the screen. (Maybe we could find common ground.) But there were certainly enough fans to give this film a record-breaking weekend at the box office last weekend. Fandango, the online pre-sale ticket hub, reported that tickets for &ldquo;Twilight&rdquo; were being sold at a rate of five per second prior to the first screenings. And they are not going away any time soon; after a phenomenal Friday box office, Summit, the tiny studio that produced the film, announced plans for a sequel and perhaps a third to be filmed back to back. And for that audience, I certainly understand (and even, at times, appreciate) the appeal. For beneath &ldquo;Twilight&rsquo;s&rdquo; fa&ccedil;ade of forbidden love, mortal danger and blood-sucking vampires lies a very chaste, safe escapist fantasy for young girls who want their films with more danger than awaiting what college Zac Efron will select upon graduating high school. And when it comes to sexuality, a subject typically intertwined with the vampire mythology, these beasties don&rsquo;t even grow those phallic fangs when they get excited, but rather just chomp away with normal incisors and bicuspids. These young girls can sit in the theater and completely ignore the sociological underpinnings of &ldquo;Twilight,&rdquo; and instead choose to retreat into the more fairy tale aspects of the story. There are certainly worse role models for young girls than that of young Bella (played by Kristen Stewart). She&rsquo;s apparently smart, plainly pretty, a little tomboyish, and the new kid at school. She&rsquo;s also immediately the center of attention of fellow classmates, the object of desire from the hunky, mysterious, aloof Edward (played by Robert Pattinson) and apparently responsible enough to be given carte blanche by her separated parents. There is a kernel of an interesting tragic story in the forbidden love of its leads (too bad neither actor seems interested in really emoting it, though). The fact that she&rsquo;s human and Edward&rsquo;s like, totally undead and could at any moment get all bitey on Bella makes this aspect compelling, especially for a youngster. Yet for anyone old enough to drive, though, is where &ldquo;Twilight&rdquo; begins to wither and shrivel under scrutiny. For vampire enthusiasts, this is perhaps one of the worst treatments of the mythology since Don Rickles turned into a vampire in the woefully bad John Landis mobster-vampire hybrid &ldquo;Innocent Blood.&rdquo; In fact, it tosses so many of the elements that make up the creatures&rsquo; mythology (the most long-standing in film history, by the way), one wonders why Meyers did not create a mythological beast all her own. For example, when these vampires are exposed to sunlight, their skin does not singe, it twinkles. Also, Edward and his surrogate &ldquo;family&rdquo; are &ldquo;vegetarian vampires,&rdquo; meaning they feast not on humans, but tear into woodland creatures like Sarah Palin on a weekend hunting expedition. But the lack of doom and gloom with its vampires are not the stake through &ldquo;Twilight&rsquo;s&rdquo; heart. Between their sporting more pancake makeup than a crown at a Cure concert, Edward&rsquo;s family&rsquo;s passion for playing a good ol-fashioned game of baseball, or even their superhuman abilities, (which are amusingly in need of a larger budget), they are extremely difficult to take as seriously as director Catherine Hardwicke wants us to. The other splash of holy water is Stewart as Bella. Edward, who is revealed to be about 90 (that&rsquo;s a lot of high school biology classes to slog through!), claims he&rsquo;s waited his life for someone like her. Really? Why? Do you want to borrow her lipstick? Honestly, Stewart plays her as such a serious, mopey bore, it&rsquo;s really hard to see just what it is about her that is so striking to anyone, particularly someone who has spent the last nine decades chasing high school chicks. Look, I am happy to see film aimed at an oft-neglected segment of film-goers, giving them a fantasy world that does not involve crass commercialism or power through sexualization (and I hope after this initial encounter Bella goes home and has some serious &ldquo;Buffy: The Vampire Slayer&rdquo; marathons for tips on being more strong willed). But the fact that this was apparently based on a wildly popular young adult novel makes me sad to realize just how few options there must be out there for our daughters to read. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/12/37265.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/12/2008 6:01:07 PM
Body: Money makes the world go round, and it also drives the plot most of the films of Danny Boyle. Slumdog Millionaire, as you can guess by the title, is no different. It greases the wheels of Boyle’s plots, and forces characters to do things they wouldn’t otherwise even consider. Unfortunately cash doesn’t really play a part in 28 Days Later or Sunshine, probably because zombies don’t really shop that often, and the Sun doesn’t take credit cards, but every one of his other films has a pile of money at the heart of the story. Shallow Grave This intense thriller wouldn’t have existed without a mysterious tenant who turns up dead, and who happens to have a ton of cash in his room. Three normal people then slowly become dangerously unhinged and obsessed with protecting the haul and figuring out what to do with it. Although this movie was Ewan McGregor’s breakout role, it’s poor Christopher Eccleston who really transforms in this movie from quiet nebbish to complete psychopath. Note to self: do not store enormous amounts of cash in the attic cistern. That really limits your escape options. Trainspotting This movie is about heroin, to be sure, but it takes dough to buy the stuff, which is why Mark Renton and his friends are perpetually broke and stealing odds and ends to scrape enough together for their next fix. When Renton finally gets out of the rut and goes straight, his old friends pull him right back in. When he eventually finds himself in the middle of a deal to sell cocaine for cash, Renton turns his back on his friends and walks off with the cash while they sleep. Note to self: never make friends with anyone named “Begbie.” A Life Less Ordinary Probably Boyle’s wackiest film to date, and so far his last collaboration with Ewan McGregor. McGregor plays a janitor who is writing a trash novel, and when he gets laid off because robots are replacing his job, he snaps and kidnaps his rich boss’ daughter (Cameron Diaz) in the hopes of scoring a large ransom. Then two angels step in and it becomes a movie about love and change and… what about the money?! At least he finds love. And yes, money. But which one is more important? Note to self: Don’t let Cameron Diaz attempt to shoot fruit off of my head. The Beach Leonardo DiCaprio’s first film after Titanic ended up being The Beach, and while the novel is much, much better than the movie, I still find myself always getting stuck on the film when I flip past it on cable. While money isn’t central to the story, per se, the massive farm full of marijuana on a protected island preserve probably makes a few bucks. It’s the lure of the paradise versus the pollution of the outside world, and that cash crop ends up complicating things when the thugs decide to kick everyone out. Note to self: don’t like on utopic island populated by drug-runners. Millions In the days before the the Bank of England switched to Euros, two boys find a bag bursting at the seams with wads of cash. They only have a few days to spend it, and they split into two opposite paths: the older brother spends the money on material things and trying to impress his friends at school, while the younger brother wants to use it to help people. This is probably Boyle’s sweetest film to date, but it does it without being sappy or talking down to the audience. Note to self: Alex Etel might not be a great investment banker, but he’d probably find the most humanitarian way to spend your dough. Plus he’s just one damn cute kid. Slumdog Millionaire Spout’s other Kevin didn’t like this movie, but I imagine that Danny Boyle probably owes him some cash, so he thought he’d stiff him on the review. I really loved this movie, and Danny doesn’t owe me a dime. He even picked up the tab for the tea when I interviewed him in Toronto. Which means… wait a minute. Did he buy a favorable review by getting me a cup of tea? Maybe money is central to everything. Very clever, Mr. Boyle. Slumdog Millionaire opens this week, so get out there and spend your own cash and see what you think. Note to self: next time hold out for a steak dinner. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:01:07 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/12/2008 6:01:07 PMMoney makes the world go round, and it also drives the plot most of the films of Danny Boyle. Slumdog Millionaire, as you can guess by the title, is no different. It greases the wheels of Boyle’s plots, and forces characters to do things they wouldn’t otherwise even consider. Unfortunately cash doesn’t really play a part in 28 Days Later or Sunshine, probably because zombies don’t really shop that often, and the Sun doesn’t take credit cards, but every one of his other films has a pile of money at the heart of the story. Shallow Grave This intense thriller wouldn’t have existed without a mysterious tenant who turns up dead, and who happens to have a ton of cash in his room. Three normal people then slowly become dangerously unhinged and obsessed with protecting the haul and figuring out what to do with it. Although this movie was Ewan McGregor’s breakout role, it’s poor Christopher Eccleston who really transforms in this movie from quiet nebbish to complete psychopath. Note to self: do not store enormous amounts of cash in the attic cistern. That really limits your escape options. Trainspotting This movie is about heroin, to be sure, but it takes dough to buy the stuff, which is why Mark Renton and his friends are perpetually broke and stealing odds and ends to scrape enough together for their next fix. When Renton finally gets out of the rut and goes straight, his old friends pull him right back in. When he eventually finds himself in the middle of a deal to sell cocaine for cash, Renton turns his back on his friends and walks off with the cash while they sleep. Note to self: never make friends with anyone named “Begbie.” A Life Less Ordinary Probably Boyle’s wackiest film to date, and so far his last collaboration with Ewan McGregor. McGregor plays a janitor who is writing a trash novel, and when he gets laid off because robots are replacing his job, he snaps and kidnaps his rich boss’ daughter (Cameron Diaz) in the hopes of scoring a large ransom. Then two angels step in and it becomes a movie about love and change and… what about the money?! At least he finds love. And yes, money. But which one is more important? Note to self: Don’t let Cameron Diaz attempt to shoot fruit off of my head. The Beach Leonardo DiCaprio’s first film after Titanic ended up being The Beach, and while the novel is much, much better than the movie, I still find myself always getting stuck on the film when I flip past it on cable. While money isn’t central to the story, per se, the massive farm full of marijuana on a protected island preserve probably makes a few bucks. It’s the lure of the paradise versus the pollution of the outside world, and that cash crop ends up complicating things when the thugs decide to kick everyone out. Note to self: don’t like on utopic island populated by drug-runners. Millions In the days before the the Bank of England switched to Euros, two boys find a bag bursting at the seams with wads of cash. They only have a few days to spend it, and they split into two opposite paths: the older brother spends the money on material things and trying to impress his friends at school, while the younger brother wants to use it to help people. This is probably Boyle’s sweetest film to date, but it does it without being sappy or talking down to the audience. Note to self: Alex Etel might not be a great investment banker, but he’d probably find the most humanitarian way to spend your dough. Plus he’s just one damn cute kid. Slumdog Millionaire Spout’s other Kevin didn’t like this movie, but I imagine that Danny Boyle probably owes him some cash, so he thought he’d stiff him on the review. I really loved this movie, and Danny doesn’t owe me a dime. He even picked up the tab for the tea when I interviewed him in Toronto. Which means… wait a minute. Did he buy a favorable review by getting me a cup of tea? Maybe money is central to everything. Very clever, Mr. Boyle. Slumdog Millionaire opens this week, so get out there and spend your own cash and see what you think. Note to self: next time hold out for a steak dinner. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/leeroy711/archive/2008/10/12/36210.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: leeroy711 Blog
Post Date: 10/12/2008 3:24:45 AM
Body: ** Stars out of 5 Directed by: Asia Argento Starring: Asia Argento, Peter Fonda, Cole Sprouse, Dylan Sprouse, Running Time: 97 minutes Rated: R Released: 2004 Language: English Review: We begin this story with a young Jeremiah being gleefully reunited with his estranged biological mother after years in foster care… Well, maybe gleefully is a bit of a strong term. How about cautiously content... No, I’m not quite there yet am I? Ok, he was terrified, and with good reason as we find out in the next 97 minutes of this feature directed by and starring Asia Argento. You see, unfortunately for Jeremiah, his mom makes Courtney Love look like mother of the year. She controls him with a cocktail of mental, sexual, physical and substance abuse. His pitiful fate is pretty much sealed. There were a few things I liked about this movie. As disturbing and disgusting some of the scenes were, I was actually suspecting much worse having read some of the other reviews. In one scene, Asia Argento actually plays the part of her son pretending to be her. I don’t really think this was purely an artistic decision. I have a feeling that this was also serving the purpose of saving what little innocence the Sprouse twins had left. Thankfully the most graphic of scenes were simulated rather than shown. I’m not sure if I could have choked this one down if it had been much worse. The acting by Asia Argento was pretty good here. It wasn’t great but some of the scenes that showed the desperate logic and rage that clouds the mind of a junkie were done really well. I also got a kick out of some of the cameos. Peter Fonda, Winona Rider, Michael Pitt and Jeremy Sisto are all in this film in very small portions. Unfortunately for this film, there were just too many things I disliked and a few that I outright hated for this to get a good review from me. I will probably be the first reviewer to mention this but, I was thoroughly disgusted with that afro that Argento had in a headlock. Of all things in this film, this could have been the most unnerving and completely unnecessary. I mean, come on, I’ve been to some dive strip bars in my time, but I have never thrown down a dollar for a dancer who looked like she had just given Bigfoot a noogie. CAUTION – SPOILER ALERT The biggest problem this movie had was that it quite simply had no soul. It was filled with antagonists and victims. You wait through the entire 97 minutes waiting for someone with a heart to come and save this poor kid from his life. But alas, no such person exists. Even to the very end of the film you feel as though it can’t be over. There isn’t even a light at the end of the tunnel. You are left with a sense that what awaits will just be more of the same, only worse. I really just can’t get behind a movie like this. I’m really not sure even what I just watched. It was far too intense to be a melodrama. There were far too many far-fetched things going on to call it any sort of realism. And a tragedy will always at least give you some sort of closure in the end. This film lacks those crucial elements that allow the audience to get any sort of satisfaction. Recommendations: If you are interested in seeing other films that portray graphic drug abuse and its consequences. Look no further than Requiem for a Dream and Trainspotting. These both fall under the category of: if you were thinking about trying it, watch this first and then you won’t. Bonus: (New Feature) I’ve decided to implement a new feature into my reviews. You see, I like music and sharing my music with others. So, from now on, I will be embedding a song that I think would be appropriate to listen to while reading my review. I will try to make it associated with the theme or an element of the film. Failure – “The Nurse Who Loved Me”
]]>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:24:45 GMTleeroy711leeroy711 Blog10/12/2008 3:24:45 AM ** Stars out of 5 Directed by: Asia Argento Starring: Asia Argento, Peter Fonda, Cole Sprouse, Dylan Sprouse, Running Time: 97 minutes Rated: R Released: 2004 Language: English Review: We begin this story with a young Jeremiah being gleefully reunited with his estranged biological mother after years in foster care&hellip; Well, maybe gleefully is a bit of a strong term. How about cautiously content... No, I&rsquo;m not quite there yet am I? Ok, he was terrified, and with good reason as we find out in the next 97 minutes of this feature directed by and starring Asia Argento. You see, unfortunately for Jeremiah, his mom makes Courtney Love look like mother of the year. She controls him with a cocktail of mental, sexual, physical and substance abuse. His pitiful fate is pretty much sealed. There were a few things I liked about this movie. As disturbing and disgusting some of the scenes were, I was actually suspecting much worse having read some of the other reviews. In one scene, Asia Argento actually plays the part of her son pretending to be her. I don&rsquo;t really think this was purely an artistic decision. I have a feeling that this was also serving the purpose of saving what little innocence the Sprouse twins had left. Thankfully the most graphic of scenes were simulated rather than shown. I&rsquo;m not sure if I could have choked this one down if it had been much worse. The acting by Asia Argento was pretty good here. It wasn&rsquo;t great but some of the scenes that showed the desperate logic and rage that clouds the mind of a junkie were done really well. I also got a kick out of some of the cameos. Peter Fonda, Winona Rider, Michael Pitt and Jeremy Sisto are all in this film in very small portions. Unfortunately for this film, there were just too many things I disliked and a few that I outright hated for this to get a good review from me. I will probably be the first reviewer to mention this but, I was thoroughly disgusted with that afro that Argento had in a headlock. Of all things in this film, this could have been the most unnerving and completely unnecessary. I mean, come on, I&rsquo;ve been to some dive strip bars in my time, but I have never thrown down a dollar for a dancer who looked like she had just given Bigfoot a noogie. CAUTION &ndash; SPOILER ALERT The biggest problem this movie had was that it quite simply had no soul. It was filled with antagonists and victims. You wait through the entire 97 minutes waiting for someone with a heart to come and save this poor kid from his life. But alas, no such person exists. Even to the very end of the film you feel as though it can&rsquo;t be over. There isn&rsquo;t even a light at the end of the tunnel. You are left with a sense that what awaits will just be more of the same, only worse. I really just can&rsquo;t get behind a movie like this. I&rsquo;m really not sure even what I just watched. It was far too intense to be a melodrama. There were far too many far-fetched things going on to call it any sort of realism. And a tragedy will always at least give you some sort of closure in the end. This film lacks those crucial elements that allow the audience to get any sort of satisfaction. Recommendations: If you are interested in seeing other films that portray graphic drug abuse and its consequences. Look no further than Requiem for a Dream and Trainspotting. These both fall under the category of: if you were thinking about trying it, watch this first and then you won&rsquo;t. Bonus: (New Feature) I&rsquo;ve decided to implement a new feature into my reviews. You see, I like music and sharing my music with others. So, from now on, I will be embedding a song that I think would be appropriate to listen to while reading my review. I will try to make it associated with the theme or an element of the film. Failure &ndash; &ldquo;The Nurse Who Loved Me&rdquo; http://www.spout.com/groups/Introduce_Yourself/Re_Introduce_Yourself/291/35989/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: Introduce Yourself
Post Date: 10/7/2008 9:06:53 AM
Body: Welcome (again)! Glad to see you found your way over here. I'm a hopeless romantic too, but please don't tell anyone--it may ruin my image ;-) Anyways, definately browse some of the groups and if you have suggestions for others feel free to contact myself or Ryan (rjsprague)... we're always looking for feedback/suggestions from users! [quote user="revedroom"] I think "Trainspotting" was probably the one work that first awoke the movie-genes inside me. I watched it when I was 13, I guess. I was impressed. But it was only 5 years ago that I started to really get to know cinema a little bit better. If I had to list 5 of my favorite movies ever, I'd have to choose "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Conversations With Other Women". Which I guess makes me a hopeless romantic, even though I don't like to admit it. Lol. I was invited to join this group (and 4 others) by seely, to which I'm very thankful for. Without that, I probably wouldn't have had the insight to look for it alone. Thanks! Just like some other people who have replied to this thread, I also love music, photography, reading and writing. Hmmm, what else? I have journalism and advertising majors, and I'm a scorpio, with scorpio rising :D. [/quote]
]]>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:06:53 GMTseelyIntroduce Yourself10/7/2008 9:06:53 AMWelcome (again)! Glad to see you found your way over here. I'm a hopeless romantic too, but please don't tell anyone--it may ruin my image ;-) Anyways, definately browse some of the groups and if you have suggestions for others feel free to contact myself or Ryan (rjsprague)... we're always looking for feedback/suggestions from users! [quote user="revedroom"] I think "Trainspotting" was probably the one work that first awoke the movie-genes inside me. I watched it when I was 13, I guess. I was impressed. But it was only 5 years ago that I started to really get to know cinema a little bit better. If I had to list 5 of my favorite movies ever, I'd have to choose "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Conversations With Other Women". Which I guess makes me a hopeless romantic, even though I don't like to admit it. Lol. I was invited to join this group (and 4 others) by seely, to which I'm very thankful for. Without that, I probably wouldn't have had the insight to look for it alone. Thanks! Just like some other people who have replied to this thread, I also love music, photography, reading and writing. Hmmm, what else? I have journalism and advertising majors, and I'm a scorpio, with scorpio rising :D. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Introduce_Yourself/Re_Introduce_Yourself/291/35949/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: Introduce Yourself
Post Date: 10/6/2008 4:35:30 PM
Body: [quote user="revedroom"] Hey everyone, My name is Maria Fernanda, I'm 23 and I live in Rio de Janeiro - Brazil. I recently found out about Spout.com when visiting a finnish girl's weblog - she had a Spout widget there, I liked it, and decided it would probably be a good idea to visit it. Turns out it was a great idea :D. That was on saturday, I guess, and since then I've added about 250 movies to my lists (favorite / want to see). It's amazing to be in this cinema environment. I think "Trainspotting" was probably the one work that first awoke the movie-genes inside me. I watched it when I was 13, I guess. I was impressed. But it was only 5 years ago that I started to really get to know cinema a little bit better. If I had to list 5 of my favorite movies ever, I'd have to choose "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Conversations With Other Women". Which I guess makes me a hopeless romantic, even though I don't like to admit it. Lol. I was invited to join this group (and 4 others) by seely, to which I'm very thankful for. Without that, I probably wouldn't have had the insight to look for it alone. Thanks! Just like some other people who have replied to this thread, I also love music, photography, reading and writing. Hmmm, what else? I have journalism and advertising majors, and I'm a scorpio, with scorpio rising :D. [/quote] Welcome Maria. We're so glad to have you here. :) I'm a scorpio too, we'll rule the world one day, muhahaha! Brazil sounds like an interesting place. If you ever have questions don't be afraid to ask. Ryan
]]>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:35:30 GMTrjspragueIntroduce Yourself10/6/2008 4:35:30 PM[quote user="revedroom"] Hey everyone, My name is Maria Fernanda, I'm 23 and I live in Rio de Janeiro - Brazil. I recently found out about Spout.com when visiting a finnish girl's weblog - she had a Spout widget there, I liked it, and decided it would probably be a good idea to visit it. Turns out it was a great idea :D. That was on saturday, I guess, and since then I've added about 250 movies to my lists (favorite / want to see). It's amazing to be in this cinema environment. I think "Trainspotting" was probably the one work that first awoke the movie-genes inside me. I watched it when I was 13, I guess. I was impressed. But it was only 5 years ago that I started to really get to know cinema a little bit better. If I had to list 5 of my favorite movies ever, I'd have to choose "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Conversations With Other Women". Which I guess makes me a hopeless romantic, even though I don't like to admit it. Lol. I was invited to join this group (and 4 others) by seely, to which I'm very thankful for. Without that, I probably wouldn't have had the insight to look for it alone. Thanks! Just like some other people who have replied to this thread, I also love music, photography, reading and writing. Hmmm, what else? I have journalism and advertising majors, and I'm a scorpio, with scorpio rising :D. [/quote] Welcome Maria. We're so glad to have you here. :) I'm a scorpio too, we'll rule the world one day, muhahaha! Brazil sounds like an interesting place. If you ever have questions don't be afraid to ask. Ryan http://www.spout.com/groups/Introduce_Yourself/Re_Introduce_Yourself/291/35944/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: revedroom
Post To: Introduce Yourself
Post Date: 10/6/2008 3:44:56 PM
Body: Hey everyone, My name is Maria Fernanda, I'm 23 and I live in Rio de Janeiro - Brazil. I recently found out about Spout.com when visiting a finnish girl's weblog - she had a Spout widget there, I liked it, and decided it would probably be a good idea to visit it. Turns out it was a great idea :D. That was on saturday, I guess, and since then I've added about 250 movies to my lists (favorite / want to see). It's amazing to be in this cinema environment. I think "Trainspotting" was probably the one work that first awoke the movie-genes inside me. I watched it when I was 13, I guess. I was impressed. But it was only 5 years ago that I started to really get to know cinema a little bit better. If I had to list 5 of my favorite movies ever, I'd have to choose "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Conversations With Other Women". Which I guess makes me a hopeless romantic, even though I don't like to admit it. Lol. I was invited to join this group (and 4 others) by seely, to which I'm very thankful for. Without that, I probably wouldn't have had the insight to look for it alone. Thanks! Just like some other people who have replied to this thread, I also love music, photography, reading and writing. Hmmm, what else? I have journalism and advertising majors, and I'm a scorpio, with scorpio rising :D.
]]>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:44:56 GMTrevedroomIntroduce Yourself10/6/2008 3:44:56 PMHey everyone, My name is Maria Fernanda, I'm 23 and I live in Rio de Janeiro - Brazil. I recently found out about Spout.com when visiting a finnish girl's weblog - she had a Spout widget there, I liked it, and decided it would probably be a good idea to visit it. Turns out it was a great idea :D. That was on saturday, I guess, and since then I've added about 250 movies to my lists (favorite / want to see). It's amazing to be in this cinema environment. I think "Trainspotting" was probably the one work that first awoke the movie-genes inside me. I watched it when I was 13, I guess. I was impressed. But it was only 5 years ago that I started to really get to know cinema a little bit better. If I had to list 5 of my favorite movies ever, I'd have to choose "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Conversations With Other Women". Which I guess makes me a hopeless romantic, even though I don't like to admit it. Lol. I was invited to join this group (and 4 others) by seely, to which I'm very thankful for. Without that, I probably wouldn't have had the insight to look for it alone. Thanks! Just like some other people who have replied to this thread, I also love music, photography, reading and writing. Hmmm, what else? I have journalism and advertising majors, and I'm a scorpio, with scorpio rising :D. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_September_29_Gimme_Some_Drugs/625/35774/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/1/2008 3:20:08 PM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] I just watched Half Nelson, which was very serious, but featured lots of cocaine use. Though most of the films listed so far in this convo have been sort of those psychidelic movies that attempt to visualize the drug-induced experience, there are some notable movies just about doing drugs - Trainspotting comes readily to mind. Just say no to heroin, kids. And Gor, I've read the LOTR books lotsa times - I think you *might* just be reading into the whole pipe weed thing. Just a smidge. After all, hobbits clearly have addictive personalities, so a little tobacco probably goes a long way... :-) [/quote] Oh wait - Trainspotting was mentioned in the first post. Oh well. Also read your discussion threads more carefully, kids.
]]>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:20:08 GMTpippin06Weekly Theme10/1/2008 3:20:08 PM[quote user="pippin06"] I just watched Half Nelson, which was very serious, but featured lots of cocaine use. Though most of the films listed so far in this convo have been sort of those psychidelic movies that attempt to visualize the drug-induced experience, there are some notable movies just about doing drugs - Trainspotting comes readily to mind. Just say no to heroin, kids. And Gor, I've read the LOTR books lotsa times - I think you *might* just be reading into the whole pipe weed thing. Just a smidge. After all, hobbits clearly have addictive personalities, so a little tobacco probably goes a long way... :-) [/quote] Oh wait - Trainspotting was mentioned in the first post. Oh well. Also read your discussion threads more carefully, kids. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT609316942Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1087

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1342

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:30 GMT10872531342Tag 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/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drugs/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrugs
Number of films tagged: 1643

Number of people who tagged: 130

Number of times used: 489

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:19 GMT1643130489Tag 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/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/weird/MemberTagFilms.aspxweird
Number of films tagged: 90

Number of people who tagged: 83

Number of times used: 131

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:57:36 GMT9083131Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/relationships/MemberTagFilms.aspxrelationships
Number of films tagged: 203

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 249

]]>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:40:59 GMT20374249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/addiction/MemberTagFilms.aspxaddiction
Number of films tagged: 553

Number of people who tagged: 59

Number of times used: 117

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:57:35 GMT55359117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/life/MemberTagFilms.aspxlife
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 224

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT108252224Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/terrible/MemberTagFilms.aspxterrible
Number of films tagged: 59

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 64

]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:51:39 GMT594764Tag