E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial's Recent Activity - Spout

Film:E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial

Thu, 14 May 2009 23:41:55 GMT

Title: E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
Year: 1982
Director: Steven Spielberg
Plot: Both a classic movie for kids and a remarkable portrait of childhood, E.T. is a sci-fi adventure that captures that strange moment in youth when the world is a place of mysterious possibilities (some wonderful, some awful), and the universe seems somehow separate from the one inhabited by grown-ups. Henry Thomas plays Elliott, a young boy living with his single mother (Dee Wallace), his older brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton), and his younger sister Gertie (Drew Barrymore). Elliott often seems lonely and out of sorts, lost in his own world. One day, while looking for something in the back yard, he senses something mysterious in the woods watching him. And he's right: an alien spacecraft on a scientific mission mistakenly left behind an aging botanist who isn't sure how to get home. Eventually Elliott puts his fears aside and makes contact with the "little squashy guy," perhaps the least threatening alien invader ever to hit a movie screen. As Elliott tries to keep the alien under wraps and help him figure out a way to get home, he discovers that the creature can communicate with him telepathically. Soon they begin to learn from each other, and Elliott becomes braver and less threatened by life. E.T. rigs up a communication device from junk he finds around the house, but no one knows if he'll be rescued before a group of government scientists gets hold of him. In 2002, Steven Spielberg re-released E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial in a revised edition, with several deleted scenes restored and digitally refurbished special effects. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 91
Number of Lists: 126
Number of blog posts: 14
Number of discussion threads: 18
SpoutRating: 3

Spout Post: 10 Disney Classics That Need to Be Remade

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:00:43 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/13/2009 3:00:43 PM
Body: Even if you love the original Escape to Witch Mountain, you have to welcome a remake. The 1975 sci-fi Disney film has some very dated special effects — though the visible wires used to “levitate” a handgun and a harmonica give it a campy charm — and it’s not exactly the well-respected classic that The Black Hole or Old Yeller is, anyway. So, better a remake (or “modern re-imagining”) of a slightly beloved movie, which has already been redone once, to give The Rock another fulfillment of his Disney contract and utilize all the “perfect” digital effects now available. While it seems that eventually all Disney live-action classics will be remade, potentially rendering obsolete the careers of Dean Jones, Kevin Corcoran and those ugly kids from Mary Poppins, there are some that may, like Witch Mountain, deserve to be recycled. Disney has previously erred in reworking films like The Absent-Minded Professor (Robin Williams is no Fred MacMurray) and The Shaggy Dog (Tim Allen is no MacMurray, either, nor even is he Tommy Kirk), and it’s mistakenly producing new versions of Swiss Family Robinson and 20,000 Leauges Under the Sea. But there are so many other films, most forgotten, that would better lend themselves to remakes. Here we’ve selected 10 such classics, all but one live-action features, and we welcome you to suggest any others you may wish to see updated and/or re-imagined. The Apple Dumpling Gang (1975) With the western genre not quite dead anymore, it would be nice for Disney to bring back the comedy western. Of course, The Apple Dumpling Gang could be modernized, too. Either way, the story of three orphan children who enlist two bumbling bank robbers to steal their gold nugget would delight a new generation of kids who might not necessarily appreciate Don Knotts the way we did. Cast Jim Carrey in the Knotts role and Jack Black as his partner (originally played by Tim Conway), have them try to outdo each other’s slapstick performance, and you’ve got a huge family hit. The Black Cauldron (1985) This animated feature was so unpopular that it pretty much ruined the reputation of Walt Disney Pictures for a few years. Rated PG, and way too dark even for the studio that brought us Pinocchio, the adaptation of Lloyd Alexander’s fantasy novel had initially been threatened with a PG-13 or R rating. Nearly 25 years later, kids are a little tougher and could easily tolerate a live-action version that’s somewhere akin to Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Phantom Menace (a CGI “Gurgi” would be very similar to Jar-Jar Binks). Tim Burton should obviously direct the film, because he worked as an artist on the original, and he’s currently working for Disney anyway. The Cat from Outer Space (1978) Few people seem to hold this movie in high regards, despite audience’s apparent favor for talking animals and stupid sci-fi plots. But a modernized telling of a feline alien’s visit to Earth could be a blockbuster by being even worse than the original. Add more slapstick (in an LOLCats sort of way) and more special effects and this could make even more money than E.T., which seriously seemed derivative of The Cat from Outer Space anyway. And after this becomes a hit, Disney should continue digging in its catbox and remake the very strange and very obscure Three Lives of Thomasina. Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959) If Hollywood can dare redo Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, then Disney can surely remake Darby O’Gill and the Little People without too much protest. And like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this remake shall retain the source novel’s title. Of course, Darby O’Gill and the Good People does sound a little plain, so maybe getting right to the idea with Darby O’Gill and the Leprechauns as a title would be better. In any event, Sean Connery should come out of retirement to switch roles and play the titular old man who meets a bunch of Leprechauns. And perhaps Daniel Craig for Connery’s original role? Okay, new title: James Bond and the Other James Bond in Little People Are Forever (or Little People Never Die, or some other combo of 007 title referencing Leprechaun’s immortality). If this does well, Disney can also go ahead and redo the little-people-filled The Gnome-Mobile. In Search of the Castaways (1962) Here’s the genius idea Hollywood’s been seeking for almost 50 years: remake the Jules Verne adaptation In Search of the Castaways, a musical adventure with tons of disaster film elements and a perfect role for Miley Cyrus (isn’t she this generation’s Hayley Mills, in a way?), who could sing a new version of “Castaway.” The ice slide scene would be great in 3-D, by the way. Midnight Madness (1980) Remaking this cult classic might upset a few fans, but even those of us who love the original should be able to appreciate an updated version if it’s done right. There could always be more scavenger hunt movies, whether they’re fresh or recycled. And if Disney can find enough good, young character actors to fill the teams, nobody should even miss Eddie Deezen, David Naughton or Stephen Furst. Have Judd Apatow produce the thing and cast all his regulars, for instance. Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) should reprise his role, though. The Million Dollar Duck (1971) This family comedy about a duck that lays golden eggs is not very good, and it probably didn’t help its box office that a better film featuring golden-egg-laying fowl (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) opened on the very same day. But a good remake of bad movie isn’t a bad idea, and in this economy the story of a struggling family that gets a burst of financial luck (via strange science) might work as a relevant fantasy. Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus (1960) This forgotten Kevin Corcoran + monkey classic is kind of like Coraline, but there’s more circus stuff, the kid’s parents don’t suck (though he’s told they don’t love him), there’s a primate friend instead of a talking cat (though both animals are classic Disney devices) and it’s live-action and not 3-D. Do children still dream of running away to the circus? If not, then a remake of this movie could both reinstate that wish and present it as a terrible substitute for a real family all in the course of 90 minutes. The Ugly Dachshund (1966) Between the success of Marley and Me and news of an upcoming Marmaduke movie, it may just be the perfect time for a remake of a movie about a disastrous Great Dane who thinks he’s a little wiener dog. Put Brad Pitt and Anglina Jolie in the Dean Jones and Suzanne Pleshette roles and you’ll really, really piss off Team Jennifer by out-grossing last Christmas’ biggest hit. The World’s Greatest Athlete (1973) The story of an African who is brought to the U.S. to be a college track star may not seem like a big idea for a movie in the 21st century. But make that African a Tarzan-like white kid who can outrun a cheetah (and who isn’t The Flash) and you’ll have people laughing your film out of theaters. Or, you’ll somehow have a monster hit. Either way, we wish Disney would have the balls to remake this unrealistic movie, especially if they can get Usain Bolt to be the protagonist’s main competition. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: 10 Accessible Indian Films for the Slumdog Lover

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:03:10 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/3/2009 5:03:10 PM
Body: In addition to winning Best Picture (and seven other awards) at the Oscars last week, Slumdog Millionaire passed a major box office benchmark. It has now grossed more than $100 million in the U.S., which is pretty astonishing for a film with one-third of its dialogue in a foreign language. But is Slumdog’s popularity a one-shot in terms of its audience’s interest in India, or are moviegoers actually now more curious about the nation and its own films? Some websites are simplifying the question of whether or not Slumdog will be a gateway film with polls asking if American moviegoers will now “go Bollywood” (40% of Cinematical readers flat out answered, “no.”), which is rather silly since Danny Boyle’s movie bears no resemblance to the majority of Bollywood pictures. In fact, Americans have in the past received far greater entry points into Indian cinema by way of films involving Anglo or NRI (non-resident Indian) protagonists directed by culturally bridging filmmakers (such as NRI helmers Deepa Mehta, Mira Nair and Gurinder Chadha), than the more-touristy type of filmmaking represented with Slumdog. If someone truly wants to become familiar with Bollywood, he or she should probably just jump right in and then patiently get used to the style, which can be quite difficult for Westerners to immediately grasp. The extremely interested might benefit from reading the section on popular Indian cinema in Dimitris Eleftheriotis and Gary Needham’s Asian Cinemas: A Reader & Guide, a book that does a really great job acquainting the Western spectator with Eastern film form. Or, the more casually curious cinephile could simply follow our guide to accessible Indian (or India-based) films for the Slumdog lover to watch next: Sita Sings the Blues (Nina Paley, 2008) What it’s about: Paley’s semi-autobiographical animated feature self-deprecatingly depicts the events of the filmmaker’s divorce crosscut with a somewhat paralleling adaptation of part of the epic Indian poem Ramayana. Why you should see it: Although not an Indian production nor made by an Indian filmmaker, Sita does offer an entry point for the mythological genre of Indian films and/or an introduction to Hindu myths, a number of which are the basis for a lot of Bollywood musical numbers. If that’s not enough reason, though, here’s what Karina wrote about the film in her review: “Sita Sings the Blues is a strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Where to see it: Sita won the Gotham Award for Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You and will infamously remain without a distributor forever. However, those of us in the NYC area can watch the film on PBS’ Reel 13 program on March 7. Those of you outside New York are in luck, too; the film is currently available for free on Reel 13’s website as a streaming video. Salaam Bombay! (Mira Nair, 1988) What it’s about: A 10-year-old boy tries to survive on the streets of Bombay (now Mumbai) after being told to go out and find work by his mother. Why you should see it: With all the crossover movies from the past two decades dealing with interracial relationships, arranged marriage and the complications of NRI life, Nair’s films are typically the most entertaining. But while minor gateways could be found in her films The Namesake (starring Harold & Kumar’s Kal Penn), Mississippi Masala (starring Denzel Washington) or the very enjoyable Monsoon Wedding, this Oscar-nominated drama might be what Slumdog fans seek most if primarily interested in more “poverty porn.” Like Slumdog, Salaam Bombay! even starred actual non-professional street children. Where to see it: Available on DVD. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955) What it’s about: The first installment of Ray’s Apu trilogy (which also includes Aparajito and The World of Apu), Pather Panchali is a tragedy-filled tale of a poor family living in rural Bengal in the 1920s and concentrates on the coming of age story of young Apu. Why you should see it: Aside from being one of the greatest films ever made, let alone one of the greatest Indian films, Pather Panchali tells a universal story of family and is quite Western in form (for one thing, it lacks musical numbers), a fact that made it somewhat looked down upon in its own country. But in addition to its accessibility, it can also serve as a starting point to melodramatic conventions found in many classic Indian films. The abandoning patriarch, the significantly strong matriarch and other common national metaphors are present and will familiarize you for the next title on this list. Where to see it: This is one of those films that’s constantly being screened at repertory houses, so see it on a big screen if you have the chance. Otherwise, the entire Apu trilogy is unfortunately out of print on DVD. But such masterpieces can’t possibly be unavailable for too long, so pick up a box set whenever one is released. Mother India (Mehboob Khan, 1957) What it’s about: An epic maternal melodrama and metaphor for post-colonial India, Khan’s Oscar-nominated film focuses on a poor Indian family throughout many years, as the patriarch leaves the home and the mother is left to deal with two very different sons. Why you should see it: If you enjoy Pather Panchali, you may at least appreciate the story of Mother India, though the latter has a much more melodramatic and emotional tone. Unlike Pather Panchali, it does feature musical numbers as well as a bit of comic relief, courtesy of a very bratty little boy. Also, it’s basically the Gone With the Wind of India, at least in terms of its national significance — and one familiar-looking shot — if not in terms of its plot. Where to see it: Available on DVD. Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (Ashutosh Gowariker, 2001) What it’s about: Oppressed Indian villagers battle against their British governors … in a cricket match seemingly depicted in real time. Also, one of the villagers becomes entangled in a love triangle between his true love and a British woman, who is also the sister of the film’s villain. Why you should see it: First of all, it’s one of the most accessible foreign films of the last 10 years, period. For the guys: Lagaan is just like all your favorite underdog sports flicks except that it gives you even more of the game, as well as some singing and dancing here and there (with music by Slumdog Oscar-winner A.R. Rahman). So what if you don’t know anything about cricket; just pretend it’s baseball. For the gals: there’s just as much romance as cricket playing. Advice for both sexes: you might want to fast forward through the song that the British woman sings. It’s the single unbearable moment in the nearly 4-hour film. Where to see it: Apparently unavailable through rental sites like Netflix, but you can pick up a DVD through Amazon affiliates. Hum Tum (Kunal Kohli, 2004) What it’s about: Basically, though not officially, it’s the Bollywood remake of When Harry Met Sally. Why you should see it: If Lagaan is the perfect gateway for guys, Hum Tum is the perfect gateway for girls, although like Lagaan, this film has something for both sexes. All guys can appreciate When Harry Met Sally, after all, right? Where to see it: Also unavailable through Netflix, but you can find a very cheap all-region DVD through Amazon affiliates. Abhimaan (Hrishikesh Mukherjee, 1973) What it’s about: Inspired by A Star is Born, a famous singer meets, falls for and fosters the career of a young woman, who ends up more popular than him. Why you should see it: First of all, every Slumdog fan should become acquainted with Amitabh Bachchan (the celebrity whose autograph the young excrement-covered Jamal acquires), who costars here with his real-life wife Jaya Bhaduri (a bigger star at the time). Second of all, because the musical numbers all figure into the plot, either as recording studio sequences or concert performances, there’s not as much of that jarring, interruptive nature of most Bollywood musicals. Where to see it: Available on DVD. It’s also one of the many Indian films available for streaming on Netflix’s Watch Instantly. Amar Akbar Anthony (Manmohan Desai, 1977) What it’s about: Another great metaphor for post-colonial India, this other Bachchan-starring classic tells the story of three brothers separated as infants, who end up growing up under very different circumstances. One is adopted by a Hindu policeman and becomes the same; one is brought up by a Muslim taylor and becomes a popular singer; and the third (played by Bachchan) is raised Catholic and enters a life of crime. Why you should see it: For more Amitabh Bachchan after he became India’s favorite actor. Though not technically a great film, it is filled with a lot of absurd moments and can serve as a gateway for those cinephiles who can only approach new things first through ironic appreciation. Such viewers should really love the Easter scene in which Bachchan jumps out of a giant egg wearing a top hat and monocle to sing a song about himself. Where to see it: Currently available on DVD. Krrish (Rakesh Roshan, 2006) What it’s about: This sequel to the sci-fi movie Koi…Mil Gay is your typical superhero action flick, except done in the style of Bollywood. Why you should see it: This one is primarily for getting your kids into Indian cinema, because kids will watch just about any superhero movie, regardless of the language or setting. Though the original more-E.T.-than-Superman film, Koi…Mil Gay, should probably be watched first, there’s nothing wrong with making this your primary gateway for the little ones. Where to see it: Currently available on DVD Vanaja (Rajnesh Domalpalli, 2006) What it’s about: Set in South India and controversially made outside the local “Tollywood” film industry, Domalpalli’s comparatively non-musical film follows the story of a 14-year-old girl who is pretty much sold off by her father to a wealthy landowner who puts her to work while also teaching her traditional Kuchipudi dance. Why you should see it: While not very relative to Slumdog or most of the other films on this list, Vanaja will open up viewers to other cinemas of India, even if this rather Western-form film was a Columbia University graduate thesis film and even if it is considered more “art house” than the popular cinema of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Like the slightly similar coming of age art house film Pather Panchali, Vanaja is a wonderful film and a terrific start for beginners. But because this film features Indian music and dance, it may also function as a gateway to the typical musical films of India, either produced in Andhra Pradesh or Mumbai (Bollywood) Where to see it: Available on DVD. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: 10 Movies Ruined by a Former Child Star

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:01:20 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/5/2009 12:01:20 PM
Body: Are you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: The Dark Knight IMAX ticket winners!

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:00:40 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/23/2009 4:00:40 PM
Body: I don’t want to publish the Twitter identities of those who have won tickets to see The Dark Knight on IMAX, a contest we announced yesterday, but I will tell you what movies they told us, via Twitter, what movies they’d like to see released on the IMAX screen: Caligula Blade Runner Mulholland Drive Once Upon a Time in America / Once Upon a Time in the West Titanic Lawrence of Arabia Young Frankenstein / Close Encounters of the Third Kind Brazil Drunken Master E.T. / The Green Mile As you’d expect there are a lot of epics on the list as well as a couple of offbeat choices - I love the people who suggested Brazil and Young Frankenstein. Thanks to everyone who sent in their suggestions and look for more contests like this in the future. Make sure to keep following @spout for updates, news and more. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Re:Weekly Theme for November 3: The Movies in the Movie

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:01:40 GMT

Post By: rangertx
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/4/2008 2:01:40 AM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] Here's an idea I got from Gremlins. I bought this one from the $5 bin at Wal-Mart this weekend to show my kids on Halloween. One thing that struck me while watching this was the unusually high amount of references to other movies contained in withing the film. At one point we see It's A Wonderful Life being watched on a TV in the kitchen. This is a pretty common reference for Christmas movie. Then, in the pivotal scene that the mogwais are fed after midnight, we see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Later the gremlins are watching Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. There are quite a few references to Spielberg films, both blatant and subtle. The marquee of the theater has two films being showed: A Boy's Life (which was the working title for E.T.) and Watch The Skies.( working title for Close Encounters of a Third Kind.) There are really too many to name, I even saw The Road Warrior poster hanging in the bedroom. So have at it. There it is. I think that a lot of these are put in film just for people like us. Some are so sublte that only the true movie nerds will get them. So, what do y'all think? Do you jump for joy when you see one of your favorite classics referenced in a movie? Or, do you just hate it? And more importantly, why?? [/quote] So I actually love when I am watching a film and I see or hear a reference to another film. I was just watching Any Given Sunday. During the scene that Al Pacino is trying to motivate Jamie Fox Ben Hur is playing in the backroom. Oliver Stone sliced in moments of Jamie's speech with scenes from Ben Hur. I know that there so many other flics that have these moments but this is the only one that comes to mind.

Spout Post: Weekly Theme for November 3: The Movies in the Movie

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:06:54 GMT

Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/3/2008 1:06:54 PM
Body: Here's an idea I got from Gremlins. I bought this one from the $5 bin at Wal-Mart this weekend to show my kids on Halloween. One thing that struck me while watching this was the unusually high amount of references to other movies contained in withing the film. At one point we see It's A Wonderful Life being watched on a TV in the kitchen. This is a pretty common reference for Christmas movie. Then, in the pivotal scene that the mogwais are fed after midnight, we see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Later the gremlins are watching Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. There are quite a few references to Spielberg films, both blatant and subtle. The marquee of the theater has two films being showed: A Boy's Life (which was the working title for E.T.) and Watch The Skies.( working title for Close Encounters of a Third Kind.) There are really too many to name, I even saw The Road Warrior poster hanging in the bedroom. So have at it. There it is. I think that a lot of these are put in film just for people like us. Some are so sublte that only the true movie nerds will get them. So, what do y'all think? Do you jump for joy when you see one of your favorite classics referenced in a movie? Or, do you just hate it? And more importantly, why??

Spout Post: 10 Best Product Placements in Movies

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:01:06 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/7/2008 11:01:06 AM
Body: Product placement in movies is now so overdone that we may not even notice it unless a particular film or TV show really hits us over the head with a blatant in-your-face product shot. Otherwise, seeing commercial goods everywhere merely seems like everyday life in capitalist America. Just look at any of the websites that tally up products spotlighted in mainstream movies and you’ll probably be surprised (though not shocked) at how many brands appear in each new release. Did you notice that Blades of Glory contains 38 separate products? Probably not. Many of those products couldn’t have gotten their money’s worth, because the movie doesn’t allow the audience to walk away recalling any one particular item. At a time when TV’s Top Chef and 30 Rock show us how lame blatantly whorish and ironic product placement can get, and while moviegoers are being subjected to more subliminal, suggestive and unintentional advertisements (Speed Racer, Wall-E and Beverly Hills Chihuahua respectively have us thinking about McDonalds, Apple products and Taco Bell, though some of these associations are not necessarily the movie’s fault), it’s good to remember that not all product placement is superfluous or despicable. Some of it is actually funny, smart and beneficial to mankind. Movie: E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Product: Reese’s Pieces In case you don’t believe the part about product placement being beneficial to mankind, just imagine what could have happened if E.T. had featured either of Steven Spielberg’s first choices in candy placement, M&Ms or Hershey’s Kisses, rather than Reese’s Pieces. Would the delicious peanut butter candies still exist today? Okay, they might, but they certainly wouldn’t have become so popular so fast. Don’t forget that advertising is not simply about a greedy corporation marketing a product for profitable gain; it’s also about alerting us to wonderful new products that we otherwise might not have noticed. And isn’t your choice of sundae mix-ins better thanks to millions of moviegoers noticing the existence of Reese’s Pieces? Movie: Back to the Future Product: DeLorean DMC-12 On the opposite side of the spectrum from Reese’s Pieces, the DeLorean DMC-12 (popularly referred to as simply the DeLorean), is possibly the least necessary product ever to be placed prominently in a film. Maybe if it were actually a time machine it would be a must-have and the DeLorean Motor Company could have been back in business despite having gone bust a few years prior to the release of Back to the Future. Instead, the DeLorean is just a cool car, yet one that highly appeals to huge BTTF fans. And of the 6,500 DMC-12s still in existence, it’s likely that a large percentage are possessed by people who’ve installed a mock Flux Capacitor and own a vanity license plate that says something like “MCFLY” or “88 MPH” or “OUTATIME”. Get ready to see more tributes to the movie, too, since a car manufacturer in Houston has begun making new DMC-12s in limited production. Movie: The Wizard Product: Nintendo A year after Mac and Me seemed to indicate that really, really prominent and shameless product placement was possibly a bad idea, The Wizard came out and provided the opposing argument. Then and now people have looked at the film’s promotion of Nintendo’s latest and much-anticipated blockbuster video game (and the the system’s “so bad” Power Glove controller) as one of the low moments in product placement, but for anyone who cared about video games in 1989, the chance to even get a glimpse of Super Mario Bros. 3 was worth the price of admission for an otherwise lame kiddie version of Rain Man. Movie: Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle Product: White Castle Like The Wizard’s promotion of Nintendo products, the employment of the White Castle fast food brand in Harold and Kumar is about reminding an audience about something it already likes and desires. But unlike The Wizard, Harold and Kumar doesn’t make the sponsorship seem like such a cheap grab for cash. Sure, the stoner comedy could have used any fast food place, real or made up, but for anyone who has devoured a whole Crave Case with one other friend at four in the morning, the specifically branded joke is all the more appreciated. Movie: Wayne’s World Products: Pizza Hut; Doritos; Reebok; Nuprin; Pepsi Tina Fey may seem like the smartest SNL vet ever, but each time 30 Rock does the ironic product placement shtick, a number of Mike Myers and Dana Carvey loyalists likely shout at their screen, “Sheah, right! As if that’s not a 15-year-old gag.” And Fey isn’t the only one guilty of recycling the joke, although occasionally movies like Talladega Nights and Josie and the Pussycats can get away with it, because it’s kind of a necessary gag when satirizing things like NASCAR and pop music. Even the reflexive use of product placement in Fight Club somewhat descends from the Wayne’s World scene. Movie: Best in Show Products: Starbucks; Apple; J. Crew; L.L. Bean Product placement doesn’t always have to be about favorably advertising a brand. It can also be about making fun of a brand, or making fun of a certain kind of person that brand is geared toward. In the mockumentary Best in Show, Starbucks is made fun of for having so many locations, while Apple is merely employed in the joke. Catalog clothing companies J. Crew and L.L. Bean are also simultaneously the butt of a joke and the means with which Christopher Guest makes fun of two of his film’s characters. Movie: Good Bye Lenin! Product: Coca-Cola Product placement can also be about employing a product that serves as an idea. Coca-Cola is a brand that has been featured in tons of films as more a symbol of capitalism and the West than of soda pop (see my old post on Coca-Cola in cinema here), and in this German comedy, a giant Coca-Cola billboard serves to represent the westernization going on outside the window of the room of an oblivious woman being duped to believe the Berlin Wall never fell. Movie: One, Two, Three Product: Pepsi The Coca-Cola placement in Good Bye Lenin! recalls Billy Wilder’s film One, Two, Three, which also deals with the division of East and West Berlin and also employs the iconic brand for the same kind of symbolic representation of capitalism. In Wilder’s film, though, the product is much more prominent, as the plot revolves around a Coca-Cola executive (played by James Cagney). Yet after so much mention of Coke, especially with the association of overbearing consumerism and cultural imperialism, you’re more likely to come away from the film wanting a bottle of Pepsi, instead. Of course, it also helps that the final shot in the film is of Cagney holding a bottle of Coca-Cola’s main competitor. Movie: Breathless (À bout de souffle) If you’re surprised that there was product placement as long ago as 1961, when One, Two, Three was released, let’s go back even further to 1960, and to another country, France. Jean-Luc Godard’s breakthrough and groundbreaking film probably wasn’t meant to increase sales of the New York Herald Tribune, but what male viewer could resist purchasing a subscription after watching and hearing Jean Seberg peddle the newspaper at the beginning of the film? Perhaps now the film even still inspires young men to subscribe to New York magazine, as a substitute for its now unavailable ancestor. Oh, and just so you know, product placement can be found many, many decades earlier than the 1960s. Movie: Minority Report Products: Lexus; Guiness; American Express; and others The product placement in Minority Report is considered an example of overkill, but that’s also the point. The film is set in a not-so-far-off future in which ads are everywhere, and most of them are personalized to address the consumer directly by name. It’s one of many futurist ideas in the film meant to exaggerate the present while predicting the direction technology is going. Already people receive personalized spam and internet ads, and advances in personalized marketing are growing closer and closer to what exists as a joke/prophesy in Spielberg’s film. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Re:First film you remember seeing in the theatre?

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:17:05 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Grew up in the 80's
Post Date: 9/17/2008 8:17:05 AM
Body: I was born the year Star Wars came out. There I said it My parents were weekly connoisseurs (sp?) of the drive-in. The first film that I can remember seeing in its entirety was E.T. (1982). Though I have flashes of Porky's (1981) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980). If we are talking about the actual movie theater, I think my first actual movie theater movie was Return of the Jedi (1983) on my 6th birthday (noticing a pattern, anyone...now you know why I'm constantly talking about these movies. As if there were no other films besides the original trilogy...). If I saw any others in an actual "cineplex" or "movie house" before that one, I can't remember them. And I can remember seeing a whole bunch after that...I guess my memory only starts at about 6. Ah well.

Spout Post: Revisiting E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial for the AFI Project

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:38:40 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 9/1/2008 1:38:40 PM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#25)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#44)100 Movie Quotes (#15 - E.T. and others: "E.T. phone home.")25 Film Scores (#14)100 Most Inspiring Movies (#6)The Revised Top 100 (#24)10 Top 10's (#3 Science Fiction) I own E.T. It passed the test. I consider it a personal classic. While I haven't seen it a bajillion times like Star Wars or millions of times like The Wizard of Oz, I've probably seen it hundreds of times since I was 5 years old, the year it came out, and the year I saw it at the drive-in, back when those still existed in any kind of meaningful way. It does not matter how many times I've seen this movie, I always cry, starting right about the time E.T. is succumbing to his homesickness and right on through to the end, with only a brief break during the flying bicycle escape scene. It's curious that E.T. provokes such mixed feelings in viewers of all ages. The film's Spout page is a healthy sampling of those viewers. Some people think it doesn't hold up to repeat viewings. Some people aren't impressed with Steven Spielberg's cuddly alien friend. Some people just don't get it. E.T. is less about science fiction and aliens from outer space than it is about friendship and that point in childhood when you're young enough to still believe in the wonder of your own imagination but old enough to understand your reality, and you're hoping that the two will blend somehow. I think this film deserves to be on all of those AFI lists, and I'll tell you why, but not before the obligatory plot summary. Elliott (Henry Thomas) is somewhat of a lost and lonely middle child. His mom (Dee Wallace) has separated from his father, and he's struggling through a single-parent household with his older brother Michael (Robert McNaughton) and his younger sister Gertie (Drew Barrymore - in her first ever role). One night, he hears noises in his backyard, and what he doesn't know, is that a spaceship has landed, and one of its inhabitants was accidentally left behind when the ship departed, careening away from curious humans. Elliott soon discovers this creature, whom he deems "E.T." (for Extra-Terrestrial), and forms a friendship, which is first comprised of teaching him about Earth but soon evolves into a telepathic symbiosis and a quest to return the homesick alien to his people. Ok, let's talk about why this film is something of a modern movie masterpiece. This marks Spielberg's second entry on the original countdown. Yes, this film paints a rosier picture of a possible visitation from outer space than some other films, and, yes, this film followed Close Encounters of the Third Kind (produced five years earlier). What E.T. does is take the wonder and marvel of Close Encounters and kicks it up a notch by ascribing it to a child. Spielberg manages, quite effortlessly, to paint the purest picture of childhood innocence and imagination intersecting with grown-up truisms committed to film. The film is told almost entirely from Elliott (and, later, E.T.'s) perspective, and it's complete and believable. It's a bleak and cynical view to assume that anyone visiting our planet would be hostile; this film presents an alternative and introduces a child because a child is unassuming and without prejudice. As Peter Coyote's character says to Elliott, "I'm glad he met you first," after seeing all of the scientific probing and fuss made over E.T. by the government. The film is also a perfect time capsule for the 80s. The references to Star Wars (including John Williams' musical nod when E.T. encountes someone in a Yoda Halloween costume); the very real fashion sense of teenagers of the time; the increasing prevalence of latchkey kids - it's all there. Is that Spielberg's doing? Arguably yes - the man as a director has a perfect sense of his here and now but is also painstaking with details about the period he's filming. Technically, this film boasted wonderful but not overdone visual and sound effects that simply piqued the imagination more. It also boasts one of the most beautiful scores ever written for film. John Williams appears on that Score list three times, more than any other film composer and for deserving reasons. I actually own this soundtrack because the score is so vivid, so unique, and so beautiful, it immediately invokes images of the film, which is really all a film composer can aim to do. The pacing is also pitch perfect. I still get tensed up when the government guys come marching down the street, ready to quarantine Elliott's suburban home. I still get excited during the final break and escape to get E.T. to his ship. Who wouldn't want to ride flying bicycles? Whoever came up with that element is a genius. This film belongs on the "100 Most Heart-Pounding" list because it still works on me; it still gets my heart pumping. The performances are not perfect, but they're real. I believe every one of those kids and the mother and the wide-eyed scientist. I think that's as much to their credit as it is to the director's. So, is E.T. flawed? Sure. It's the first true example of negotiated product placement in all of film (thanks, Stevie, for the Reeses' Pieces and Coke), which is not very artistic. Is it kind of miraculous that E.T. can make a communicator out of a See'n'Spell or whatever those things were called and a few household trinkets? Is it arguably not even science fiction (arguably - but it is fantasy, let's be sure). Is it a film that was probably made more for money than art? Sure. Does that make the film any less effective, any less wonderful, given its final product? I don't think so. E.T. is something of a modern masterpiece because the emotions and response it is trying to invoke in the viewer thanks to Spielberg's truly masterful direction happen everytime, at least for me. This film still gives me that childlike wonder that I had when I was five years old, and which I remember to this day. I was scared of E.T. at first. I was scared of the government guys in astronaut suits. I felt for Elliott when he lost such a dear and valuable friend, whom he found a way to communicate with, despite their differences. I still feel all of those things when I watch it now - maybe a little less, because now adulthood has settled in. I bet that when I have children, and they're shown this film, they'll feel the same. I will say that I am royally ticked that you can't buy the original version of the film anywhere (you know, the one with guns as opposed to walkie talkies and less digital E.T.). I'm sure if I was willing to go to the secondary markets, I could have found the original, but the newfangled, friendlier one was only $15 at Best Buy. I didn't miss anything without the guns, but I did notice the awkward parts that weren't the same, and I'm mad at Stevie for this because why mess with a good thing? Don't fix what isn't broken - and stop talking to George. For me, E.T. gets a definite 9 for being perfectly entertaining and because the obvious product placement and other elements as described above keep it from being a true masterpiece in my eyes. As for the naysayers, I don't know what to say to them that will convince them that E.T. is a better film than they think. I do know that anyone who hasn't seen it should give it a chance - you might just be as taken with it as I am and will probably forever be. It's a rare film that can depict that innocent wonder, especially since innocence and wonder has all but evaporated in our current times. Now, I guess, I'm being cynical. Good thing there's E.T.

Spout Post: Re:Weekly Theme for August 25: Monster Madness

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:42:27 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/27/2008 8:42:27 AM
Body: I don't watch too many monster movies. Why, you ask? When I was younger, the following movies gave me nightmares because of my seriously overactive imagination (no joke): Clash of the Titans (Medusa) Ghostbusters (the "Dogs") Gremlins (the scary Gremlins) ET (ET) Return of the Jedi (Jabba the Hutt...but only for a minute) There were probably others too, I just can't remember them right now. So now, I can't watch monstery scary things. Horror is probably my least favorite film genre; I've seen so very few and only ones I feel comfy watching. Just call be a big wimp. I don't mind. Now, I like do cute monsters, like the Muppets' Sweetums (see: The Muppet Movie) or a wisecracking Billy Crystal-type green cue ball looking thing in Monsters Inc. I also like movies with monstrous people - really good villains. But I'm not such a fan of monsters. Though the "smoke monster" in Lost, which is my favorite show, is pretty creepy even it's just super-fast, super-intelligent smoke, as is The X-Files, which has tons of monsters in it. Go fig. Though, for some reason, I really want to see Cloverfield. But I'm a huge JJ Abrams fan, so I'm forgiving the whole monster motif for that film because JJ touched it.

Spout Tag:Classic

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT

Classic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

Spout Tag:family

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT

family
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

Spout Tag:friendship

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT

friendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

Spout Tag:scary

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:07 GMT

scary
Number of films tagged: 155

Number of people who tagged: 104

Number of times used: 197

Spout Tag:adventure

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:03 GMT

adventure
Number of films tagged: 228

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 368

Spout Tag:Creepy

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT

Creepy
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 211

Spout Tag:personal-classic

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT

personal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

Spout Tag:alien

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:27:56 GMT

alien
Number of films tagged: 80

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 129

Spout Tag:childhood

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:42:53 GMT

childhood
Number of films tagged: 499

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 93

Spout Tag:friends

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:40 GMT

friends
Number of films tagged: 157

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 181

Spout Tag:magical

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:33:45 GMT

magical
Number of films tagged: 45

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 87

Spout Tag:touching

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:29 GMT

touching
Number of films tagged: 87

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 110

Spout Tag:80s-classic

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:37:46 GMT

80s-classic
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 34

Number of times used: 108

Spout Tag:scientist

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:47:27 GMT

scientist
Number of films tagged: 1408

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 77

Spout Tag:light

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:55 GMT

light
Number of films tagged: 24

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 27