CinemaRian's Recent Activity - Spout

Spout Group:Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here!

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMT

Group Name: Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here!
Group Description:

Have a general question? Need help with some thing on the site? Have a bug you would like to report? Well then, you have come to the right place. No matter what you are having trouble with, we would like to help you find a solution. And maybe, through your own experience with the site, you will want to help other users too. That's what communities are all about.

Created: 8/1/2007
Number of Members: 79
Number of discussion posts: 513

Spout Group:HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:53:17 GMT

Group Name: HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES
Group Description: " I bid you welcome... Enter freely and of your own will..."
Created: 12/17/2006
Number of Members: 414
Number of Lists: 6
Number of discussion posts: 2333

Spout Group:foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts.

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:42:31 GMT

Group Name: foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts.
Created: 6/4/2007
Number of Members: 322
Number of discussion posts: 56

Spout Group:Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety"

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:20:23 GMT

Group Name: Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety"
Created: 6/30/2008
Number of Members: 52
Number of Lists: 12
Number of discussion posts: 701

Spout Group:Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited.

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:10:52 GMT

Group Name: Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited.
Group Description:

A group of Spout's best reviewers.
Read the requirements.

Created: 6/20/2007
Number of Members: 36
Number of Lists: 9
Number of discussion posts: 451

Spout Group:missing a film - we'll help you find a film

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:30:05 GMT

Group Name: missing a film - we'll help you find a film
Created: 3/5/2007
Number of Members: 131
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 234

Spout Group:Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American.

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:05:26 GMT

Group Name: Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American.
Group Description:

At some point you just want more than what's right in front of you.

Created: 4/24/2008
Number of Members: 30
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 92

Spout Group:The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:05:39 GMT

Group Name: The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary.
Created: 4/2/2006
Number of Members: 49
Number of Lists: 4
Number of discussion posts: 53

Spout Group:Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:03:03 GMT

Group Name: Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more.
Group Description:

Sound on Sight proudly brings you two podcasts each week. Voted best podcast in 2008, these hard working hosts cover everything from mainstream Hollywood films to noir, horror, science fiction, cult cinema, documentary film making and more. Look out for a new show added every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

http://www.soundonsight.org/

Created: 1/6/2008
Number of Members: 104
Number of discussion posts: 150

Spout Group:Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:43:26 GMT

Group Name: Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too.
Created: 5/5/2006
Number of Members: 200
Number of Lists: 10
Number of discussion posts: 412

Spout Group:Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:42:29 GMT

Group Name: Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss
Group Description:

Each week I will post a new poll. Please vote in the poll and reply to the discussion thread to discuss the question. Please do not vote more than once.

Created: 11/25/2008
Number of Members: 66
Number of discussion posts: 414

Spout Group:Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:29:56 GMT

Group Name: Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!
Group Description:

Join us to discuss your favorite or most horrifying Zombie Movies or just your most memorable Zombie Moments. From Funny to Scary to Gory to Bizarre...

Created: 5/28/2007
Number of Members: 104
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 594

Spout Group:A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We?

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:25:25 GMT

Group Name: A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We?
Group Description:

Glorify the best show ever (MST3K) with wit, wisdom and downright wackiness!

Created: 4/23/2008
Number of Members: 10
Number of Lists: 2
Number of discussion posts: 23

Spout Group:It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:11:33 GMT

Group Name: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys
Group Description: Year after year, movie lovers and non movie lovers alike discuss ad nauseum the fate of films nominated for the utmost honor, the Academy Award. Some people watch it for the fashion. Some people watch for the haute couture. Some people watch for their fill of celebrity sightings. If you are a member of this group, you love everything about the Super Bowl of movies, especially the movies themselves! You love to make predictions, guess at the politics, discuss and dissect who should have been nominated and who should have won...or, you're just an avid movie lover that likes to pay attention. Come join the group!
Created: 3/4/2006
Number of Members: 41
Number of Lists: 58
Number of discussion posts: 226

Spout Group:Movie Marathons

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:33:02 GMT

Group Name: Movie Marathons
Group Description:

This is a group for members to start and organize movie marathons. Its primary purpose is to get more people exposed to more film. And to watch these films and discuss them as a group.

Anyone can start a marathon and marathons can be organized in many different ways to showcase the films of a director, actor, genre, theme etc...

Check the Guidlines and Suggestions discussion for ideas.

Created: 7/22/2009
Number of Members: 15
Number of discussion posts: 22

Spout Group:Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies!

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:31:56 GMT

Group Name: Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies!
Group Description: Want to be a member? Send me a message with a list of at least 5 movies that you do not want to see. There are many movies that I do not want to see. I'm not sure if its right of me to decide never to see a movie without seeing it. You know...like when a kid says they hate mushrooms even though they admit never trying them. So maybe this is a good spot for people to display movies they don't think they want to see, and see if anyone can convince us to try them out.
Created: 3/22/2006
Number of Members: 20
Number of Lists: 3
Number of discussion posts: 190

Spout Post: Nashville (1975, USA, Robert Altman) ****

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:20:21 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 4/23/2009 5:20:21 AM
Body: Nashville is Robert Altman’s best film. That’s not a controversial claim, but its reputation is accurate. This is one of the greatest American films of the 70’s, and certainly one of the most unique. The tagline of the movie is “The damndest thing you ever saw” and few promotional lines are more accurate. If the film were made today, I suppose it would be referred to as a hyperlink picture, but it doesn’t even have the required structure. There is either no plot, or about fifteen of them. There is nothing approaching a main character, and in fact, all twenty four of its “lead” actors have equal billing (and, for that matter, two major characters are never seen onscreen at all). Altman shoots the film in a documentary style, and some of the characters are very real, but others and the situations they find themselves in are clearly satirical. There is no other film like it, including others by its director. The most basic storyline in the films involves an independent political candidate who is preparing for the Tennessee Presidential primary, but said candidate is only heard as a van travels around town, obnoxiously blaring one his speeches. Among the many other intrigues is an undiagnosed illness of country superstar Barbara Jean (Ronee Blakley), the struggling marriage between political operative Delbert Reese (Ned Beatty) and his wife, gospel singer Linnea (Lilly Tomlin), framed by observations of Opal (Geraldine Chaplin) a pretentious reporter for the BBC. Unlike the modern films that Altman inspired, such as Babel, not everything fits together, but that’s not a criticism. Not everything in life makes sense or is explained. Too few movies understand that once in a while things are just plain random. Take the example of the Tricycle Man (Jeff Goldblum) who rides around town on giant, ugly motorcycle never saying a word and rarely interacting with other characters. Or L.A. Joan (Shelley Duvall) a woman who seems to be everywhere in this conservative culture though she dresses like she’s a flamboyant male homosexual. My favorite character is Sueleen Gay (Gwen Wells) a wonderfully endearing but naïve singer who (tragically) has no idea that she’s talentless and that audiences only appreciate her for her sex appeal. The movie is kind of its own genre. There is nothing else the film can be, for it is unlike any other film. One entire of the movie (a third of its running time) is devoted to concert footage performed live by the actors, most of whom wrote their own songs (Keith Carradine won an Oscar for the best, “I’m Easy”.) Few of the stories payoff, and the few that don’t have much of a setup. But that’s what makes film so endlessly fascinating. It exists in an out of documentary, drama and comedy. The characters are clearly constructs, but you end up caring about them. I was tempted to say that climax says something about America, but I’m not sure even says anything about Nashville. But its kind of like life.

Spout Post: The Curse of Frankenstien (1957, Great Britain, Terrence Fisher) **

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:13:16 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 4/23/2009 5:13:16 AM
Body: The Curse of Frankenstein(1957) For a film of its historical importance, The Curse of Frankenstein is surprisingly bad. The movie led to the third (and longest) wave of horror pictures, lasting until the early 70’s. There would be no Hammer horror without it, nor probably Roger Corman’s Poe films or even the founding of Amicus studio at all. But the picture itself is pretty bad, boring at just 83 minuets, failing to inspire even the smallest of amount of apprehension or chills in the modern viewer and lacking the intellectual depth of Mary Shelley’s novel. The most interesting parts of the film to note are where it differs from the 1931 James Whale version. Although the novel had been in the public domain, Universal strenuously controlled the rights to their version and Hammer had to be very careful to avoid even the slightest resemblance to that classic. The most obvious consequence of this is the role of The Creature (Christopher Lee) is minimized. Perhaps Hammer was afraid that creating an actual character would make the character to similar to Boris Karloff’s Monster, but the Creature (the main reason anyone is going to see the film) is given so little screen time that at times he seems a bit more like a robot than an actual person (or, to be specific, a collection of people). This is not to say that Lee does not do a good job, but this part should have been much more memorable. By far the best aspect of the film is the performance of Peter Cushing as Dr. Frankenstein. Beginning here and continuing over the course of the series, Cushing creates a cold, tragic figure. We don’t sympathize with the doctor in the same we did with Colin Clive’s 1931 interpretation, but Cushing makes the character more plausible and psychologically real. This is someone who incapable of love or most other forms of human contact, a brilliant man who became so obsessed in his efforts to make a human being that he forgot how to be one. Despite Cushing’s splendid performance, the movie is still pretty empty, content to merely repeat the old Frankenstein standby of not playing God without bothering to really deal with the implications of that idea. Director Terrence Fisher, who make some of the finest horror films ever made, is having a hard time here and spends too much effort on gore instead of actually frightening imagery or archetypes (he would correct this in his next film, The Horror of Dracula). Aside from the appearance of the Creature, there is not a single surprise in the entire movie, we find ourselves waiting for it to be over. Despite the fact that picture is by contemporary standards pretty by the numbers, it’s important to remember just how surprising a color horror film with crimson blood in it was to 1950’s audiences. Even though the movie is difficult to make it through, the fact that it spawned so many wonderful movies can’t be overlooked, and on that level, this bad movie can be celebrated.

Spout Post: The Horror of Frankenstien (1970, Great Britain, Jimmy Sangster) ***

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:12:03 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 4/23/2009 5:12:03 AM
Body: The Horror of Frankenstein(1970) I’ve never responded to Frankenstein movies in the same way I have to Dracula films. The reason is, I think, that there are near endless variations on the plot and themes to Dracula, whereas with Frankenstein you are pretty much stuck aquasi-mad doctor either bringing a dead creature to life or doing something else with one that he brought to life in the previous film. There are many great Hammer Dracula pictures, but only one great Frankenstein film, the second, The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) which took every ridiculous plot point and played as if it could actually happen, and in doing so made us feel a little sorry for the tragedy of the good doctor. Perhaps sensing their Frankenstein series was not as strong as their Dracula films (or many of their standalone titles) Hammer in 1970 to reboot the pictures instead of doing another sequel. They were eager for screenwriter the screenwriterof the first film, Jimmy Sangster, to write the re-launch, so they offered himboth the producer’s reins and director’s chair as well. Sangster probably had more control over this picture than any director ever did at Hammer (well, except for Michael Carreras on The Curse of the Mummy’s Tomb). Although a lot of Hammer fans are not fond of this picture (perhaps due to the absence of Peter Cushing), I rather liked it, and I appreciated Sangster’s choice to make the film as a black comedy instead of another unsuccessful attempt at horror (was Frankenstein ever that scary, anyway?). The picture follows the usual Frankenstein outline (boy dreams of monster, boy creates monster, monster kills people, boy tries to hide monster), but Sangster has fun with the usual cliché’s. I was afraid that I would miss Cushing in the lead role, but Ralph Bates (who bears a stunning resemblance to The Kink’s Ray Daves) is really exceptional in the part and is quite funny. He’s endearingly evil in the Richard III sense, and unlike Cushing’s interpretation, not the least bit mad. At least this sociopath admits he’s one. The supporting cast (which also includes Graham James, who strangely looks just like The Moody Blue’s Justin Hayward) is mostly spot on, impressive for a first time director. The movie also looks good, but nearly all the Hammer films do, despite their budget. If it can be said to have a flaw, it would be in the portrayal of the creature (David Prowse). It’s not Prowse’s fault, but his character is given little motivation as to why he so loyal to Frankenstein when he otherwise so violent). Perhaps it was supposed to parody why the doctor always fails at his attempts to create a good person, but wake-up-and-kill approach the character has doesn't work. This is not a major cinematic landmark, but it is a fun movie that manages to present a couple compelling characters while still being mostly funny. If there is one thing that all the Hammer director’s had in common, it was the fact that theynever played the material for laughs, which is usually suicide in speculativefiction. Here’s the only to my knowledge that Hammer did it, and amazingly, it worked.

Spout Post: The Curse of Frankenstien (1957, Great Britain, Terrence Fisher) **

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:11:23 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 4/23/2009 5:11:23 AM
Body: I’ve never responded to Frankenstein movies in the same way I have to Dracula films. The reason is, I think, that there are near endless variations on the plot and themes to Dracula, whereas with Frankenstein you are pretty much stuck aquasi-mad doctor either bringing a dead creature to life or doing something else with one that he brought to life in the previous film. There are many great Hammer Dracula pictures, but only one great Frankenstein film, the second, The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) which took every ridiculous plot point and played as if it could actually happen, and in doing so made us feel a little sorry for the tragedy of the good doctor. Perhaps sensing their Frankenstein series was not as strong as their Dracula films (or many of their standalone titles) Hammer in 1970 to reboot the pictures instead of doing another sequel. They were eager for screenwriter the screenwriterof the first film, Jimmy Sangster, to write the re-launch, so they offered himboth the producer’s reins and director’s chair as well. Sangster probably had more control over this picture than any director ever did at Hammer (well, except for Michael Carreras on The Curse of the Mummy’s Tomb). Although a lot of Hammer fans are not fond of this picture (perhaps due to the absence of Peter Cushing), I rather liked it, and I appreciated Sangster’s choice to make the film as a black comedy instead of another unsuccessful attempt at horror (was Frankenstein ever that scary, anyway?). The picture follows the usual Frankenstein outline (boy dreams of monster, boy creates monster, monster kills people, boy tries to hide monster), but Sangster has fun with the usual cliché’s. I was afraid that I would miss Cushing in the lead role, but Ralph Bates (who bears a stunning resemblance to The Kink’s Ray Daves) is really exceptional in the part and is quite funny. He’s endearingly evil in the Richard III sense, and unlike Cushing’s interpretation, not the least bit mad. At least this sociopath admits he’s one. The supporting cast (which also includes Graham James, who strangely looks just like The Moody Blue’s Justin Hayward) is mostly spot on, impressive for a first time director. The movie also looks good, but nearly all the Hammer films do, despite their budget. If it can be said to have a flaw, it would be in the portrayal of the creature (David Prowse). It’s not Prowse’s fault, but his character is given little motivation as to why he so loyal to Frankenstein when he otherwise so violent). Perhaps it was supposed to parody why the doctor always fails at his attempts to create a good person, but wake-up-and-kill approach the character has doesn't work. This is not a major cinematic landmark, but it is a fun movie that manages to present a couple compelling characters while still being mostly funny. If there is one thing that all the Hammer director’s had in common, it was the fact that theynever played the material for laughs, which is usually suicide in speculativefiction. Here’s the only to my knowledge that Hammer did it, and amazingly, it worked.

Spout Post: Sunshine Cleaning (2009, USA, Christine Jeffs) **

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:59:34 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 4/6/2009 2:59:34 AM
Body: Sunshine Cleaning has all the signs of a movie that went into production too soon, with script that was either still being written or with one in serious need of revision. The movie has the cast it needs and a setting that works, but lacks the crucial element of focus. As you’ve seen from the trailer, the movie is a light comedy about a two sisters who open up their own business cleaning up after bloody suicides or murders. This is certainly an interesting idea for a movie, but the picture never bothers to consider most of the implications of this. Instead it spends much of its time on a great many subplots, some of which are set up and never pay off. The two sisters are Rose (Amy Adams) and Norah (Emily Blundt). Rose works as a maid and has a young son named Oscar (Jason Spevack) and spends a great deal of time looking forward to her weekly rendezvous with a married police officer (Steve Zahn). Norah lives with her father Joe (Alan Arkin), an unsuccessful businessesman who is trying to market a new kind of candy. Oscar gets kicked out of school due to some troubling behavior (that the movie never resolves, nor mentions again) so Rose feels the needs to make more money to get him into a private school. The cop advises that she can big bucks cleaning up after dead people, and she convinces Norah join her. Among the nine million other subplots in the movie are Rose’s attempt to impress her former high school classmates at a baby shower, Norah’s quasi-voyeuristic interest in the daughter of one of the suicides (Mary Lynn Raskub) , Rose’s relationship with the cop, Rose’s potential relationship with the owner of a cleaning supplies shop (Eric Christian Olsen), the sister’s coming to terms with the death of their own mother, and Joe’s potential inability to deliver on a promise to Oscar. Lost in all of this is any kind of analysis as to the implications of the cleaning company, the ostensible selling point of the movie. At no point does director Christine Jeffs or screenwriter Megan Holley deal with any of the obvious questions. Aside from the fact that the job would be disgusting, how would this effect a person psychologically? Would this change someone’s opinion about death, or life or religion or whatever? Is there much of a distance between cleaning up blood and tomato sauce if you clean up one enough after a while? The screenplay is the central problem here, although the direction by Jeffs in uninspired. Some plot points, such as Oscar’s trouble at school are introduced and never referred to again, while others, such as the death of the sister’s mother, are brought up too late and pay off too quickly. The entire chronology of the movie seems off, with events that should be days apart apparently (and implausible) taking months to occur, while others seem to come along too fast. Where the film works is in the acting, which is very impressive. I really got the impression that Adams and Blundt were members of the same family, something that rarely happens in movies. They share a sisterly bond that is utterly believable and silently real, more real that anything else in the picture. I can’t flaw Sunshine Cleaning for a lack of ideas, or even a lack of good ones, but I can find fault in its inability to focus itself. The whole is far less than the sum of its parts, though I have to say that the movie was not boring. I think I might want to see a movie about a single mother with a troubled child, or a thirty something dealing with the emptiness of her life, or two sisters who start a weird business together, or two sisters dealing with death of their mother. But not all at once. Sunshine Cleaning(2009)

Spout Post: Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (Patrick Tatopoulos) ***

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:09:22 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 4/6/2009 1:09:22 AM
Body: I have a confession to make. I was not a fan of the first two Underworld movies. Or, more accurately, of what I saw of them. I rented both and turned both off because I found them quite dull, despite the fact that I did not find their star, Kate Beckinsale, to be dull at all. So why did I even bother with the third film? There wasn’t much else playing and I wanted to see a movie, and I have a very strong weakness for vampire films, good, bad and ugly. Despite the star rating, I’m not sure that I can classify Underworld: Rise of the Lycans as a “good” movie, but I can say that I enjoyed far more the other two (of what I saw anyway). I can’t complain about the money, I spent on it, either, as it delivers exactly what you would expect from a movie with its title. The first two pictures are not required viewing as it’s a prequel, so I didn’t feel that I walked in on the third installment of something. This is not to say that everything makes sense, because nothing makes sense in these movies. Set in the Middle Ages, the story revolves the revolt of werewolves (the Lycans) who enslaved by vampires. What the movie never explains is why the vampires would need to enslave anyone. What kind of resources do they need? They don’t need to eat, and since they are all strong, they should be able to do all the work they need themselves. Are they just lazy? If so, what do they do all night? Anyway, one Lycan named Lucian (Michael Sheen) gets special treatment and falls in love with the vampire Sonja (Rhoma Mitra, in a strange coincidence bares a striking resemblance to Kate Backinsale). This creates problems as later starts to feel bad for the other werewolves, and he eventually escapes and ends up leading the other werewolves to revolt (hence the title). Among all this action, there is the love story between Sonja and Lucian, which is not boring but not moving at all. I don’t know how moved I could be by a werewolf\vampire romance, but I did wonder what there children would be like. The movie is a success in the sense that the characters look cool (despite the fact the film has a strange digial grade), is not boring, and does not waste its story time. It doesn’t go on and on like the first films, nor does it have any gun fights. I mean, if vampires and werewolves were to have a war, would they fight it with GUNS? I didn’t care about the characters or the plot, and found no deep message or human observation, but I can say that I was entertained, which is something that a whole lot of more ambitious movies fail to do. I can’t even say if fans of the first two pictures will like it, but I can say that it passed the test as a dumb, fun movie to see on Saturday night. Believe it or not, that is a virtue in of itself. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans(2009)

Spout Post: I've Loved You So Long (2008, France, Phillippe Claudel) ****

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 04:34:31 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 4/6/2009 12:34:31 AM
Body: The first thing we notice is the face of Kristen Scott Thomas. She is a beautiful woman, and still is, but there is something in that face of extreme pain. It is as if all of the life and happiness has been sucked out of it. It is a face that not only lacks joy but seems to negate the possibility of it. Her character is named Juliette, and she sits at an airport terminal waiting for someone to come. That someone is her sister, Lea, played by Elsa Zylberstien. Lea hasn’t seen her sister for fifteen years, when she was a child, but there is only the most basic level of recognition at the reunion. For Juliette, there is no reason for anything anymore. The movie works simultaneously as a drama and mystery, as we slowly find out what the characters know about what happened and what led to this reunion. Most everyone walking into the picture will know that Juliette has spent the last fifteen years in prison, but the crime itself and that motive behind are revealed slowly. Because we do not know this information, we judge Juliette slowly. It is not so much that she has no social skills as it is that she chooses not to use them. There is no reason for her to do so, no society for her to believe in. She is intelligent, educated and articulate, but has nothing to say to anyone. Lea, on the other hand seems to have everything- with kids and a loving husband, Luc (Serge Hazanavicius). What makes the picture so interesting (and moving) is that Lea loves her sister unconditionally. She believes that no matter what she did, she has not done anything beyond understanding or forgiveness. This is the central conflict of the film. One sister wants to recall the other to life, and the other has forgotten that there is any purpose in living. The acting in this film is superb, but Scott Thomas is outstanding. Setting aside the fact that nearly all of her dialogue is in a second language she manages to show us the utter darkness that her character lives in without ever becoming manipulative. Zylberstien must also be complimented for playing a part that could have easily become maudlin without a trace of Robin Williams- like manipulation. Although an excellent movie, there are a few flaws. There’s a rather ridiculous pastoral montage in the middle of the film that belong in another movie, and occasionally the screenplay (by director Phillipe Claudel) seems a bit contrived and lays on its points a bit obviously, especially in the subplot involving Juliette’s parole officer (Frederic Pierrot). But overall, this is a moving picture about one person who knows, just knows, her sister is a person worthy of love and respect, and another who cannot conceive that anyone could feel that way. I've Loved You So Long...(2008)

Spout Post: Stranded: I've Come From a Plane that Crashed in the Mountains (2008. France\Brazil, Spain, Gonzolo Arijon) ****

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 04:28:43 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 4/6/2009 12:28:43 AM
Body: Note: It’s impossible to discuss the movie without giving away spoilers. Pretty much everyone going into this probably knows what happened, but if you don’t you’ve been warned. I walked into Stranded: I’ve Come From a Plane that Crashed in the Mountains wondering if I could make it through the picture without becoming disgusted, and I found that the what everyone remembers about the story- cannibalism-is not the main focus. It’s more about in an insane situation, and it’s own way is kind of life affirming. The story has been previously told in Frank Marshall’s 1993 fiction film Alive (which I have not seen), and well known in the annals of airline disasters. In 1972, a plane flying from Uruguay to Chile crashed in the mountains of Argentina. The passengers consisted almost entirely of members of a Uruguayan college rugby team, their friends, girlfriends and family. Seventeen of the forty-five people on board died within twenty four hours of the crash. The remaining twenty-eight would have to find some way to survive in the cold with very little food for seventy two days. The governments of Uruguay, Chile and Argentina tried a rescue but the bad weather meant that the plane could only be visible for one hour a day, and it was white against white snow, and no one knew where the plane was when it went down, and eventually the passengers realized that they would have to in some way be in the instruments of their own rescue. Director Gonzolo Arijon avoids what could have very easily become an Oprah – type inspiration story. Instead, he focuses on the sociological aspects of what happened- how a new world with new rules was formed immediately after the crash. Death was always close at hand, the survivors deal with it as best they can. Some lose their fear of death or the desire to live, or both, others fight until they end so they can return. Nearly all of them become very spiritual, and this how the film becomes a positive statement. It is not so much their will to live or their endurance that is moving (though it is to a degree) then it is there the attitude towards the event afterwards. Many of the survivors return to the crash site and there are tears but one man says “I’m glad I came here.” This event has haunted these men for thirty years, but it has not broken them. They bring their children with them, and they celebrate and thank the dead. One says that he feels the dead “Gave their muscles so we might live” and that’s how the men seem to feel. Many equate what they did to a kind of Holy Communion, where the dead gave their body for the life of others. The movie ends with footage of the men as they play soccer game. They all still live in the same small town. They did what they needed to do to live, and in watching this film, I learned that living is to a degree in end unto itself. Stranded: I've Come From a Plane That Crashed on the Mountains(2008)

Spout Post: Gran Torino (2008, USA, Clint Eastwood) ***

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:03:18 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 1/18/2009 3:03:18 AM
Body: Do you remember that guy on your street who people referred to as “Old Man Hastings” or what ever his last name was? The kind of guy the kids in the neighborhood never played around, because he would get so scary if anyone touched a blade of grass on his lawn? The greatest strength of Gran Torino is Clint Eastwood’s sheer embodiment of that guy we all knew, the guy who seemed to be about 68 for the last thirty years. Eastwood’s character has all of the attributes you would expect from That Guy- he’s tough, racially insensitive (if not a sheer racist), set in his ways and frequently uses the phrase “Get off my lawn!” In the movie, The Guy’s name is Walt Kowalski, and the picture opens at the funeral of his wife. Walt’s marriage was successful and one gets the sense that the departed was a bridge between him and his sons (Brian Haley and Brian Howe), who do not seem very close, or indeed, very able to communicate with each other very well. Walt is the last white left in his Detroit neighborhood, which consists almost entirely of Hmong immigrants and their children. A veteran of the Korean War, Walt does not like Asians (although he doesn’t have much nice to say about African Americans and Latinos, either). Next door, teenager Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang) is being pressured by a gang to join them, and eventually the harassment spills over onto Walt’s lawn. Motivated more his love of his property than altruism, Walt uses his rifle to rescue Thao, and unintentionally becomes a hero to the neighborhood. I am not giving anything away if I state the unsurprising character development that Walt slowly begins to lose his racism. In fact, there is a lot in the movie that is not surprising. If you have seen the trailer, Gran Torino is pretty much the movie you would expect it to be, except for the climax, which is unsuspected though not satisfying. I have consistently argued that I have found Eastwood’s recent series of critically acclaimed films (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima and Changeling) to be overrated, and I still feel that I way about Gran Torino. Like Baby and Iwo Jima, it’s a good movie, but not a great one, and not a film that’s particularly deep, either. Perhaps the greatest weakness of Eastwood’s film as a director has been the fact the films seem more serious or profound than the actually are (Unforgiven being an exception that actually is deep). But Gran Torino is more entertaining than any of the films listed above, merely because Eastwood’s character is so much fun to watch. Even as we see the screenplay’s manipulations, the actor is a great screen presence. I am not sure, however, that this is a “great” performance, though Eastwood is considered to be the front runner for the Best Actor Oscar. It’s more like a version of a movie stars persona than an actual “actorly” role, which Eastwood is capable of doing (as in The Beguiled, for example). Still, the lead performance is clearly the best thing about the movie. It is occasionally ridiculous, and usually predictable, but Gran Torino gives you a sold night of entertainment at the movies.

Spout Post: Changeling (2008, USA, Clint Eastwood) Zero stars

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:29:03 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 1/15/2009 3:29:03 AM
Body: Often, it’s a sign of a movie’s greatness when you are unable to move once credits roll. You sometimes need to sit and collect your emotions before you leave. I had to do that with Changeling, as the movie had a profound effect on me, but the anger I felt was not directed towards the films antagonists but towards the filmmaker. I was disgusted and offended. I should point out, that of course, I am in the minority here. The movie came within three votes of being voted the Best Film of the Cannes Film Festival, and it has ended up on many critics Ten Best lists. With the exception of Unforgiven, I am not a fan of Clint Eastwood as a director, and I know that a whole lot of people are. So you should probably take what I am about say with a grain of salt, but feelings from deep within me told me that something about the film was deathly wrong. The movie is based on a true, tragic story of a Los Angeles woman named Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie), a single mother whose son Walter (Gattlin Griffith) was kidnapped in 1928. The LAPD waited 24 hours before beginning an investigation and the story developed into a national story at a time when the police department was under fire from various sources, including Presbyterian minister Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovitch) for incompetence and corruption. After five months, they inform that they have located her son in Illinois, but the reunion is not heartfelt- the child (Devon Conti) is not her boy. Spoilers ahead. She tells this to the detective on her case, J.J. Jones (Jeffery Donovan) but he wants the case wrapped up, so he commits the totally sane woman to a mental institution where she tortured. This is not even the first of many unlikely but true things that occur in the movie. Okay, I get that all of the terrible things portrayed here happened. But like another film about abuse and suffering in recent years, The Magdalene Sisters, I felt that the filmmakers lacked any kind of sensitivity about how to treat this material. On three separate occasions in my life, I have been emotionally scarred by inappropriate actions of police officers, two times severely. Watching this movie brought those memories back, but I felt like I was being manipulated by cheap dramatic ploys. Was the entire LAPD bad? If so, how did they get that way? The implicit argument that Eastwood is making in this movie is that pretty much everyone was guilty of horrid and callous insensitivity. Even the “sympathetic” cop, Detective Ybarra (Michael Kelly) at one point orders a child to do something so abusive that it was difficult to think about. I have no doubt that there are bad people on every police force, and that sometimes even good cops do bad things, but I knew that already. WHY, damnit?! The only reason they abuse Christine and the other characters in this film is to get a rise in us, the audience. It’s wrong for Eastwood and screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski (infamous for creating the worst TV show I have ever seen, Babylon 5) to bring up these serious issues and then treat them in such a cavalier, manipulative way. The worst scene in the movie takes place shortly after Christine is involuntary committed to the mental institution. She is stripped naked, sprayed with a fire hose and then made to spread her legs, in full view of three people, while a nurse checks her for syphilis. What I saw on the screen was not a melodramatic moment. Jolie plays the scene so bravely and convincingly that I saw an actual person, suffering and being humiliated. I do not like to see people suffer, and I especially do not like to see women suffer. Sometimes, as in a movie like May, it is okay for a director to show pain on this level, to remind us that such things exist in the real world and it’s our call to do something about it. I saw no evidence of that goal in this film. Christine Collins was being humiliated on the screen, in 1928, and I could do nothing but sit in the audience, unable to help or comfort her. I was showed this and made to feel awful for no good reason, perhaps no reason at all, as there is no reason for this movie to exist. I hate this film.

Spout Post: Frost/Nixon (2008, USA, Ron Howard) ***1\2

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:42:14 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 1/13/2009 5:42:14 PM
Body: Ron Howard’s achievement must be acknowledged- more than perhaps any other filmmaker, he has found the ultimate cinematic style to con people into thinking there watching an important movie. His films are rarely boring, and are often very good, but are never really profound, or important, or even memorable. He’s caused me to give Frost/Nixon a three and half star rating, pretty impressive for a film I have contempt for. This is a film that pretends to be important, that states that it is about a subject and then discusses the topic hardly all. The subject in question is the role of the media in politics, specifically, the 1977 serious of interviews between British journalist Sir David Frost (Michael Sheen) and disgraced U.S. President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella).The thin plot of the film regards Nixon and his aids believing that Frost will be an easy mark for the former President to rehabilitate his reputation as a statesmen. Since the trailer gives away the climax of the movie, I don’t think I’m giving much away when I reveal that for the most part, Nixon failed. The movie, written by Peter Morgan, who adapted his own stage play, spends far too much time with Frost, who the picture makes out to be a somewhat hapless, Barbara Walters-like journalist, neglecting the fact that he had in fact interviewed several major political figures before Nixon. Michael Sheen also chooses to play Frost as a lightweight who is in over his head. Sheen’s performance is a major flaw of the movie- he doesn’t look or sound much like the real Frost and his character comes off as such a dimwit that it’s hard to care what happens to him.Frank Langella’s Nixon, on the other hand, is another story. This is one of the best performances of the year, perhaps the best. Langella seems to become Nixon before our eyes. He looks like Nixon, he speaks like Nixon, and for all intents and purposes he is Nixon. Comparing him to Sir Anthony Hopkins performance in Oliver Stone’s 1995 film and the difference is like night and day. Hopkins did a good job, but you were always aware that he was acting. Here, you just believe that you are looking at the 37th President, who somehow wandered into a movie.But all the insight comes from Langella, not Howard. Because the movie is supposedly historically accurate, Howard occasionally uses a documentary style in which characters speak as though they are being interviewed on 16mm. Is this supposed to make us think the movie is "real"?And besides, what is the point of any of this? There are other and better films about politics and the media (Network and Good Night, and Good Luck come to mind). Those films actually bother to take a position on their subject. But Howard is so set on pleasing everyone, of offering no offense to only the most sycophantic Nixon supporter that the movie says very little at all. It is not boring and technically flawless, but it lacks one element crucial to great art- daring. If you want to see a well made, perfectly safe movie that appears to be about something but really isn’t, with one brilliant performance, Frost/Nixon is the movie for you. Frost/Nixon (2008)

Spout Post: The Stepford Wives (2004, USA, Frank Oz) ***1\2

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:38:57 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 1/13/2009 5:38:57 PM
Body: Based on its reputation, you’d think that Frank Oz’s remake of The Stepford Wives is a major disappointment. You’d be wrong. The movie appears to be a satire on chauvinistic men, but it’s actually a quite clever satire on the original movie, popular ideas about feminism, and many of the flaws and logical contradictions in such things. Those of you who have read my reviews on a regular basis will remember that I was not a fan of the original Stepford Wives, noting that it was directed by a man, Brian Forbes, and it in many ways seemed like a sympathetic liberal male’s idea of feminism. The movie had a sort of reverse discrimination, where every single male character appeared to be a total schlep or asshole. I suppose that the idea of the film is that all men want women to be subservient, silent sex objects, but the film was not wise enough to realize that that its argument was not true and the such beliefs hurt men almost as much as women. Based on the trailer, Oz’s film appears to be about the same topic, but a close look reveals that the director comments on many of Forbes’ clichés and arguments. This picture opens as TV executive Joanna Eberhardt (Nicole Kidman) takes time off from her stressful job (where she is stalked by a former contestant on a reality show she produced) and moves decides to move with her husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) to the small town of Stepford, Connecticut. Of, course there are some strange things going on there, such as the fact that most of the women seem to be as dull as the average robot (I wonder why) and that the men seem to enjoy hanging out with Mike Wellington (Christopher Walken) a genuinely creepy guy. Whereas the first movie was heavy handed in the extreme, in this picture, the lighter tone allows it to get many of its points in without it seemingly the cinematic equivalent of eating asparagus. The heart of the film is a genuinely effective and moving relationship between Joanna and Walter, who go through many of the problems of a real married couple. The film is in many ways about their choices, which are thought provoking. I also haven’t yet pointed out that the movie is also quite funny. Although Broderick has had his experience with light comedy, you don’t genuinely think of Kidman as an experience comedienne, but she is perfect in her role and carries the picture easily. The down side to the film is that there are some awkward tonal shifts at times, and some of the plot points, particularly in the middle of the film, seem to come out of nowhere, implying that there were editing problems or hasty reshoots. But The Stepford Wives is smarter and funnier than 90% of the movie comedies out there, and if you’ve seen the original, very wise as well.

Spout Post: The Mark of Zorro (1920, USA, Fred Niblo) ***1\2

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:13:30 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 1/13/2009 5:13:30 PM
Body: Irony of ironies- what was once a standard, big budget Hollywood blockbuster now seems a bit more like an art movie. The Mark of Zorro was an action adventures spectacle, and was received as such, but today there’s no doubt that no many audiences would have a problem with the movie’s leisurely pace. Aside from an impressive action sequence towards the end, no one seems to be in much of a hurry to get anywhere in this movie. Show this to the average action movie audience today and its likely that there would be large numbers of snores, in addition to a few snickers when Zorro is introduced as “The Gay Blade”. However, an audience of movie fans will probably find much to love in this picture. The fact that the movie is slow means that the picture draws us into its world at its own pace, and the intent in a picture like this seems to be not as much to get us super excited as it is too look at the evocation of California in the 1840’s. I sometimes think that silent films have there own type of beauty that was never seen since, perhaps because the intent is not a setting for actors to say their dialogue in but a painterly visual composition where the actors exist along the world the exist in. So much information is conveyed by the costumes, art direction and cinematography that at times it’s hard to believe that this was a star vehicle for Douglas Fairbanks, except when he’s on the screen, and dominates everything. Fairbanks produced and co-wrote the film, adapted from the first Zorro novella, The Curse of Capistrano , published only the year before. With the exception of The Scarlet Pimpernel, audiences had never seen a character like Zorro- a Batman type character who performed his heroics while masked, with a secret identity. There could not have been a better choice for the character, as Fairbanks is a hero to ten year old boys of all ages. With an athletic physical presence and devil-may-care attitude, combined with an absolute knowledge of moral clarity, his Zorro is a hero for the ages, really, all superhero movies might in some owe something to this movie. Despite the slow pace, the movie knows its audience well enough not to add too much unnecessary romance (isn’t kissing disgusting?) the film is pretty economical in its story telling. If doesn’t say too much about the human condition, well, I should point out that I wasn’t interested that much in that type of thing when I was ten either. The Mask of Zorro spoke the part of me that refuses to grow up, and so few movies acknowledge any kind of innocence that I kind of loved it for doing so.

Spout Post: Cheyenne Autumn (1964, USA, John Ford) ***

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:41:46 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 1/13/2009 4:41:46 PM
Body: Cheyenne Autumn is often remembered as John Ford’s apology to Native Americans, and that’s an accurate assessment, for 1964. It is about as liberal as any mainstream film of that era on the (mis)treatment of Indians, although seen from a modern perspective, the movie doesn’t go anywhere far enough. For one thing, the picture follows the time-old Hollywood tradition of having a white protagonist in a film about race relations, which unfortatley continues today. For another, the main Indian characters are played by Ricardo Montalban and Gilbert Rowland, neither of whom are Native Americans, a practice that thankfully has mostly stopped (Antonio Banderas as an Arab in The 13th Warrior is a very unfortunate exception). According to historian Joseph McBride on the DVD’s commentary track, Ford had wanted to cast real Native Americans in the role but the studio wanted name actors. That choice did not work out in the film’s advantage.Cheyenne Autumn is based on a real incident in American history, when after years of mistreatment on a reservation, a group Cheyenne simply left to return to their homeland, which of course had been taken from them by US government. The movie stars Richard Widmark as Captain Thomas Archer, the head of the expedition sent to stop the Cheyenne. Archer just happens to be in love with Deborah Wright (Caroll Baker), a Quaker schoolteacher who is trying to teach the Indians English, and perhaps by extension, to be white (the movie never really deals with implications of her character). Archer proposes to Wright the night before the Indians leave on their supposedly illegal trek, and she goes with them, so he has more than one reason for catching up to the group.On the plus side, Cheyenne Autumn is gorgeously photographed at Ford’s favorite Western location- Monument Valley, on the Utah..Arizona border. Some of shots of this movie are jaw-droppingly beautiful, and the art direction and costumes give a strong sense of atmosphere. Unlike many of Ford’s Westerns, at times we really feel like we are back in time in the Old West, the money was well spent here.Unfortanley, even setting aside some of the above problems with the theme of this well-intentioned movie, the characters are mostly flat (though Widmark does a good job with what he’s given) the Native Americans are mostly interchangeable, and Ford’s attempted at character development is cheesy and lame. There is also a much maligned comedy interlude that appears in the middle of the film, in which Jimmy Stewart appears as Wyatt Earp in Dodge City, Kansas that is completely unrelated to the rest of the picture and sticks out jarringly with sudden change in tone. This might be excusable if the sequence was funny, but it’s not. Ford’s attempts at comic relief were always the weakest part of his movies and this seemingly endless sequence could easily be cut with no detriment to the rest of the film.Cheyenne Autumn is not the last statement on the Western or White..Indian relations as it wanted to be, but setting aside the Dodge City sequence, it works on the fundamental level of Hollywood epic. It looks great and shows us a time that has past, so it merits a recommendation. Cheyenne Autumn (1964)

Spout Post: Staying Alive (1983, USA, Sylvester Stallone) *

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:09:55 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 1/13/2009 4:09:55 PM
Body: How can I begin to describe this movie? A sequel to one of the greatest of hits of 70’s, made pointless by the fact that the disco craze it celebrated was long sense over? One of the best bad movies of all time? A perfect vehicle to gaze at John Travolta’s sweaty, muscular body? All of these my friend, and more. Staying Alive is so very, very bad that it’s very very good, given the right environment of course. I would not reccamend you watching the picture by yourself, unless you wanted to freeze frame the images of Travolta and- well, I’ll leave that to you in your private affairs. The movie is a sequel to John Badham’s 1978 Saturday Night Fever, but follows precious little of that films story and the main character, Tony Manero (Travolta) seems different- a lot more feminine and stupidier. Manero was never a brainaiac to begin with, but that was part of his character’s charm- he knew that he was no Einstien and accepted that, but had a basic level of intelligence that most people without major brain damage seem to have. In this picture, Manero is so dumb at times you expect him to see him drool, which makes you wonder how he was smart enough to put the rouge and eyeliner on his face. The plot of the film involves Manero trying to make it as a professional dancer in a broadway show in Manhatten, and having to choose between two women, both his fellow dancers- his girl Friday, Jackie (Cyntha Rhodes) and Laura (Finola Hughes) a British bitch who sleeps around a lot and uses and abuses him. Of course, Manero ends up making into a big show in which both Jackie and Laura appear in, along with Laura’s “guy Friday”, Jesse (Steve Inwood), who looks weird. The name of the show is Satan Alley and it’s a piece of total garbage, set to hilarous 80’s synth pop. The music in this film aside from a reprise of the title song at the end, is all ass-awful. My favorite piece of music was “(We Dance) So Close the Fire” performed by Tommy Faragher, much of which seems to consists of the words “dance” and “fire” repeadited over and over again in the most melodramatic way possible. My friend Kristen pointed an important feature of Stallone’s films- Sly always seems to have the conviction of his actions, even when his pictures are totally stupid, which tends to make them entertaining, even while they lower your IQ points. Staying Alive is so melodramatically directed while being totally hearfelt that at times the movie develops a kind of hypnotic quality, that you can understand why no one told Stallone his screenplay sucked- they were all caught up in his energy. I can’t say that on any level Staying Alive is a good movie, but do I reccamend you see it? Hell yeah! Staying Alive (1983)

Spout Post: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008, USA, David Fincher) ****

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:09:02 GMT

Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 1/4/2009 10:09:02 PM
Body: At the end of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button the group I saw the film with sat and watched the credits, mostly in silence. Occasionally, somebody would murmur something about “life and death” or “all the different kinds of love”. As we walked out of the theatre and into a nearby restaurant, the tone was sedate, even somber. The movie had profoundly worked on all of us, and we were caught inside of its mysteries, the mysteries that all humans share, such as that we were all born, and that we will all die. The movie runs two hours and forty seven minuets, has many special effects, features two huge stars, and cost millions upon millions of dollars, but somehow David Fincher has crafted one of the most profound films funded by a major studio in years. In many ways, Benjamin Button can be compared to the works of Bergman and Tarkovsky in its grappling with some basic, metaphysical questions, but the movie also has a profoundly touching quality to it that has never been found on this level in works of either of those filmmakers, or, in fact, in Fincher’s previous works. It’s sort of like Bergman’s intelligence and ideas without his detachment. Imagine The Seventh Seal as a tragic love story. And the love story in this film is tragic, but not in the typical Doctor Zhivago type way. What threatens the lovers in this film is not war or plot contrivance, but what threatens almost all lovers- that one will die before the other. There is not much that can be done about that problem, but I had never thought about the implications of it until I saw this movie. You probably know the gimmick- Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) is born old and grows young. He falls in love with Daisy (Cate Blanchett) who is born normally, and will grow old. The movie is based on a frankly mediocre short story by one of the greatest writers of the last century, F. Scott Fitzgerald, who used the premise mostly as the setup for a comedy of manners. Fincher and screenwriters Eric Roth and Robin Swicord take the premise seriously and make us wonder what life would really be like to someone in Benjamin’s situation. What it be like to be a child and have everyone think you are an adult, or a look like a young man but really be in your 60’s? Born on Armistice Day, 1918, Benjamin experiences over seventy years of American history, with some amazing production design from Donald Graham Burt, which is in turn brilliantly shot by Fincher and cinematographer Claudio Miranda. Each time period “feels right”, as if we are really back there, watching the events happening. The end of this picture reminded me of another great movie about life and death-Robert Bresson’s Au Hazard Balthezar, which follows a donkey from birth to death, and experiences mostly suffering in between. Benjamin and Daisy are a bit more lucky, but both must face the inevitable progress of time, although it means something different to each of them. I also began to wonder if childhood and extreme old age are really not that dissimilar, as both feature mental problems and a heavy reliance on others. Maybe we return to childhood just before we die, and fade into nothing, or perhaps, as the last seconds of this film suggest, there is something else out there might make a clock tick backwards for all of us.

Spout Member:The_MOW - Mickey Micklon

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: The_MOW
Name: Mickey Micklon
Interests: movies, sci-fi, professional wrestling
Occupation: Unemployed
Location: Salem, NH
Films listed: 369
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Blog posts: 372
Blog post views: 11337
Number of times tagged: 25
Member since: 4/4/2009
Last login: 10/13/2009

Spout Member:horror

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: horror
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 1/17/2009
Last login: 1/17/2009

Spout Member:butterknife

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: butterknife
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Blog posts: 1
Member since: 4/2/2008
Last login: 4/2/2008

Spout Member:rnt2630

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: rnt2630
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/13/2007
Last login: 9/13/2007

Spout Member:dsalaski

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: dsalaski
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007

Spout Member:jennkp

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: jennkp
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007

Spout Member:Don0262

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: Don0262
Films listed: 2
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/9/2007
Last login: 9/9/2007

Spout Member:martinluthar

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: martinluthar
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007

Spout Member:clwoolfe

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: clwoolfe
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007

Spout Member:XtreamDenny

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: XtreamDenny
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:bofo

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: bofo
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:seanjoneswrexham

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: seanjoneswrexham
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:nny921

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: nny921
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 11/20/2008

Spout Member:mr_lol

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: mr_lol
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 9/3/2007

Spout Member:fire1311

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: fire1311
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/1/2007
Last login: 9/1/2007

Spout Member:Argueta

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: Argueta
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 8/31/2007
Last login: 8/31/2007

Film:Funny Games

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMT

Title: Funny Games
Year: 2007
Director: Michael Haneke
Times Tagged: 27
Number of Lists: 24
Number of blog posts: 14
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Dark Knight

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:13:34 GMT

Title: The Dark Knight
Year: 2008
Director: Christopher Nolan
Times Tagged: 149
Number of Lists: 98
Number of blog posts: 156
Number of discussion threads: 55
SpoutRating: 4

Film:H2

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:45:58 GMT

Title: H2
Year: 2009
Director: Rob Zombie
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 1

Film:Eleanor: First Lady of the World

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:47:51 GMT

Title: Eleanor: First Lady of the World
Year: 1982
Director: John Erman
Number of blog posts: 1

Film:Black Test Car

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:01:54 GMT

Title: Black Test Car
Year: 1962
Number of Lists: 2
SpoutRating: 4

Film:Dumpster Baby

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:53:10 GMT

Title: Dumpster Baby
Director: James Bickert
Number of Lists: 1

Film:Rick

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:32:48 GMT

Title: Rick
Year: 2002
Director: Curtiss Clayton
Times Tagged: 1
Number of Lists: 1
SpoutRating: 2

Film:Speed Racer

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:21:45 GMT

Title: Speed Racer
Year: 2008
Director: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Times Tagged: 90
Number of Lists: 16
Number of blog posts: 41
Number of discussion threads: 16
SpoutRating: 3

Film:Speed Racer [Anime Series]

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:20:43 GMT

Title: Speed Racer [Anime Series]
Year: 1967
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Raven

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:13:53 GMT

Title: The Raven
Year: 2007
Director: Ulli Lommel
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 1

Film:The Ballad of the Sad Cafe

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:25:24 GMT

Title: The Ballad of the Sad Cafe
Year: 1991
Director: Simon Callow
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 2

Film:New York, New York

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:22:40 GMT

Title: New York, New York
Year: 1977
Director: Martin Scorsese
Times Tagged: 23
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 57
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 2

Film:St. Nick

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:01:06 GMT

Title: St. Nick
Year: 2009
Director: David Lowery
Times Tagged: 3
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 5
SpoutRating: 5

Film:We Are the Strange

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:25:52 GMT

Title: We Are the Strange
Year: 2007
Director: M dot Strange
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 4

Film:The Sadist

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:08:29 GMT

Title: The Sadist
Year: 1963
Director: James Landis
Number of Lists: 4
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Alligator People

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:04:19 GMT

Title: The Alligator People
Year: 1959
Director: Roy Del Ruth
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 2