list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Mars Attacks! 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/Mars_Attacks/93834/default.aspx Title: Mars Attacks!
Year: 1996
Director: Tim Burton
Plot: This quirky science fiction comedy is a characteristic feature by iconoclastic director Tim Burton, known to moviegoers for Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, and The Nightmare Before Christmas. The storyline affectionately harkens back to the deadpan sincerity of such '50s and '60s science-fiction films as The Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Flying saucers have been reliably seen over the capitals of the world, and the whole world awaits with bated breath to see what will transpire. Among those waiting is the President of the United States (Jack Nicholson), who is assured by his science advisor (Pierce Brosnan) that the coming aliens are utterly peaceful. This advice is hotly contested by the military (led by Rod Steiger), who advices the President to annihilate them. When the aliens land, they are seen to be green, garish, and very cheerful. But appearances prove deceiving when the "friendly" aliens abruptly disintegrate the entire U.S. Congress. Hollywood notables appear in vast quantities in roles (and sub-plots) of all sizes in this zany feature. ~ Clarke Fountain, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 31
Number of Lists: 45
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 02:00:54 GMTMars Attacks!1996Tim BurtonThis quirky science fiction comedy is a characteristic feature by iconoclastic director <a href="/players/P____83666/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tim Burton</a>, known to moviegoers for <a href=/films/2697/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Beetlejuice</a>, <a href=/films/10210/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Edward Scissorhands</a>, and <a href=/films/81021/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Nightmare Before Christmas</a>. The storyline affectionately harkens back to the deadpan sincerity of such '50s and '60s science-fiction films as <a href=/films/8238/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Day the Earth Stood Still</a> and <a href=/films/251134/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>War of the Worlds</a>. Flying saucers have been reliably seen over the capitals of the world, and the whole world awaits with bated breath to see what will transpire. Among those waiting is the President of the United States (<a href="/players/P___104455/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Nicholson</a>), who is assured by his science advisor (<a href="/players/P_____8836/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Pierce Brosnan</a>) that the coming aliens are utterly peaceful. This advice is hotly contested by the military (led by <a href="/players/P____67882/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Rod Steiger</a>), who advices the President to annihilate them. When the aliens land, they are seen to be green, garish, and very cheerful. But appearances prove deceiving when the "friendly" aliens abruptly disintegrate the entire U.S. Congress. Hollywood notables appear in vast quantities in roles (and sub-plots) of all sizes in this zany feature. ~ Clarke Fountain, All Movie Guide31Tag Target (>10)45633http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t00100xwsil.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Mars_Attacks/93834/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/3/42002.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/3/2009 4:37:10 PM
Body: Recently, the Hubble telescope took pictures of a fleet of spacecraft heading to Earth under a flag of peace. The lead spacecraft, with the Martian Ambassador, lands in a Nevada desert in what can only be called a media circus, but the unexpected happens -- the martians pull out their weapons and start shooting. The first thing you will notice is the incredible cast. One performance that stands out is Jack Nichelson, who plays two roles. He is near perfect as the President of the United States, and the other, more minor role, is very funny. Another performance that makes this movie special, even if it's not that big of a role until near the end of the film, is of the late Sylvia Sidney as "Grandma Norris," and only because this is her final role before her death three years after "Mars Attacks! release. Another thing that really stands out is the design of the aliens. That are made with interesting colors, and flawless motion. The only problem I had with the aliens was the annoying voices they were given. However, they are fairly good comic relief at times and are pretty enjoyable. Another special effect that works is the spaceships, which are obviously a nod to the 1950's movies of the same genre. One problem with this film is there is some problems with character development. This is because that the cast is just a little too large to help expand their characters. There are also some pretty lame performances, but I do believe that they are intentionally poor. Some of the roles may have worked a little better if they were cameos -- especially Danny DeVito, whom I thought wasn't that great in a role that is pretty much like any other role he's done on the silver screen. Also, in my opinion, many of the performers in this film were pretty much wrong for their parts. One of those was Glen Close as the First Lady, which was obviously a comedic role, but her performance fell flat. Another thing I notices is that many performers were over-the-top, but they looked more like they were trying a little too hard to make their performances believable. The movie is filled with some very silly moments, with lots of really good chuckles. Like I said earlier, the aliens are pretty funny, and some of the performances are equally chuckle worthy. Nichelson, in his smaller role as a high stakes gambler, is simply hilarious. Many of the comedic moments are thanks to the over-the-top performances that are pretty bad by design. One thing that is pretty stupid in my opinion is the ridiculous surprise ending that is meant for a laugh. For me the surprise ending, discovered by two characters that you'd least expect, the surprise ending produced a good groan and a really good eye-roll. I am not a Tim Burton fan, but he did a good, not great, job at direction. He was able to direct a couple of real good battle scenes with lots of action and special effects. He also directed, as a whole, a good tribute to 1950's alien invasion movies with over-the-top performances, some of which didn't work in my opinion. To sum things up, "Mars Attacks!" would be a good, solid second choice the next time you go to to your local rental place. It also might be a pretty good addition to your collection if you are into a cheesy comedies.
]]>Sun, 03 May 2009 20:37:10 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/3/2009 4:37:10 PMRecently, the Hubble telescope took pictures of a fleet of spacecraft heading to Earth under a flag of peace. The lead spacecraft, with the Martian Ambassador, lands in a Nevada desert in what can only be called a media circus, but the unexpected happens -- the martians pull out their weapons and start shooting. The first thing you will notice is the incredible cast. One performance that stands out is Jack Nichelson, who plays two roles. He is near perfect as the President of the United States, and the other, more minor role, is very funny. Another performance that makes this movie special, even if it's not that big of a role until near the end of the film, is of the late Sylvia Sidney as "Grandma Norris," and only because this is her final role before her death three years after "Mars Attacks! release. Another thing that really stands out is the design of the aliens. That are made with interesting colors, and flawless motion. The only problem I had with the aliens was the annoying voices they were given. However, they are fairly good comic relief at times and are pretty enjoyable. Another special effect that works is the spaceships, which are obviously a nod to the 1950's movies of the same genre. One problem with this film is there is some problems with character development. This is because that the cast is just a little too large to help expand their characters. There are also some pretty lame performances, but I do believe that they are intentionally poor. Some of the roles may have worked a little better if they were cameos -- especially Danny DeVito, whom I thought wasn't that great in a role that is pretty much like any other role he's done on the silver screen. Also, in my opinion, many of the performers in this film were pretty much wrong for their parts. One of those was Glen Close as the First Lady, which was obviously a comedic role, but her performance fell flat. Another thing I notices is that many performers were over-the-top, but they looked more like they were trying a little too hard to make their performances believable. The movie is filled with some very silly moments, with lots of really good chuckles. Like I said earlier, the aliens are pretty funny, and some of the performances are equally chuckle worthy. Nichelson, in his smaller role as a high stakes gambler, is simply hilarious. Many of the comedic moments are thanks to the over-the-top performances that are pretty bad by design. One thing that is pretty stupid in my opinion is the ridiculous surprise ending that is meant for a laugh. For me the surprise ending, discovered by two characters that you'd least expect, the surprise ending produced a good groan and a really good eye-roll. I am not a Tim Burton fan, but he did a good, not great, job at direction. He was able to direct a couple of real good battle scenes with lots of action and special effects. He also directed, as a whole, a good tribute to 1950's alien invasion movies with over-the-top performances, some of which didn't work in my opinion. To sum things up, "Mars Attacks!" would be a good, solid second choice the next time you go to to your local rental place. It also might be a pretty good addition to your collection if you are into a cheesy comedies. http://www.spout.com/groups/Directors/Re_Directors_who_have_yet_to_make_their_masterpie/406/38195/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: Directors
Post Date: 12/10/2008 2:52:15 PM
Body: I really feel that Tim Burton has yet to leave a defining mark. He definitely has a trademark style, and its easy to look at a film and say 'oh thats so Burton!', but I have yet to see one film that would stand out as a true masterpeice. Many of his numerous films are excellent, but I can't put my finger on one that is head and shoulders above the rest. There were some that weren't as good as others (Mars Attacks, Sleepy Hollow), and there were some that were truly fantastic (Big Fish, James and the Giant Peach), but I can't seem to pick one that had the criteria I consider when I think 'masterpeice'. I suppose I look for a combination of critical success (which Burton has fairly consistently had) and theatrical success (which has been rather hit or miss). I suppose I look for a masterpeice to be able to survive outside of the critical world and be accessible and popular among the hoi polloi as well. Any thoughts?
]]>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:52:15 GMTseelyDirectors12/10/2008 2:52:15 PMI really feel that Tim Burton has yet to leave a defining mark. He definitely has a trademark style, and its easy to look at a film and say 'oh thats so Burton!', but I have yet to see one film that would stand out as a true masterpeice. Many of his numerous films are excellent, but I can't put my finger on one that is head and shoulders above the rest. There were some that weren't as good as others (Mars Attacks, Sleepy Hollow), and there were some that were truly fantastic (Big Fish, James and the Giant Peach), but I can't seem to pick one that had the criteria I consider when I think 'masterpeice'. I suppose I look for a combination of critical success (which Burton has fairly consistently had) and theatrical success (which has been rather hit or miss). I suppose I look for a masterpeice to be able to survive outside of the critical world and be accessible and popular among the hoi polloi as well. Any thoughts? http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/4/36940.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/4/2008 12:01:19 PM
Body: Before you go to the polls today, you need to understand where the candidates stand on the really big issues. No, I don’t mean silly stuff like the economy. I mean the issues that threaten to plunge the world into an era of scorched, apocalyptic savagery. Sure, an ongoing war in the Middle East and gradual climate change are kind of scary, but how will Obama and McCain respond to the threats that can wipe out 99% of humanity overnight? These are dire times, and doomsday cinema has made one thing clear: this will probably be our last president before Armageddon sweeps from sea to shining see, so we’d better choose wisely. After the jump we look at where the candidates stand on the issues, from Alien Invasion to Zombie Plague. Near Earth Object Collision The possibility of a near Earth object (such as a huge comet or meteor) striking Earth and wiping out all life has been used films like Deep Impact and Armageddon, and it’s actually quite possible. It’s unlikely to happen in the next four years, but over the next several millennia, a devastating impact event is very likely. It doesn’t hurt to be prepared. Under which administration would we be least likely to be burned to a crisp when the big one hits? Obama: BarackObama.com has a .PDF available for download describing the candidate’s positions on issues pertaining to science and innovation. It’s pretty hard to find, the document is filed under the “Additional Issues” section of the website. There’s plenty of good stuff in there, but NASA, the organization most likely to be watching out for huge rocks in the sky, is only mentioned in a very small paragraph on the second to last page. The points are rather general, along the lines of “make it better.” McCain: JohnMcCain.com is much more explicit in outlining the candidate’s policies on space. While he doesn’t mention detection of near Earth objects, he does set aside a paragraph to explain why expensive and dangerous manned space missions are important. He says they exhibit courage and are illustrative of America’s status as a superpower. Who comes out on top? I’d have to say McCain. Preventing human extinction in the event of an interstellar impact requires two things: One, preparedness in the form of early warnings and sufficient response technology. And two, the balls to do something about it. While Obama’s commitment to increase basic research funding over the next ten years will help us be prepared, McCain’s fighter pilot instincts and commitment to put men aboard insanely suicidal space missions is essential. Both Deep Impact and Armageddon feature astronauts (who are often just exceptional fighter pilots) making the ultimate sacrifice to save innocent lives. Biological Terrorism Remember that scene in 12 Monkeys where the crazy scientist/terrorist is going through airport security with vials of a super-virus he engineered to wipe out the human race, and the security guard seems only mildly curious before letting him pass? While the TSA seems mostly useless, a biological attack certainly wouldn’t be that easy now. That said, we’re still not even close to being safe from the threat of viruses that melt flesh, turn people into savage killers, or transform humanity into flesh-hungry zombies. What are the candidates going to do to protect us from these threats? Obama: In the aforementioned .PDF on science policy, Obama laments that under the Bush administration “DARPA has retreated from its traditional commitment to invest in long-term, high-risk, high-return research.” Translation: let’s put money into technology that will protect us from far-out, freaky, sci-fi shit. This includes “microsystems, nanotechnology, … synthetic biology, and advanced manufacturing.” So not only will we be prepared for a biological strike, we’ll have a garrison of mech warriors up and running by 2012. McCain: National security is seen as a strong issue for McCain. Indeed, his ideas about tightening border security seem practical and effective, especially keeping a closer eye on the contents of the millions of shipping containers that enter our ports every year. He also has an interesting, and very Republican, idea about involving the private sector in disaster response. True, FedEx is better at tracking shipments than FEMA, but in the event of a contagious zombie plague, the last place you’ll want to go is WalMart, unless you’re planning on looting chainsaws, shotguns, and football pads. Who comes out on top? I may be going against conventional wisdom here, but I’ve got to say Obama. Super secret DARPA funding will lead to technologies that will not only save us, but will totally kick ass. In all seriousness, though, Obama’s willingness to actually talk to the people who are mad at us convinces me he’ll be more effective at stopping terrorism. Alien Invasion A staple of science fiction for well over a century, an attack from outer space would be the ultimate test for a president. The goal here is to be like Bill Pullman’s inspiring President Whitmore from Independence Day, and nothing like Jack Nicholson’s corrupt President Dale from Mars Attacks!. Obama: Obama’s increased funding of science research and DARPA, as mentioned above, would be helpful. But his charisma and diplomatic tact will have little affect on a superior race that views humanity as little more than a colony of pests. McCain: McCain’s strength on defense and his priority on manned space missions would make militarized space flight a reality within a few short years. Unlike terrestrial conflicts, we might benefit from the Republican shoot first, ask questions later defense policy. A full-scale invasion of Earth would take a considerable amount of planning. Under a McCain administration, those flying saucers performing reconnaissance missions would be quickly destroyed, sending a powerful message back to Alpha Centuri: Don’t mess with us. Who comes out on top? McCain, hands down. Bill Pullman’s President Whitmore practically is John McCain. They’re both decorated fighter pilots from Vietnam. And I’m sure McCain would jump back in the cockpit if humanity needed him. Environmental Calamity From The Day After Tomorrow to Wall-E, environmental disasters are common in film. An essential element in these tales is hubris on the part of the world leaders, who don’t act until it’s far too late. Since Al Gore is not running this year, which candidate is better prepared to prevent the world from filling up with trash and toxic gas? Obama: I’ve got to give Obama credit because his environmental policies actually deal with something beyond climate change and energy independence, issues like mercury, air pollution, and water shortages. Of course curbing greenhouse gas emissions is the big enchilada, and his plan seems pretty good. It’s also almost identical to McCain’s plan, at least that’s my impression after perusing each candidate’s website. McCain: McCain’s cap and trade plan to address greenhouse gases looks pretty good (which, considering the record of his party, is a tremendous compliment). One discrepancy is that McCain seems more willing to offer free carbon credits to certain industries that could be stifled by a cap and trade system (like big oil). Neither site is very clear on how such exceptions would be granted. Who comes out on top? Obama, but in a way, it’s a shame. The Democrats pretty much always have a leg up on the Republicans when it comes to the environment, and that’s never been truer than in the last eight years. But this is one issue where McCain’s claim that he would be nothing like Bush is totally legit. As far as Republicans go, McCain is actually pretty green, but Obama still edges him out. Hopefully McCain represents a new kind of Republican, because preventing an ecological apocalypse will require bipartisan effort. If not, we’d better start building a huge spaceship and an adorable little robot to clean up after us. Conclusion: Well, it looks like a tie. Whichever candidate wins, things are looking up in my opinion. Now all we need to do is stave off World War III until January 20. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/4/2008 12:01:19 PM Before you go to the polls today, you need to understand where the candidates stand on the really big issues. No, I don’t mean silly stuff like the economy. I mean the issues that threaten to plunge the world into an era of scorched, apocalyptic savagery. Sure, an ongoing war in the Middle East and gradual climate change are kind of scary, but how will Obama and McCain respond to the threats that can wipe out 99% of humanity overnight? These are dire times, and doomsday cinema has made one thing clear: this will probably be our last president before Armageddon sweeps from sea to shining see, so we’d better choose wisely. After the jump we look at where the candidates stand on the issues, from Alien Invasion to Zombie Plague. Near Earth Object Collision The possibility of a near Earth object (such as a huge comet or meteor) striking Earth and wiping out all life has been used films like Deep Impact and Armageddon, and it’s actually quite possible. It’s unlikely to happen in the next four years, but over the next several millennia, a devastating impact event is very likely. It doesn’t hurt to be prepared. Under which administration would we be least likely to be burned to a crisp when the big one hits? Obama: BarackObama.com has a .PDF available for download describing the candidate’s positions on issues pertaining to science and innovation. It’s pretty hard to find, the document is filed under the “Additional Issues” section of the website. There’s plenty of good stuff in there, but NASA, the organization most likely to be watching out for huge rocks in the sky, is only mentioned in a very small paragraph on the second to last page. The points are rather general, along the lines of “make it better.” McCain: JohnMcCain.com is much more explicit in outlining the candidate’s policies on space. While he doesn’t mention detection of near Earth objects, he does set aside a paragraph to explain why expensive and dangerous manned space missions are important. He says they exhibit courage and are illustrative of America’s status as a superpower. Who comes out on top? I’d have to say McCain. Preventing human extinction in the event of an interstellar impact requires two things: One, preparedness in the form of early warnings and sufficient response technology. And two, the balls to do something about it. While Obama’s commitment to increase basic research funding over the next ten years will help us be prepared, McCain’s fighter pilot instincts and commitment to put men aboard insanely suicidal space missions is essential. Both Deep Impact and Armageddon feature astronauts (who are often just exceptional fighter pilots) making the ultimate sacrifice to save innocent lives. Biological Terrorism Remember that scene in 12 Monkeys where the crazy scientist/terrorist is going through airport security with vials of a super-virus he engineered to wipe out the human race, and the security guard seems only mildly curious before letting him pass? While the TSA seems mostly useless, a biological attack certainly wouldn’t be that easy now. That said, we’re still not even close to being safe from the threat of viruses that melt flesh, turn people into savage killers, or transform humanity into flesh-hungry zombies. What are the candidates going to do to protect us from these threats? Obama: In the aforementioned .PDF on science policy, Obama laments that under the Bush administration “DARPA has retreated from its traditional commitment to invest in long-term, high-risk, high-return research.” Translation: let’s put money into technology that will protect us from far-out, freaky, sci-fi shit. This includes “microsystems, nanotechnology, … synthetic biology, and advanced manufacturing.” So not only will we be prepared for a biological strike, we’ll have a garrison of mech warriors up and running by 2012. McCain: National security is seen as a strong issue for McCain. Indeed, his ideas about tightening border security seem practical and effective, especially keeping a closer eye on the contents of the millions of shipping containers that enter our ports every year. He also has an interesting, and very Republican, idea about involving the private sector in disaster response. True, FedEx is better at tracking shipments than FEMA, but in the event of a contagious zombie plague, the last place you’ll want to go is WalMart, unless you’re planning on looting chainsaws, shotguns, and football pads. Who comes out on top? I may be going against conventional wisdom here, but I’ve got to say Obama. Super secret DARPA funding will lead to technologies that will not only save us, but will totally kick ass. In all seriousness, though, Obama’s willingness to actually talk to the people who are mad at us convinces me he’ll be more effective at stopping terrorism. Alien Invasion A staple of science fiction for well over a century, an attack from outer space would be the ultimate test for a president. The goal here is to be like Bill Pullman’s inspiring President Whitmore from Independence Day, and nothing like Jack Nicholson’s corrupt President Dale from Mars Attacks!. Obama: Obama’s increased funding of science research and DARPA, as mentioned above, would be helpful. But his charisma and diplomatic tact will have little affect on a superior race that views humanity as little more than a colony of pests. McCain: McCain’s strength on defense and his priority on manned space missions would make militarized space flight a reality within a few short years. Unlike terrestrial conflicts, we might benefit from the Republican shoot first, ask questions later defense policy. A full-scale invasion of Earth would take a considerable amount of planning. Under a McCain administration, those flying saucers performing reconnaissance missions would be quickly destroyed, sending a powerful message back to Alpha Centuri: Don’t mess with us. Who comes out on top? McCain, hands down. Bill Pullman’s President Whitmore practically is John McCain. They’re both decorated fighter pilots from Vietnam. And I’m sure McCain would jump back in the cockpit if humanity needed him. Environmental Calamity From The Day After Tomorrow to Wall-E, environmental disasters are common in film. An essential element in these tales is hubris on the part of the world leaders, who don’t act until it’s far too late. Since Al Gore is not running this year, which candidate is better prepared to prevent the world from filling up with trash and toxic gas? Obama: I’ve got to give Obama credit because his environmental policies actually deal with something beyond climate change and energy independence, issues like mercury, air pollution, and water shortages. Of course curbing greenhouse gas emissions is the big enchilada, and his plan seems pretty good. It’s also almost identical to McCain’s plan, at least that’s my impression after perusing each candidate’s website. McCain: McCain’s cap and trade plan to address greenhouse gases looks pretty good (which, considering the record of his party, is a tremendous compliment). One discrepancy is that McCain seems more willing to offer free carbon credits to certain industries that could be stifled by a cap and trade system (like big oil). Neither site is very clear on how such exceptions would be granted. Who comes out on top? Obama, but in a way, it’s a shame. The Democrats pretty much always have a leg up on the Republicans when it comes to the environment, and that’s never been truer than in the last eight years. But this is one issue where McCain’s claim that he would be nothing like Bush is totally legit. As far as Republicans go, McCain is actually pretty green, but Obama still edges him out. Hopefully McCain represents a new kind of Republican, because preventing an ecological apocalypse will require bipartisan effort. If not, we’d better start building a huge spaceship and an adorable little robot to clean up after us. Conclusion: Well, it looks like a tie. Whichever candidate wins, things are looking up in my opinion. Now all we need to do is stave off World War III until January 20. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/1/35765.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/1/2008 12:01:21 PM
Body: Will this year’s presidential election be determined by which candidate is more hip? Barack Obama is younger, listens to Jay-Z and Kanye West and is something of a trendy choice among college students. McCain, on the other hand, is older and (now) less athletic but is still considered to be hip in a cool grandpa kind of way. Like the grandpa who has exciting war stories to share. Have you seen the video footage of him jumping from an explosion during the USS Forrestal fire? That’s pretty cool. So, the outcome of the race may depend on what the majority of Americans think is cool. Charisma or Muscle. It reminds me of an election for high school class president. Who is more popular, the preppy basketball player or the more jockish captain of the wrestling team? But do we really want a cool president? Let’s take a look at some of the coolest fictional presidents from the movies and decide if it’s truly a good idea to base our vote on which candidate we’d prefer to hang with. 10. President Lindberg (Tony “Tiny” Lister), from The Fifth Element I’m not saying that being cross-eyed or incessantly receiving calls from your mother is cool, though both could very well be thought so in the year 2263. That’s so far in the future that Lindberg isn’t just the President of the United States, he’s head of the “United Federation” (like in Star Trek). No, I’m saying that Lindberg is cool because he’s really big and badass and could probably do some sweet damage to some Mangalores all by his lonesome. Unfortunately, Lister never gets to display his old wrestling moves in any action scenes. 9. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho (Terry Crews), from Idiocracy Another African-American wrestler-turned-president, also in a future setting. Only this time it’s the character who is a former pro wrestler (Crews is instead a former pro football player) and the setting is even further in time, 2505, when the people of the world are very, very stupid. But is it stupid to elect a man with an awesome chopper and a tendency to sing his speeches? If Teddy Roosevelt were alive, he’d probably also have a motorcycle and a machine gun, though maybe he wouldn’t shoot the latter while standing before Congress. Or maybe he would, and maybe we’d still re-elect him. 8. President Devlin (George Clooney), from Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over If George Clooney stopped simply talking politics and actually ran for president, a lot of people would vote for him regardless of what he stood for. Simply because he’s a cool celebrity. Fans of the Spy Kids films kind of got a taste of what President George Clooney would look like when his character, Devlin, became commander-in-chief by the third installment. 7. President James Dale (Jack Nicholson), from Mars Attacks! Of course, if there’s one actor even cooler than Clooney, it’s Jack Nicholson. What if the presidential race consisted of these two actors up for the position? If you truly voted based on the coolness of the candidate, you’d have to go with Jack. But only if he wore sunglasses during every public appearance, including especially the State of the Union Address. 6. President Joseph Staton (Dennis Quaid), from American Dreamz American Idol may not be the coolest thing on television, but it is one of the most popular TV shows, and it’s pretty cool to a good percentage of the people old enough to vote for the president. Perhaps if the voting age was lowered to 14 (see #1), it would be cooler for the President to appear on MTV or at a Jonas Brothers concert. However, as the election tends to be more in the hands of older folk, it would be cool for a president or presidential hopeful to appear on Idol, as Staton does in this movie (with a fictionalized version of the show, titled American Dreamz). 5. President George W. Bush (James Adomian), from Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay This list is basically limited to fictional presidents in film, but we can make an exception for Adomian’s portrayal of Bush, as it’s no more accurate a representation than is Neil Patrick Harris’ portrayal of himself in the same film. In this movie, Bush is a much cooler guy. He gets high, has an awesome rec room, and he’s like a rebellious yet spoiled teenager. Heck, if ‘Rold and Kumar like hanging with him, you’d probably like hanging with him, too. 4. President James Marshall (Harrison Ford), from Air Force One People used to prefer a leader who’d proven himself in battle. Now, it’s not so important for a presidential candidate to have served in war or even been shown to have some sort of fight in him. Now it’s more cool than qualifying for a president to be able to kick a bad guy’s ass without need of assistance from the Secret Service. Even cooler, though, is a president who can kick a bad guy’s ass while also avoiding falling out of an airplane cargo door. 3. President Thomas “Tug” Benson (Lloyd Bridges), from Hot Shots! Part Deux Even tougher a guy than President Marshall is President Benson. In fact, he’s been through enough to make McCain look like a lazy hippie. He caught a bazooka round in Okinawa, took a bullet in Corregidor that went straight through both ears, took a torpedo in the lower abdomen that resulted in the removal of his intestines, he has a shell the size of his fist in his head and he was shot down on more than 194 air missions. He’s not too bright these days, but he’ll still take it upon himself to go into Iraq and fight the enemy face to face. With a light saber. 2. President Mays Gilliam (Chris Rock), from Head of State He’s not as cool as his running-mate (who is also his brother, played by Bernie Mac), and the movie isn’t as funny or insightful as Chris Rock’s political stand-up, but Mays Gilliam is like an even hipper exaggeration of Obama. Not only does he listen to rap, he plays Nelly at formal events and gets old ladies to dance and sing along. He takes mudslinging to a new level with “Yo Mama” jokes. And his “That Ain’t Right” slogan is like a cooler, possibly more genuine, inverse of Obama’s “Yes We Can.” 1. President Max Frost (Christopher Jones), from Wild in the Streets As the hit song from the movie goes, “nothing can stop the shape of things to come,” and I take that to mean that inevitably there will one day be a rock star elected to the presidency. After all, there has already been a movie star president, and eight years ago plenty of young music fans were ready to vote Jello Biafra into the White House, simply because he’s Jello Biafra. Despite the uncool things done by Max Frost and his band, The Troopers, such as putting LSD in the capital’s water supply and detaining citizens over the age of 35 for re-education, they do carry out some really hip ideas, such as lowering the voting age to 14, and more importantly they gave the world some classic garage rock tunes. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:01:21 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/1/2008 12:01:21 PMWill this year’s presidential election be determined by which candidate is more hip? Barack Obama is younger, listens to Jay-Z and Kanye West and is something of a trendy choice among college students. McCain, on the other hand, is older and (now) less athletic but is still considered to be hip in a cool grandpa kind of way. Like the grandpa who has exciting war stories to share. Have you seen the video footage of him jumping from an explosion during the USS Forrestal fire? That’s pretty cool. So, the outcome of the race may depend on what the majority of Americans think is cool. Charisma or Muscle. It reminds me of an election for high school class president. Who is more popular, the preppy basketball player or the more jockish captain of the wrestling team? But do we really want a cool president? Let’s take a look at some of the coolest fictional presidents from the movies and decide if it’s truly a good idea to base our vote on which candidate we’d prefer to hang with. 10. President Lindberg (Tony “Tiny” Lister), from The Fifth Element I’m not saying that being cross-eyed or incessantly receiving calls from your mother is cool, though both could very well be thought so in the year 2263. That’s so far in the future that Lindberg isn’t just the President of the United States, he’s head of the “United Federation” (like in Star Trek). No, I’m saying that Lindberg is cool because he’s really big and badass and could probably do some sweet damage to some Mangalores all by his lonesome. Unfortunately, Lister never gets to display his old wrestling moves in any action scenes. 9. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho (Terry Crews), from Idiocracy Another African-American wrestler-turned-president, also in a future setting. Only this time it’s the character who is a former pro wrestler (Crews is instead a former pro football player) and the setting is even further in time, 2505, when the people of the world are very, very stupid. But is it stupid to elect a man with an awesome chopper and a tendency to sing his speeches? If Teddy Roosevelt were alive, he’d probably also have a motorcycle and a machine gun, though maybe he wouldn’t shoot the latter while standing before Congress. Or maybe he would, and maybe we’d still re-elect him. 8. President Devlin (George Clooney), from Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over If George Clooney stopped simply talking politics and actually ran for president, a lot of people would vote for him regardless of what he stood for. Simply because he’s a cool celebrity. Fans of the Spy Kids films kind of got a taste of what President George Clooney would look like when his character, Devlin, became commander-in-chief by the third installment. 7. President James Dale (Jack Nicholson), from Mars Attacks! Of course, if there’s one actor even cooler than Clooney, it’s Jack Nicholson. What if the presidential race consisted of these two actors up for the position? If you truly voted based on the coolness of the candidate, you’d have to go with Jack. But only if he wore sunglasses during every public appearance, including especially the State of the Union Address. 6. President Joseph Staton (Dennis Quaid), from American Dreamz American Idol may not be the coolest thing on television, but it is one of the most popular TV shows, and it’s pretty cool to a good percentage of the people old enough to vote for the president. Perhaps if the voting age was lowered to 14 (see #1), it would be cooler for the President to appear on MTV or at a Jonas Brothers concert. However, as the election tends to be more in the hands of older folk, it would be cool for a president or presidential hopeful to appear on Idol, as Staton does in this movie (with a fictionalized version of the show, titled American Dreamz). 5. President George W. Bush (James Adomian), from Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay This list is basically limited to fictional presidents in film, but we can make an exception for Adomian’s portrayal of Bush, as it’s no more accurate a representation than is Neil Patrick Harris’ portrayal of himself in the same film. In this movie, Bush is a much cooler guy. He gets high, has an awesome rec room, and he’s like a rebellious yet spoiled teenager. Heck, if ‘Rold and Kumar like hanging with him, you’d probably like hanging with him, too. 4. President James Marshall (Harrison Ford), from Air Force One People used to prefer a leader who’d proven himself in battle. Now, it’s not so important for a presidential candidate to have served in war or even been shown to have some sort of fight in him. Now it’s more cool than qualifying for a president to be able to kick a bad guy’s ass without need of assistance from the Secret Service. Even cooler, though, is a president who can kick a bad guy’s ass while also avoiding falling out of an airplane cargo door. 3. President Thomas “Tug” Benson (Lloyd Bridges), from Hot Shots! Part Deux Even tougher a guy than President Marshall is President Benson. In fact, he’s been through enough to make McCain look like a lazy hippie. He caught a bazooka round in Okinawa, took a bullet in Corregidor that went straight through both ears, took a torpedo in the lower abdomen that resulted in the removal of his intestines, he has a shell the size of his fist in his head and he was shot down on more than 194 air missions. He’s not too bright these days, but he’ll still take it upon himself to go into Iraq and fight the enemy face to face. With a light saber. 2. President Mays Gilliam (Chris Rock), from Head of State He’s not as cool as his running-mate (who is also his brother, played by Bernie Mac), and the movie isn’t as funny or insightful as Chris Rock’s political stand-up, but Mays Gilliam is like an even hipper exaggeration of Obama. Not only does he listen to rap, he plays Nelly at formal events and gets old ladies to dance and sing along. He takes mudslinging to a new level with “Yo Mama” jokes. And his “That Ain’t Right” slogan is like a cooler, possibly more genuine, inverse of Obama’s “Yes We Can.” 1. President Max Frost (Christopher Jones), from Wild in the Streets As the hit song from the movie goes, “nothing can stop the shape of things to come,” and I take that to mean that inevitably there will one day be a rock star elected to the presidency. After all, there has already been a movie star president, and eight years ago plenty of young music fans were ready to vote Jello Biafra into the White House, simply because he’s Jello Biafra. Despite the uncool things done by Max Frost and his band, The Troopers, such as putting LSD in the capital’s water supply and detaining citizens over the age of 35 for re-education, they do carry out some really hip ideas, such as lowering the voting age to 14, and more importantly they gave the world some classic garage rock tunes. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/24/33020.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/24/2008 11:01:19 AM
Body: Earlier this year, I thought that it was way too late for a Sex and the City movie. But then it made a ton of cash, so I guess I was wrong. Still, I’m going to continue similarly thinking it’s too late for another X-Files movie. And even if I’m proven wrong and the masses get out to theaters this weekend in search of the truth, I’ll keep on believing that X-Files: I Want to Believe is way past its time. To celebrate Mulder and Scully’s tardiness, here are 10 other movies that came out too late: The Godfather Part III (Released in: 1990; Should have been released in: 1976) - Never mind the fact that had this third installment been made years earlier, Sofia Coppola wouldn’t have been cast and therefore wouldn’t have given her terribly infamous performance. The more important matter is that sequels arriving more than a decade after the previous installment are almost always doomed. The longer the wait, the higher the expectations, and the greater the disappointment. Of course, not everyone agrees that it was also too late for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, etc. Snakes on a Plane (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - By the time it finally hit theaters, there was already a major backlash to the hype behind SoaP, and that backlash was apparently well-deserved when audiences saw just how lame the movie ended up being. It was an early indicator that a lot of internet buzz and popular viral marketing does not necessarily equal a lot of money at the box office. More than a year later, though, fears of another SoaP-like disappointment came with the hype behind Cloverfield, yet the monster movie fared much better. Of course, no movie seemed to be more ridiculous a web sensation than The Dark Knight, the record-breaking success of which could still prompt more SoaP-type disasters in the future. Home on the Range (Released in: 2004; Should have been released in: 1994) - When you Google the words “ill-timed” “release” and “film”, this is the first thing that comes up, probably because it’s legendary for marking the (temporary) end of 2-D Disney animation. It actually came out almost a decade after the first Pixar feature signaled the doomed future of these kinds of films, and a number of 2-D animations were actually quite successful in that ten years. But Home on the Range is notable for both having begun preproduction before the release of the first Toy Story and for having been announced as the last traditionally animated Disney feature. Now, of course, the studio has changed its mind, so we’ll just have to see if Home on the Range was indeed too late or simply too bad. Infamous (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - One of many unfortunate movies to come out on the heels of another film dealing with the same subject. Similarly late, similarly redundant efforts include Deep Impact, Mars Attacks!, Volcano, The Forbidden Dance, Red Planet, Wyatt Earp and Valmont. But Infamous seemed more the loser of its race because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar win for Capote. The Simpsons Movie (Released in: 2007; Should have been released in: 1997) - It may be funny enough, but this movie still suffered a bit from being past the TV series’ prime. A lot more people would have been a lot more excited about the spin-off if it had come out ten years earlier. The Onion Movie (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 2003) - Should this not be included because it actually never came out in theaters in the U.S.? Whatever. I’m still accepting it as one of the worst examples of shelving a film for way too long. From the unbearable bits I attempted to watch, the jokes were quite dated, though I have to admit they might not have been all that funny when (mostly) filmed five years ago. As an alternate, in case you don’t accept this title: The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which was also shelved for a few years, but which was probably made too late anyway. Get Smart (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 1978) - When it opened earlier this summer, I wrote a list about how this movie was obsolete before it was even made. Check out those 10 reasons here. Eyes Wide Shut (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1998) - It may still have been received as poorly, but if this film had been able to be finished and to come out before Stanley Kubrick’s death, it might have at least been a stronger work. Angela’s Ashes (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1995) - How long is too late for a film adaptation of a best-selling book? Considering there are still successful movies based on works such as “The Iliad” and “Beowulf”, there’s apparently no limit. But for some reason this cinematic version of Frank McCourt’s wildly popular memoir bombed at the box office. I guess compared to those early works, “Angela’s Ashes” had been read by everyone in America by the time the movie arrived, and few of its fans needed to go through the depressing events a second time. Glitter (Released in: 2001; Should have been released in: 1991) - Maybe if it had opened before 9/11, as it was supposed to, instead of directly following the tragedy. Or, better yet, maybe if it had opened in the mid ’90s before people stopped giving a damn about Mariah, it wouldn’t have bombed so horribly. Actually, because Mariah eventually became popular again, and thanks to VH1, so did the 1980s, Glitter may also be considered a movie that was too early. Perhaps one day it can find success as a Broadway show, a la Xanadu. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/24/2008 11:01:19 AM Earlier this year, I thought that it was way too late for a Sex and the City movie. But then it made a ton of cash, so I guess I was wrong. Still, I’m going to continue similarly thinking it’s too late for another X-Files movie. And even if I’m proven wrong and the masses get out to theaters this weekend in search of the truth, I’ll keep on believing that X-Files: I Want to Believe is way past its time. To celebrate Mulder and Scully’s tardiness, here are 10 other movies that came out too late: The Godfather Part III (Released in: 1990; Should have been released in: 1976) - Never mind the fact that had this third installment been made years earlier, Sofia Coppola wouldn’t have been cast and therefore wouldn’t have given her terribly infamous performance. The more important matter is that sequels arriving more than a decade after the previous installment are almost always doomed. The longer the wait, the higher the expectations, and the greater the disappointment. Of course, not everyone agrees that it was also too late for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, etc. Snakes on a Plane (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - By the time it finally hit theaters, there was already a major backlash to the hype behind SoaP, and that backlash was apparently well-deserved when audiences saw just how lame the movie ended up being. It was an early indicator that a lot of internet buzz and popular viral marketing does not necessarily equal a lot of money at the box office. More than a year later, though, fears of another SoaP-like disappointment came with the hype behind Cloverfield, yet the monster movie fared much better. Of course, no movie seemed to be more ridiculous a web sensation than The Dark Knight, the record-breaking success of which could still prompt more SoaP-type disasters in the future. Home on the Range (Released in: 2004; Should have been released in: 1994) - When you Google the words “ill-timed” “release” and “film”, this is the first thing that comes up, probably because it’s legendary for marking the (temporary) end of 2-D Disney animation. It actually came out almost a decade after the first Pixar feature signaled the doomed future of these kinds of films, and a number of 2-D animations were actually quite successful in that ten years. But Home on the Range is notable for both having begun preproduction before the release of the first Toy Story and for having been announced as the last traditionally animated Disney feature. Now, of course, the studio has changed its mind, so we’ll just have to see if Home on the Range was indeed too late or simply too bad. Infamous (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - One of many unfortunate movies to come out on the heels of another film dealing with the same subject. Similarly late, similarly redundant efforts include Deep Impact, Mars Attacks!, Volcano, The Forbidden Dance, Red Planet, Wyatt Earp and Valmont. But Infamous seemed more the loser of its race because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar win for Capote. The Simpsons Movie (Released in: 2007; Should have been released in: 1997) - It may be funny enough, but this movie still suffered a bit from being past the TV series’ prime. A lot more people would have been a lot more excited about the spin-off if it had come out ten years earlier. The Onion Movie (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 2003) - Should this not be included because it actually never came out in theaters in the U.S.? Whatever. I’m still accepting it as one of the worst examples of shelving a film for way too long. From the unbearable bits I attempted to watch, the jokes were quite dated, though I have to admit they might not have been all that funny when (mostly) filmed five years ago. As an alternate, in case you don’t accept this title: The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which was also shelved for a few years, but which was probably made too late anyway. Get Smart (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 1978) - When it opened earlier this summer, I wrote a list about how this movie was obsolete before it was even made. Check out those 10 reasons here. Eyes Wide Shut (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1998) - It may still have been received as poorly, but if this film had been able to be finished and to come out before Stanley Kubrick’s death, it might have at least been a stronger work. Angela’s Ashes (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1995) - How long is too late for a film adaptation of a best-selling book? Considering there are still successful movies based on works such as “The Iliad” and “Beowulf”, there’s apparently no limit. But for some reason this cinematic version of Frank McCourt’s wildly popular memoir bombed at the box office. I guess compared to those early works, “Angela’s Ashes” had been read by everyone in America by the time the movie arrived, and few of its fans needed to go through the depressing events a second time. Glitter (Released in: 2001; Should have been released in: 1991) - Maybe if it had opened before 9/11, as it was supposed to, instead of directly following the tragedy. Or, better yet, maybe if it had opened in the mid ’90s before people stopped giving a damn about Mariah, it wouldn’t have bombed so horribly. Actually, because Mariah eventually became popular again, and thanks to VH1, so did the 1980s, Glitter may also be considered a movie that was too early. Perhaps one day it can find success as a Broadway show, a la Xanadu. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/12/14/22822.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/14/2007 1:00:37 PM
Body: Eventually Hollywood will learn it doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars on a B-movie. It may just take awhile. But if the road towards re-education didn’t begin with Grindhouse, it will possibly start with Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C., the trailer to which is now available courtesy of CHUD.com. The $75,000,000 movie follows a tradition of cheesy Saturday afternoon flicks like 1940’s One Million B.C. and its 1966 remake One Million Years B.C. Of course, back then the B.C. stood for “before computer (effects)” and featured the spectacular — and silly, maybe — visual effects of Roy Seawright and Ray Harryhausen, respectively. Sure, in terms of effects and spectacle, 10,000 B.C. looks cool, just as Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow looked cool, but it also has the potential of being unintentionally funny, in the same way the primitive people in Battlefield Earth came off as ridiculous. Emmerich may as well have put in dinosaurs, despite the historical inaccuracy, because this isn’t the kind of movie to be taken seriously, anyway. The one thing the movie may have going for it is it’s combination of historical epics like Alexander with fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings, which gave us its own mammoth-like creatures. I just imagine the story being nowhere near as believable as either one of those examples. Anyway, if attempts to make big-budget B-movies didn’t work for Tim Burton (Mars Attacks!), Peter Jackson (King Kong) or Tarantino and Rodriguez (Grindhouse), could it really work for the guy who already failed such an attempt with Godzilla? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:00:37 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/14/2007 1:00:37 PMEventually Hollywood will learn it doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars on a B-movie. It may just take awhile. But if the road towards re-education didn’t begin with Grindhouse, it will possibly start with Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C., the trailer to which is now available courtesy of CHUD.com. The $75,000,000 movie follows a tradition of cheesy Saturday afternoon flicks like 1940’s One Million B.C. and its 1966 remake One Million Years B.C. Of course, back then the B.C. stood for “before computer (effects)” and featured the spectacular — and silly, maybe — visual effects of Roy Seawright and Ray Harryhausen, respectively. Sure, in terms of effects and spectacle, 10,000 B.C. looks cool, just as Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow looked cool, but it also has the potential of being unintentionally funny, in the same way the primitive people in Battlefield Earth came off as ridiculous. Emmerich may as well have put in dinosaurs, despite the historical inaccuracy, because this isn’t the kind of movie to be taken seriously, anyway. The one thing the movie may have going for it is it’s combination of historical epics like Alexander with fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings, which gave us its own mammoth-like creatures. I just imagine the story being nowhere near as believable as either one of those examples. Anyway, if attempts to make big-budget B-movies didn’t work for Tim Burton (Mars Attacks!), Peter Jackson (King Kong) or Tarantino and Rodriguez (Grindhouse), could it really work for the guy who already failed such an attempt with Godzilla? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/go-ape/archive/2007/10/6/20460.aspx Post By: Go-Ape
Post To: Go-Ape Blog
Post Date: 10/6/2007 6:42:53 PM
Body: A film made back when Tim Burton was still brilliant. He's lately gone very much downhill as I have expressed before. But this was when he was on top form and I am inclined to say that this film is better than brilliant. It is just so fantastically a B movie that there is nothing I can fault it on. Wait. Actually yes, I can fault it on one thing - it has Tom Jones it. That's not too cool, but aside from that this film is great. I love the design of the flying saucers. I really don't know how to describe or explain this film so I'll just leave it at that This film is great fun with not one, but two great performances from jack Nicholson. Watch this film.
]]>Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:42:53 GMTGo-ApeGo-Ape Blog10/6/2007 6:42:53 PMA film made back when Tim Burton was still brilliant. He&#39;s lately gone very much downhill as I have expressed before. But this was when he was on top form and I am inclined to say that this film is better than brilliant. It is just so fantastically a B movie that there is nothing I can fault it on. Wait. Actually yes, I can fault it on one thing - it has Tom Jones it. That&#39;s not too cool, but aside from that this film is great. I love the design of the flying saucers. I really don&#39;t know how to describe or explain this film so I&#39;ll just leave it at that This film is great fun with not one, but two great performances from jack Nicholson. Watch this film. http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Italian_Horror/222/7687/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 4/26/2007 7:40:20 PM
Body: Thank you, Froggy! But, I have to ask you, it sounds like you have seen this movie only once? If that is the case then you need to watch it again! This is one of those movies that actually gets BETTER every time you watch it! Much like... JAWS The Exorcist The Wild Bunch The Magnificent 7 The Beyond Dracula Frankenstein Rocky III Mars Attacks ... I will quit here before I wander TOO far off track! Ooh! wait! ... a couple more! ... Cannibal Holocaust Make Them Die Slowly
]]>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:40:20 GMTDr_GorHORROR MOVIES 1014/26/2007 7:40:20 PM Thank you, Froggy! But, I have to ask you, it sounds like you have seen this movie only once? If that is the case then you need to watch it again! This is one of those movies that actually gets BETTER every time you watch it! Much like... JAWS The Exorcist The Wild Bunch The Magnificent 7 The Beyond Dracula Frankenstein Rocky III Mars Attacks ... I will quit here before I wander TOO far off track! Ooh! wait! ... a couple more! ... Cannibal Holocaust Make Them Die Slowly http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/Re_Independence_Day_Faces_Impeachment_For_Being_L/104/2977/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: chileexpress
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 9/17/2006 12:39:40 AM
Body: I vote Independence Day ID:4 GUILTY of being the worst movie ever.I am generally not a fan of UFO movies. I did like the Alien series and Mars Attacks. Both are fair examples of what I enjoy in a drama or comedy UFO movie.I even enjoyed Predator as a drama / comedy and Spaced Invaders was funny.Independence Day had many scenes that I found very distracting as so made the film less enjoyable with each one. Some of the major problems are: The synchronized multi televisions in the broadcast headquarters that carried the Presidents speech when the building had been emptied in panic, who or how would this be done?The apparent complete lack of security at the base, very strange how this ultra top secrete base (not event the President knew of its existence) has everybody from the RV refugee camp running around.The second worst has to be use of the computer “virus” to infect the alien ship computers. This is very unimaginative. I thought the Yodeling in Mars Attacks was very creative, and funnyThe very worst part of this movie is the simplistic way the virus was introduced into the mother ship. I can’t get Microsoft Train Simulator to run on my Microsoft Widows XP computer and all they had to do was click a load button!Other distractions are:Dust on the moon vibrates the foot prints of man away as the mother ship passes by.Good looking effect and great symbolism, but stupid.A cable techie is the only person to find the sequential pattern imbedded in a signal?SITI is specifically looking for such “intelligent” patterns.Why do the aliens need to use our satellites to relay a countdown? Surly if they can cross the vast distances of space they would have accurate chronometers!Why not use the blue beam to shoot down the Air Force attackers? Instead they used fighters themselves?If the aliens have been studying us (abducting the pilot drunk) why would they not have a more effective way to kill us. It would be like us using a can of hair spray and a match to kill ants in an ant hill.Initial death ray shoots down the first interstate building in LA, OK.LA is clearly a huge city, has a localized center and one, clearly tall building, it would be natural to position over it. But, the initial death ray shoots down the Empire State Building in New York, poor. New York is clearly a huge city, Long Island is a localized center, but would not the World Trade Center be a better target for it’s height, or central park as it is the largest shape from the air?Etc….In an interview for Star Trek, John D. F. Black, Associate Producer said the primary rule for a science fiction writer is “Never ask your audience to believe more than one extraordinary thing.”Independence Day has too many extraordinary things for me to believe.So, I agree with Paul, lock it away.
]]>Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:39:40 GMTchileexpressWorst Movie Ever9/17/2006 12:39:40 AMI vote Independence Day ID:4 GUILTY of being the worst movie ever.I am generally not a fan of UFO movies. I did like the Alien series and Mars Attacks. Both are fair examples of what I enjoy in a drama or comedy UFO movie.I even enjoyed Predator as a drama / comedy and Spaced Invaders was funny.Independence Day had many scenes that I found very distracting as so made the film less enjoyable with each one. Some of the major problems are: The synchronized multi televisions in the broadcast headquarters that carried the Presidents speech when the building had been emptied in panic, who or how would this be done?The apparent complete lack of security at the base, very strange how this ultra top secrete base (not event the President knew of its existence) has everybody from the RV refugee camp running around.The second worst has to be use of the computer “virus” to infect the alien ship computers. This is very unimaginative. I thought the Yodeling in Mars Attacks was very creative, and funnyThe very worst part of this movie is the simplistic way the virus was introduced into the mother ship. I can’t get Microsoft Train Simulator to run on my Microsoft Widows XP computer and all they had to do was click a load button!Other distractions are:Dust on the moon vibrates the foot prints of man away as the mother ship passes by.Good looking effect and great symbolism, but stupid.A cable techie is the only person to find the sequential pattern imbedded in a signal?SITI is specifically looking for such “intelligent” patterns.Why do the aliens need to use our satellites to relay a countdown? Surly if they can cross the vast distances of space they would have accurate chronometers!Why not use the blue beam to shoot down the Air Force attackers? Instead they used fighters themselves?If the aliens have been studying us (abducting the pilot drunk) why would they not have a more effective way to kill us. It would be like us using a can of hair spray and a match to kill ants in an ant hill.Initial death ray shoots down the first interstate building in LA, OK.LA is clearly a huge city, has a localized center and one, clearly tall building, it would be natural to position over it. But, the initial death ray shoots down the Empire State Building in New York, poor. New York is clearly a huge city, Long Island is a localized center, but would not the World Trade Center be a better target for it’s height, or central park as it is the largest shape from the air?Etc….In an interview for Star Trek, John D. F. Black, Associate Producer said the primary rule for a science fiction writer is “Never ask your audience to believe more than one extraordinary thing.”Independence Day has too many extraordinary things for me to believe.So, I agree with Paul, lock it away. 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/Quirky/MemberTagFilms.aspxQuirky
Number of films tagged: 131

Number of people who tagged: 110

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT131110249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/alien/MemberTagFilms.aspxalien
Number of films tagged: 81

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 130

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:33 GMT8138130Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/silly/MemberTagFilms.aspxsilly
Number of films tagged: 57

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 75

]]>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:13:04 GMT573675Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/military/MemberTagFilms.aspxmilitary
Number of films tagged: 1651

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 96

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT16513096Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pain/MemberTagFilms.aspxpain
Number of films tagged: 127

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 69

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:20 GMT1272869Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/president/MemberTagFilms.aspxpresident
Number of films tagged: 808

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 46

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT8082146Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/attack/MemberTagFilms.aspxattack
Number of films tagged: 1035

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 31

]]>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:41:19 GMT10351731Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/invasion/MemberTagFilms.aspxinvasion
Number of films tagged: 791

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 27

]]>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:02:45 GMT7911627Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mustsee/MemberTagFilms.aspxmustsee
Number of films tagged: 23

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 29

]]>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:38:10 GMT231429Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/alien-not-human/MemberTagFilms.aspxalien-not-human
Number of films tagged: 1385

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 24

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:23:54 GMT13851324Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/countrymusic/MemberTagFilms.aspxcountrymusic
Number of films tagged: 768

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 10

]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:05:14 GMT7681010Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overthetop/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverthetop
Number of films tagged: 15

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 16

]]>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:53:21 GMT15716Tag