list kristen's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ kristen's Recent Activity - Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg kristen's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 Spout Group:Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here! http://www.spout.com/groups/Spout_Customer_Care/420/default.aspx 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
]]>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMTSpout Customer CareWed, 01 Aug 2007 09:06:04 GMT790513Group Spout Group:HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/222/default.aspx 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
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:53:17 GMTHORROR MOVIES 101Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:20:09 GMT41462333Group Spout Group:foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts. http://www.spout.com/groups/foureyedmonsters/338/endorsed.aspx 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
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:42:31 GMTfoureyedmonstersMon, 04 Jun 2007 15:28:43 GMT322056Group Spout Group:Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety" http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/625/default.aspx 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
]]>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:20:23 GMTWeekly ThemeMon, 30 Jun 2008 15:13:45 GMT5212701Group Spout Group:Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited. http://www.spout.com/groups/Spout_Mavens/366/default.aspx 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
]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:10:52 GMTSpout MavensWed, 20 Jun 2007 10:13:29 GMT369451Group Spout Group:missing a film - we'll help you find a film http://www.spout.com/groups/missing_a_film/263/default.aspx 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
]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:30:05 GMTmissing a filmMon, 05 Mar 2007 16:37:43 GMT1311234Group Spout Group:Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American. http://www.spout.com/groups/Friends_of_Foreign_Flicks/591/default.aspx 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
]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:05:26 GMTFriends of Foreign FlicksThu, 24 Apr 2008 11:44:11 GMT30192Group Spout Group:The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary. http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Documentary/79/default.aspx 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
]]>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:05:39 GMTThe DocumentarySun, 02 Apr 2006 00:58:55 GMT49453Group Spout Group:Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more. http://www.spout.com/groups/Sound_on_Sight/529/default.aspx 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
]]>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:03:03 GMTSound on SightSun, 06 Jan 2008 21:24:34 GMT1040150Group Spout Group:Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too. http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/104/default.aspx 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
]]>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:43:26 GMTWorst Movie EverFri, 05 May 2006 20:20:45 GMT20010412Group Spout Group:Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/657/default.aspx 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
]]>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:42:29 GMTMovie PollsTue, 25 Nov 2008 16:54:38 GMT660414Group Spout Group:Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite! http://www.spout.com/groups/Zombie_Obsession/329/default.aspx 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
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:29:56 GMTZombie ObsessionMon, 28 May 2007 02:04:45 GMT1041594Group Spout Group:A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We? http://www.spout.com/groups/A_World_of_MSTies/590/default.aspx 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
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:25:25 GMTA World of MSTiesWed, 23 Apr 2008 20:21:48 GMT10223Group Spout Group:It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys http://www.spout.com/groups/It_s_a_Wonderful_Night_for_Oscar/46/default.aspx 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
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:11:33 GMTIt's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:24:32 GMT4158226Group Spout Group:Movie Marathons http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Marathons/693/default.aspx 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
]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:33:02 GMTMovie MarathonsWed, 22 Jul 2009 01:35:58 GMT15022Group Spout Group:Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies! http://www.spout.com/groups/Movies_we_do_not_want_to_see/70/default.aspx 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
]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:31:56 GMTMovies we do not want to seeWed, 22 Mar 2006 14:27:50 GMT203190Group Spout Post: I can't post a movie review on.... http://www.spout.com/groups/Spout_Feedback/I_can_t_post_a_movie_review_on/129/39075/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: kristen
Post To: Spout Feedback
Post Date: 1/4/2009 9:42:25 PM
Body: I guys. I can't post a movie review on the page for Bedtime Stories (2008, Adam Shankman). I click the "write a review" button but it wont take me to the message/blog form. I tried this a few hours ago and just tried it again. Help!
]]>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:42:25 GMTkristenSpout Feedback1/4/2009 9:42:25 PMI guys. I can't post a movie review on the page for Bedtime Stories (2008, Adam Shankman). I click the "write a review" button but it wont take me to the message/blog form. I tried this a few hours ago and just tried it again. Help! Spout Post: Selfish bedtime stories http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2009/1/4/39074.aspxPost By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 1/4/2009 8:30:37 PM
Body: Bedtime Stories (2008, Adam Shankman, USA) **1/2 Cinema explores the ways in which fiction and life interact to the point of cliché. That is not to say that this theme is not worth exploring. Many movies (Stranger than Fiction), and many kid's movies use the theme in a charming and profound way (My favorite of these kids movies are Labyrinth and Spirited Away). But so many kids' movies use this theme (like Enchanted, The Never Ending Story, A Kid in King Arthur's Court) that I groaned at the idea of another one. I hoped that Bedtime Stories wouldn't be as bad as the most basic exploration of this theme, the dream wakeup twist. The idea of "It's not real, it's all a dream. Or is it…" The dream wakeup shows that fantasy does have real effects, but who cares? Obviously I came into the movie with very low expectations. I expected the to see the simple idea that stories have an effect on real life and real life shapes stories. And that essentially is the story of the movie. But the characters defy the conventions of the theme in such a way as to make this movie worth watching. Skeeter Bronson (Adam Sandler) is an atypically selfish person for the hero of a fairy tale. While babysitting as a favor for his sister, Skeeter quickly finds out that his niece and nephew have prophetic imaginations. When together the three create a bedtime story, mysteriously the story manifests the next day into a real life equivalent. And Skeeter, being a selfish person, immediately realizes the many ways he can use this for his personal advantage. For the rest of the movie, Skeeter tries to manipulate the kids into writing the perfect scenario for his life- where he's the hero who gets the girl (Jill, played by Keri Russell), beats the enemy (Kendall, played by Guy Pierce), saves the town, pleases his boss (Barry Nottingham, played by Richard Griffiths), and gets his dream job (running a hotel) so that he lives happily ever after. Even when the kids write a bad ending for him, he doesn't tell them their powers and enlist their help. He instead tries to counteract their ending through means of his own (and by making himself fireproof). Skeeter's best friend Mickey (Russell Brand) graces us with a unique kind of stupidity. He is not the same kind of stupid as Lloyd Christmas, Peter Griffith, or Billy Madison though he has the same IQ. Brand works with standard material (like the joke that he's too stupid to read) and makes his own brand (haha) of hilarity. Maybe it's because he looks like a European snob that his stupidity is so refreshing. Mickey has an ineffable magic worthy of a comedic starring role. He immensely adds to the enjoyment of the movie. Bedtime Stories ends in cliché fashion of happily ever after. Skeeter, however, is rewarded for his selfishness. What kind of moral is that? Skeeter gets everything he wants from life because he manipulated others and decided to use the kids magic on himself instead of trying to do something noble like save the world or end poverty (which he easily could have done). This at least gives the movie some dimension and brings it a little closer to life, which is what it intended to do all along.
]]>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:30:37 GMTkristenkristen Blog1/4/2009 8:30:37 PMBedtime Stories (2008, Adam Shankman, USA) **1/2 Cinema explores the ways in which fiction and life interact to the point of cliché. That is not to say that this theme is not worth exploring. Many movies (Stranger than Fiction), and many kid's movies use the theme in a charming and profound way (My favorite of these kids movies are Labyrinth and Spirited Away). But so many kids' movies use this theme (like Enchanted, The Never Ending Story, A Kid in King Arthur's Court) that I groaned at the idea of another one. I hoped that Bedtime Stories wouldn't be as bad as the most basic exploration of this theme, the dream wakeup twist. The idea of "It's not real, it's all a dream. Or is it…" The dream wakeup shows that fantasy does have real effects, but who cares? Obviously I came into the movie with very low expectations. I expected the to see the simple idea that stories have an effect on real life and real life shapes stories. And that essentially is the story of the movie. But the characters defy the conventions of the theme in such a way as to make this movie worth watching. Skeeter Bronson (Adam Sandler) is an atypically selfish person for the hero of a fairy tale. While babysitting as a favor for his sister, Skeeter quickly finds out that his niece and nephew have prophetic imaginations. When together the three create a bedtime story, mysteriously the story manifests the next day into a real life equivalent. And Skeeter, being a selfish person, immediately realizes the many ways he can use this for his personal advantage. For the rest of the movie, Skeeter tries to manipulate the kids into writing the perfect scenario for his life- where he's the hero who gets the girl (Jill, played by Keri Russell), beats the enemy (Kendall, played by Guy Pierce), saves the town, pleases his boss (Barry Nottingham, played by Richard Griffiths), and gets his dream job (running a hotel) so that he lives happily ever after. Even when the kids write a bad ending for him, he doesn't tell them their powers and enlist their help. He instead tries to counteract their ending through means of his own (and by making himself fireproof). Skeeter's best friend Mickey (Russell Brand) graces us with a unique kind of stupidity. He is not the same kind of stupid as Lloyd Christmas, Peter Griffith, or Billy Madison though he has the same IQ. Brand works with standard material (like the joke that he's too stupid to read) and makes his own brand (haha) of hilarity. Maybe it's because he looks like a European snob that his stupidity is so refreshing. Mickey has an ineffable magic worthy of a comedic starring role. He immensely adds to the enjoyment of the movie. Bedtime Stories ends in cliché fashion of happily ever after. Skeeter, however, is rewarded for his selfishness. What kind of moral is that? Skeeter gets everything he wants from life because he manipulated others and decided to use the kids magic on himself instead of trying to do something noble like save the world or end poverty (which he easily could have done). This at least gives the movie some dimension and brings it a little closer to life, which is what it intended to do all along. Spout Post: It is written to manipulate http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2009/1/4/39070.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 1/4/2009 7:06:10 PM
Body: Slumdog Millionaire (2008, Danny Boyle, USA/UK) zero stars The movie opens with a device it will use to tell the rest of the story- a question followed by a very pointed yet mystical explanation of how Jamal will succeed. Jamal is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. How did he do it? A. He cheated. B. He’s lucky. C. He’s a genius. D. It is destiny. It is written. And that is half of the problem. Jamal’s life has a predetermined outcome calculated by the filmmaker to meet the desires of a hopeful audience. Police kidnap Jamal (they suspect him of cheating on game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire) and torture him in order to elicit a confession. Torture methods of our innocent victim include beating, suspension by the arms, and electrocution. From this moment the audience naturally sympathizes with innocent hero. Jamal maintains that you don't have to be a genius to know the answers to those questions. Intrigued at this slumdog's stubbornness, the authorities agree to listen to an explanation, question by question, of how Jamal knows the answers. This device allows the movie to explore Jamal's life, providing insight into his character and setting up the love story. Jamal explains situation after situation where he is the victim of some horrible atrocity (like having to jump in excrement because of his brother, having his mother's head bashed in before his eyes, him inches away from being blinded by an orphan collector, leaving his love in the hands of this horrible man, being threatened at gunpoint by his brother, and finally his brother raping the love of his life Lakita (she agrees so that Salim wont kill Jamal)). Each one of these atrocities explains how he knew the answer to the game show questions. Unfortunately, he did not learn a single thing at school (the final question asks about The Three Musketeers, a book he was supposed to read). Fortunately, his life “is written". We learn that we are dealing with a saint. Everything Jamal says is true. Here is a person who never inflicts harm on others. A person who is always innocent but always suffers. Even being on the show tortures Jamal for he must relive these horrible events. Because of his propensity for truth, the police come to believe what we knew from the beginning, Jamal is innocent. But memory is a funny thing. Memory, even the memory of saints, fails. What human can possibly relate the story of his/her life objectively? No human I know. No Holden Caulfield. No Guido. Not even me. However, the movie believes sincerely that Jamal is a completely reliable narrator and asks us to believe the same. This is how we know that the story is told by device, not person. Even a person who is truthful to a fault will tell his or her story unfaithfully. If the movie wants to give us a character, shouldn't it allow him to fail? Jamal is infallible therefore he lacks human dimension. The movie tries to avoid this by saying that he is human but a mystical hand guides him to success. This touch of magic harms what could have been really beautiful about the movie- the love story. Again the movie relies on techniques, this time it’s a technique that continually separates Jamal and Latika to make their love seem urgent and to force magic into their final reunion. Because of Jamal’s magical destiny he finds Latika immediately every time he looks for her. In Mumbai, with 19 million people (as his brother Salim points out) Jamal finds Latika in less than thirty minutes. He asks one person and then there she is, waiting to run to Jamal. Yes, the story was written that way. However, Jamal must win Latika. It seems that her heart knows money and security offer happiness. She refuses to run away with Jamal out of love even if it means suffering abuse from a rich misogynist. Jamal must win 20 million rupees to win her heart. The problem is that true love doesn’t love money; it loves the person. If the movie wanted genuine romance, it should have (SPOILER) allowed Jamal to loose the 20 million rupees but win the priceless prize of love. Then love will have its victory. Instead, we have reason to doubt Latika’s love. Why wouldn’t she run away with a rich friend who loves her, who she’s known all her life, and who will not beat her under any circumstance? Any woman like her would choose Jamal over an abusive millionaire. It has been written that "Slumdog Millionaire is the film world's first globalized masterpiece" (Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal). It seems that some critics completely overlook the facts. Though there are many internationally known movies like Modern Times, La Strada, Titanic, I guess that Danny Boyle is the only filmmaker with an internationally recognized "masterpiece". Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times described it as "a Hollywood-style romantic melodrama that delivers major studio satisfactions in an ultra-modern way". Yes, every section does feature at least one club song in its entirety from ultra-modern artists such as M.I.A. "The film uses dazzling cinematography, breathless editing, driving music and headlong momentum to explode with narrative force, stirring in a romance at the same time" (Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times). The characters do spend most of their time running. McCarthy concluded, "As drama and as a look at a country increasingly entering the world spotlight, Slumdog Millionaire is a vital piece of work by an outsider who's clearly connected with the place". How? By making a movie about it? (as my friend Ryan said). As the movie readily admits "It is written”, written to manipulate this response from its audience.
]]>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:06:10 GMTkristenkristen Blog1/4/2009 7:06:10 PM Slumdog Millionaire (2008, Danny Boyle, USA/UK) zero stars The movie opens with a device it will use to tell the rest of the story- a question followed by a very pointed yet mystical explanation of how Jamal will succeed. Jamal is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. How did he do it? A. He cheated. B. He’s lucky. C. He’s a genius. D. It is destiny. It is written. And that is half of the problem. Jamal’s life has a predetermined outcome calculated by the filmmaker to meet the desires of a hopeful audience. Police kidnap Jamal (they suspect him of cheating on game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire) and torture him in order to elicit a confession. Torture methods of our innocent victim include beating, suspension by the arms, and electrocution. From this moment the audience naturally sympathizes with innocent hero. Jamal maintains that you don't have to be a genius to know the answers to those questions. Intrigued at this slumdog's stubbornness, the authorities agree to listen to an explanation, question by question, of how Jamal knows the answers. This device allows the movie to explore Jamal's life, providing insight into his character and setting up the love story. Jamal explains situation after situation where he is the victim of some horrible atrocity (like having to jump in excrement because of his brother, having his mother's head bashed in before his eyes, him inches away from being blinded by an orphan collector, leaving his love in the hands of this horrible man, being threatened at gunpoint by his brother, and finally his brother raping the love of his life Lakita (she agrees so that Salim wont kill Jamal)). Each one of these atrocities explains how he knew the answer to the game show questions. Unfortunately, he did not learn a single thing at school (the final question asks about The Three Musketeers, a book he was supposed to read). Fortunately, his life “is written". We learn that we are dealing with a saint. Everything Jamal says is true. Here is a person who never inflicts harm on others. A person who is always innocent but always suffers. Even being on the show tortures Jamal for he must relive these horrible events. Because of his propensity for truth, the police come to believe what we knew from the beginning, Jamal is innocent. But memory is a funny thing. Memory, even the memory of saints, fails. What human can possibly relate the story of his/her life objectively? No human I know. No Holden Caulfield. No Guido. Not even me. However, the movie believes sincerely that Jamal is a completely reliable narrator and asks us to believe the same. This is how we know that the story is told by device, not person. Even a person who is truthful to a fault will tell his or her story unfaithfully. If the movie wants to give us a character, shouldn't it allow him to fail? Jamal is infallible therefore he lacks human dimension. The movie tries to avoid this by saying that he is human but a mystical hand guides him to success. This touch of magic harms what could have been really beautiful about the movie- the love story. Again the movie relies on techniques, this time it’s a technique that continually separates Jamal and Latika to make their love seem urgent and to force magic into their final reunion. Because of Jamal’s magical destiny he finds Latika immediately every time he looks for her. In Mumbai, with 19 million people (as his brother Salim points out) Jamal finds Latika in less than thirty minutes. He asks one person and then there she is, waiting to run to Jamal. Yes, the story was written that way. However, Jamal must win Latika. It seems that her heart knows money and security offer happiness. She refuses to run away with Jamal out of love even if it means suffering abuse from a rich misogynist. Jamal must win 20 million rupees to win her heart. The problem is that true love doesn’t love money; it loves the person. If the movie wanted genuine romance, it should have (SPOILER) allowed Jamal to loose the 20 million rupees but win the priceless prize of love. Then love will have its victory. Instead, we have reason to doubt Latika’s love. Why wouldn’t she run away with a rich friend who loves her, who she’s known all her life, and who will not beat her under any circumstance? Any woman like her would choose Jamal over an abusive millionaire. It has been written that "Slumdog Millionaire is the film world's first globalized masterpiece" (Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal). It seems that some critics completely overlook the facts. Though there are many internationally known movies like Modern Times, La Strada, Titanic, I guess that Danny Boyle is the only filmmaker with an internationally recognized "masterpiece". Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times described it as "a Hollywood-style romantic melodrama that delivers major studio satisfactions in an ultra-modern way". Yes, every section does feature at least one club song in its entirety from ultra-modern artists such as M.I.A. "The film uses dazzling cinematography, breathless editing, driving music and headlong momentum to explode with narrative force, stirring in a romance at the same time" (Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times). The characters do spend most of their time running. McCarthy concluded, "As drama and as a look at a country increasingly entering the world spotlight, Slumdog Millionaire is a vital piece of work by an outsider who's clearly connected with the place". How? By making a movie about it? (as my friend Ryan said). As the movie readily admits "It is written”, written to manipulate this response from its audience. Spout Post: Cruise so powerful he intimidates Hitler! http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2009/1/1/39022.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 1/1/2009 5:17:44 PM
Body: Valkyrie (2008, USA, Brian Singer) ** Clearly, there is something entertaining about trying to kill the world’s best movie villain- Hitler, leader of the (dare I say?) NAZIS!!! Yes, the same Nazi’s that grace Indiana Jones. And now in Valkyrie American icon Tom Cruise plays Claus von Stauffenberg- a Nazi who attempts to assassinate Hitler. Fortunately, Stauffenberg is not the villain Nazi we American’s know so well. He is the leader of American dreams- our dreams to stop an unstoppable evil force. Stauffenberg’s mission then is to show American’s that, contrary to what the movies tell us, not all Germans are evil Jew killing Nazis. Cruise reprises his iconic role as a confident to the point of arrogant, unswerving individual, headstrong hero (as best seen in Top Gun and Mission Impossible). The historical Stauffenberg tells a fellow conspirator in their first meeting "Let's be blunt, I am committing high treason with all my might and main...." Such boldness from the historical person gives a fair clue into the (slightly odd) casting choice of Cruise as a German Nazi (Who thought Cruise could convincingly portray a German?). Though Cruise will always be American, his strength as Stauffenberg is this shared confidence in themselves and in their missions. Cruise’s natural intensity on screen fits the character needed to assassinate the ultimate villain. Only in this movie, Cruise is so powerful that he intimidates Hitler. What kind of villain is this Hitler? This pale, meek Hitler bends at the knee at the sight of Cruise then lavishes him with the highest praise. This Hitler loves Cruise so much that he jumps at the chance to sign any document Cruise brings him. This trust seems most inspired by worship. Cruise has all the power but unfortunately, Hitler has all the luck. Luck, the element Gen. Ludwig Beck (Terrence Stamp) warns Stauffenberg of when he reminds, “Nothing ever goes according to plan”. Why is it that the gods seem to be on the side of evil? How could God protect the man who most deserves to die? These men have done all that’s humanly possible to do what’s right and yet they fail. However, because of the form of the movie, this tragedy is overlooked. Bryan Singer transforms history into a heist movie (of the conspiracy thriller kind). As typical of heist movies, Valkyrie has a three-act plot. In the first act the team comes together, the originators find their main conspirator Stauffenberg, and together they begin preparations for the coup. In heist fashion, the movie explains the type of bomb being used, explores the details of the room where the bomb will be detonated, and emphasizes the danger and shortage of time they will have to complete the assassination plot and initiate Operation Valkyrie. In the second act, Cruise plays mission impossible. He carries out the plan and puts Operation Valkyrie into effect. In the third act, things go wrong. Hopefully people know that Hitler does not die (he poisoned and shot himself). Though life does not go according to plan, Stauffenberg heroically proclaims, “Long live our Holy Germany!”. The heist movie formula does not support tragedy because characters are traded for plot details. Character motivations are lost. The movie never explores why a member of Hitler’s party would turn on his leader? What conflicts would Stauffenberg have in putting his family at risk? Why is this mission so essential to their moral fiber? And the tragedy of the failed mission is not felt. Why was Hitler so lucky? Is there any justice in the world? Most people know how Hitler died and so there is no suspense. Bryan Singer creates a false suspense by only revealing what Stauffenberg and the other conspirators’ think happened to Hitler, but we already know what they don’t. In the end, Singer tries to heighten the suspense but he should have heighted the sense of tragedy.
]]>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:17:44 GMTkristenkristen Blog1/1/2009 5:17:44 PM Valkyrie (2008, USA, Brian Singer) ** Clearly, there is something entertaining about trying to kill the world’s best movie villain- Hitler, leader of the (dare I say?) NAZIS!!! Yes, the same Nazi’s that grace Indiana Jones. And now in Valkyrie American icon Tom Cruise plays Claus von Stauffenberg- a Nazi who attempts to assassinate Hitler. Fortunately, Stauffenberg is not the villain Nazi we American’s know so well. He is the leader of American dreams- our dreams to stop an unstoppable evil force. Stauffenberg’s mission then is to show American’s that, contrary to what the movies tell us, not all Germans are evil Jew killing Nazis. Cruise reprises his iconic role as a confident to the point of arrogant, unswerving individual, headstrong hero (as best seen in Top Gun and Mission Impossible). The historical Stauffenberg tells a fellow conspirator in their first meeting "Let's be blunt, I am committing high treason with all my might and main...." Such boldness from the historical person gives a fair clue into the (slightly odd) casting choice of Cruise as a German Nazi (Who thought Cruise could convincingly portray a German?). Though Cruise will always be American, his strength as Stauffenberg is this shared confidence in themselves and in their missions. Cruise’s natural intensity on screen fits the character needed to assassinate the ultimate villain. Only in this movie, Cruise is so powerful that he intimidates Hitler. What kind of villain is this Hitler? This pale, meek Hitler bends at the knee at the sight of Cruise then lavishes him with the highest praise. This Hitler loves Cruise so much that he jumps at the chance to sign any document Cruise brings him. This trust seems most inspired by worship. Cruise has all the power but unfortunately, Hitler has all the luck. Luck, the element Gen. Ludwig Beck (Terrence Stamp) warns Stauffenberg of when he reminds, “Nothing ever goes according to plan”. Why is it that the gods seem to be on the side of evil? How could God protect the man who most deserves to die? These men have done all that’s humanly possible to do what’s right and yet they fail. However, because of the form of the movie, this tragedy is overlooked. Bryan Singer transforms history into a heist movie (of the conspiracy thriller kind). As typical of heist movies, Valkyrie has a three-act plot. In the first act the team comes together, the originators find their main conspirator Stauffenberg, and together they begin preparations for the coup. In heist fashion, the movie explains the type of bomb being used, explores the details of the room where the bomb will be detonated, and emphasizes the danger and shortage of time they will have to complete the assassination plot and initiate Operation Valkyrie. In the second act, Cruise plays mission impossible. He carries out the plan and puts Operation Valkyrie into effect. In the third act, things go wrong. Hopefully people know that Hitler does not die (he poisoned and shot himself). Though life does not go according to plan, Stauffenberg heroically proclaims, “Long live our Holy Germany!”. The heist movie formula does not support tragedy because characters are traded for plot details. Character motivations are lost. The movie never explores why a member of Hitler’s party would turn on his leader? What conflicts would Stauffenberg have in putting his family at risk? Why is this mission so essential to their moral fiber? And the tragedy of the failed mission is not felt. Why was Hitler so lucky? Is there any justice in the world? Most people know how Hitler died and so there is no suspense. Bryan Singer creates a false suspense by only revealing what Stauffenberg and the other conspirators’ think happened to Hitler, but we already know what they don’t. In the end, Singer tries to heighten the suspense but he should have heighted the sense of tragedy. Spout Post: Changeling (2008, Clint Eastwood, USA) ** http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2008/11/10/37166.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 11/10/2008 6:10:34 PM
Body: Clint Eastwood characters are like Sarah Palin saying repeatedly in the vice presidential debate that we need to stop the greed and corruption on Wall Street. What she says is correct but one gets the feeling that she has no sophisticated understanding of the matter and no plan of attack (she lacks abstract thought). She correctly identifies an evil but simplifies it to a sound bite. In the same manner, Clint Eastwood portrays the corrupt LAPD as evil (which they may very well be) but reduces humans to flat charactures. Clint Eastwood in his simplistic manner says that the police force is corrupt and that we need to stop them. Is the matter really so black and white? Do all the people on the police force really have no soul? Is every action an act of pure evil? People and evil are more complex then Eastwood’s conception. This is an oversight that is an injustice to people and to evil. The rest of the movie follows this simplicity but does manage to have a few worthwhile moments. Changeling first establishes how much Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) loves her son. When her son mysteriously disappears, Christine suffers injustice after injustice. First the corrupt LAPD deliver the wrong son. When she goes public with the news, pure evil Captain J. J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) throws her into a mental institution to shut her up. Next come the shocking details of the child murderer in order to manipulate the audience to feel further sympathy. There is a turn of events thanks to Rev. Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich). Christine and the Reverend proceed to right all the injustice. They expel the corrupt police force. They liberate the women in the mental hospital (who are wrongfully there because of the more police cruelty). They see that the child murderer receives the death penalty. And they continue to search for her lost son. To be sure, Christine never shy’s away from her responsibility (a running theme in the movie). The one mature decision Clint Eastwood makes during the movie (that is to say a non-manipulative, unexpected move that helps the story) comes when Christine visits the child murderer Gordon Northcott (Jason Butler Harner) the day before his execution. Everyone expects the murderer to admit that he killed Walter so that Christine can have some closure in her life. When he doesn’t tell her in the interview everyone expects him to shout it from the platform seconds before his hanging. Instead he takes his secret to the grave. This silence fits the character and allows the movie to continue because though unresolved, Christine now has hope. Harner gives a great performance. As a villain he manages to be creepy but almost too mentally off to hate. In his own strange way he is charming (even though we saw him viciously hacking child to death). He has a strange innocence even in his guilt. By the second half of the movie, I had such low expectations that any ending other than Walter Collins (Christine’s son) running into his mother’s arms in slow motion would be appreciated. I think I can say safely that most people expect this saccharine ending, which makes the way Eastwood actually ends the movie quite clever. It’s not a good ending, it’s a Hollywood ending but it does enough so that critics don’t turn their heads and moan and it gives the general audience the sweetness they desire. It also preserves some mystery about the case, gives Christine hope, and at least paints Walter Collins as a hero (someone Christine can be proud of). The end delivers the expectations while preserving tragedy. This ending shows a great understanding of audience and critics. Eastwood knows how to play the game. This understanding of the politics of filmmaking and his wonderful personality are (what I believe) the reason for his acclaim (aside from his one great movie Unforgiven where he rightfully deserves praise).
]]>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:10:34 GMTkristenkristen Blog11/10/2008 6:10:34 PM Clint Eastwood characters are like Sarah Palin saying repeatedly in the vice presidential debate that we need to stop the greed and corruption on Wall Street. What she says is correct but one gets the feeling that she has no sophisticated understanding of the matter and no plan of attack (she lacks abstract thought). She correctly identifies an evil but simplifies it to a sound bite. In the same manner, Clint Eastwood portrays the corrupt LAPD as evil (which they may very well be) but reduces humans to flat charactures. Clint Eastwood in his simplistic manner says that the police force is corrupt and that we need to stop them. Is the matter really so black and white? Do all the people on the police force really have no soul? Is every action an act of pure evil? People and evil are more complex then Eastwood’s conception. This is an oversight that is an injustice to people and to evil. The rest of the movie follows this simplicity but does manage to have a few worthwhile moments. Changeling first establishes how much Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) loves her son. When her son mysteriously disappears, Christine suffers injustice after injustice. First the corrupt LAPD deliver the wrong son. When she goes public with the news, pure evil Captain J. J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) throws her into a mental institution to shut her up. Next come the shocking details of the child murderer in order to manipulate the audience to feel further sympathy. There is a turn of events thanks to Rev. Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich). Christine and the Reverend proceed to right all the injustice. They expel the corrupt police force. They liberate the women in the mental hospital (who are wrongfully there because of the more police cruelty). They see that the child murderer receives the death penalty. And they continue to search for her lost son. To be sure, Christine never shy’s away from her responsibility (a running theme in the movie). The one mature decision Clint Eastwood makes during the movie (that is to say a non-manipulative, unexpected move that helps the story) comes when Christine visits the child murderer Gordon Northcott (Jason Butler Harner) the day before his execution. Everyone expects the murderer to admit that he killed Walter so that Christine can have some closure in her life. When he doesn’t tell her in the interview everyone expects him to shout it from the platform seconds before his hanging. Instead he takes his secret to the grave. This silence fits the character and allows the movie to continue because though unresolved, Christine now has hope. Harner gives a great performance. As a villain he manages to be creepy but almost too mentally off to hate. In his own strange way he is charming (even though we saw him viciously hacking child to death). He has a strange innocence even in his guilt. By the second half of the movie, I had such low expectations that any ending other than Walter Collins (Christine’s son) running into his mother’s arms in slow motion would be appreciated. I think I can say safely that most people expect this saccharine ending, which makes the way Eastwood actually ends the movie quite clever. It’s not a good ending, it’s a Hollywood ending but it does enough so that critics don’t turn their heads and moan and it gives the general audience the sweetness they desire. It also preserves some mystery about the case, gives Christine hope, and at least paints Walter Collins as a hero (someone Christine can be proud of). The end delivers the expectations while preserving tragedy. This ending shows a great understanding of audience and critics. Eastwood knows how to play the game. This understanding of the politics of filmmaking and his wonderful personality are (what I believe) the reason for his acclaim (aside from his one great movie Unforgiven where he rightfully deserves praise). Spout Post: Basquiat (1996, Julian Schnabel, USA) ½ http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2008/11/10/37165.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 11/10/2008 6:08:02 PM
Body: From a quick online inquiry into his artwork it seems that Julian Schnabel is not as much of a screw up as a painter as he is as a filmmaker. I have now seen two of his abysmal films, the first being The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (an utter abomination) that earned Julian Schnabel a best director nomination at the 2007 Academy Awards (of course the academy likes his pretentious dribble). The second miserable film of his I had the displeasure of watching is Basquiat, a biopic about contemporary (and possible friend) Jean-Michel Basquiat. I read on wikipedia that Basquiat had regular art showings with Julian Schnabel. This leads me to believe that Schnabel knew the man and could at least provide some insight into his art, his mind, his mannerisms, something, in his movie. Unfortunately, Schnabel is a terrible filmmaker and in this case, maybe a terrible observer of humanity. He portrays Basquiat as a hollow, lackluster shell of a human being. Actor Jeffrey Wright gives an empty performance marked only by his strained facial features and painful following-the-motions mannerisms of conflicted genius. Schnabel assumes Basquiat is a genius without ever giving the audience a reason to agree. The first we are told about Basquiat is that he likes to damage other people’s property with his not so impressive graffiti (but he can do this because he is such a genius). Then he goes into a restaurant and pours syrup onto the table and draws a picture of the waitress face. She is so charmed that she immediately gives him her number then jumps into bed with him. These are the first signs of an obnoxious indie movie. Then in a Wes Anderson dismay, Basquiat despondently walks around the city to the tunes of songs telling his dejected mood (some of which are good, like Bowie’s “A Small Plot of Land”). Toward the end of the movie, Basquiat walks around the city to three different songs, back to back. Finally as the songs find liberation, so does Basquiat. The movie ends with a pretentious story about a king who shares beauty with the world while trapped in a tower, just like Basquiat. After reading a short biography about Julian Schnabel it seems that Basquiat is as much of an autobiography as a biography. Schnabel, like Basquiat, had a quick rise to popularity seemingly from out of nowhere. (You can read this short biography at http://www.leninimports.com/julian_schnabel.html). Schnabel had a charismatic and eccentric personality (we could only wish that the character Basquiat have some charisma). But the most impressive thing about Schnabel is his paintings. And the most impressive thing about the movie are the paintings, all of which Schnabel created (“since rights to Basquiat's work were not granted to the filmmakers by the artist's estate” Allmovie.com). The paintings are what give the character Basquiat respect but this is ultimately a respect for Schnabel’s work. So isn’t this movie more of a celebration of Schnabel’s genius than Basquiat’s? Well, it’s a poor celebration at that. So much for stroking your own ego. This is a movie by an insider of the New York art scene in the 1980’s that doesn’t seem to have an idea about that world. Maybe Schnabel did too many drugs to know what was going on in the world around him. Despite the fact that this is an insiders view, the movie tells us nothing of interest. It is a sub-standard biopic because in Basquiat not even the acting is good and the plot is certainly not entertaining. The only thing that saves this movie from zero stars is David Bowie as Andy Warhol. Bowie does a convincing job and is as always entertaining to watch. Julain Schnabel should stick to his paintings. Only in those does he find some sort of artistry. http://www.moca-la.org/museum/pc_media_viewer.php?acsnum=85.82&dim=600px http://www.moca-la.org/museum/pc_media_viewer.php?acsnum=85.83&dim=600px
]]>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:08:02 GMTkristenkristen Blog11/10/2008 6:08:02 PM From a quick online inquiry into his artwork it seems that Julian Schnabel is not as much of a screw up as a painter as he is as a filmmaker. I have now seen two of his abysmal films, the first being The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (an utter abomination) that earned Julian Schnabel a best director nomination at the 2007 Academy Awards (of course the academy likes his pretentious dribble). The second miserable film of his I had the displeasure of watching is Basquiat, a biopic about contemporary (and possible friend) Jean-Michel Basquiat. I read on wikipedia that Basquiat had regular art showings with Julian Schnabel. This leads me to believe that Schnabel knew the man and could at least provide some insight into his art, his mind, his mannerisms, something, in his movie. Unfortunately, Schnabel is a terrible filmmaker and in this case, maybe a terrible observer of humanity. He portrays Basquiat as a hollow, lackluster shell of a human being. Actor Jeffrey Wright gives an empty performance marked only by his strained facial features and painful following-the-motions mannerisms of conflicted genius. Schnabel assumes Basquiat is a genius without ever giving the audience a reason to agree. The first we are told about Basquiat is that he likes to damage other people’s property with his not so impressive graffiti (but he can do this because he is such a genius). Then he goes into a restaurant and pours syrup onto the table and draws a picture of the waitress face. She is so charmed that she immediately gives him her number then jumps into bed with him. These are the first signs of an obnoxious indie movie. Then in a Wes Anderson dismay, Basquiat despondently walks around the city to the tunes of songs telling his dejected mood (some of which are good, like Bowie’s “A Small Plot of Land”). Toward the end of the movie, Basquiat walks around the city to three different songs, back to back. Finally as the songs find liberation, so does Basquiat. The movie ends with a pretentious story about a king who shares beauty with the world while trapped in a tower, just like Basquiat. After reading a short biography about Julian Schnabel it seems that Basquiat is as much of an autobiography as a biography. Schnabel, like Basquiat, had a quick rise to popularity seemingly from out of nowhere. (You can read this short biography at http://www.leninimports.com/julian_schnabel.html). Schnabel had a charismatic and eccentric personality (we could only wish that the character Basquiat have some charisma). But the most impressive thing about Schnabel is his paintings. And the most impressive thing about the movie are the paintings, all of which Schnabel created (“since rights to Basquiat's work were not granted to the filmmakers by the artist's estate” Allmovie.com). The paintings are what give the character Basquiat respect but this is ultimately a respect for Schnabel’s work. So isn’t this movie more of a celebration of Schnabel’s genius than Basquiat’s? Well, it’s a poor celebration at that. So much for stroking your own ego. This is a movie by an insider of the New York art scene in the 1980’s that doesn’t seem to have an idea about that world. Maybe Schnabel did too many drugs to know what was going on in the world around him. Despite the fact that this is an insiders view, the movie tells us nothing of interest. It is a sub-standard biopic because in Basquiat not even the acting is good and the plot is certainly not entertaining. The only thing that saves this movie from zero stars is David Bowie as Andy Warhol. Bowie does a convincing job and is as always entertaining to watch. Julain Schnabel should stick to his paintings. Only in those does he find some sort of artistry. http://www.moca-la.org/museum/pc_media_viewer.php?acsnum=85.82&dim=600px http://www.moca-la.org/museum/pc_media_viewer.php?acsnum=85.83&dim=600px Spout Post: 36 Fillette (1988, Catherina Breillat, France) *** http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2008/11/10/37164.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 11/10/2008 6:06:06 PM
Body: I grew up in a puritanical household so at fourteen, I had no concept of sexuality except as an evil that tempts women to defile their bodies. Sexuality has always been used by others to suppress women or used by women as liberation. I was plagued with guilt whenever an unwholesome sexual thought entered my fourteen-year-old head. I even believed that fantasizing about kissing a boy was damnable. This movie is about a girl who is much more aware of reality, society, and sexuality than I was at her age. She is somehow by the age of fourteen liberated, socially free, much more like my sister then myself. I followed all the rules. I trusted adults when they said that this or that was bad and that I shouldn’t do it. I never had stage of rebellion (as a teenager). Maybe I’m more of a rebel these days. I am going to marry a wonderful heathen who I now live unlawfully with. Then again, I had my own reasons for abstinence. I’m a romantic who wants an intimate bond with the love of my life. Yes, I want to be fully devoted to one person. And at the age of fourteen, I knew that I do not want to have children. These things kept my mind away from sex and showed an independence of my own. The protagonist of 36 Fillette, a fourteen-year-old Lili (Delphine Zentout) knows what I never did, her powers as a woman. She longs to be free even at her young age. She is feisty, manipulative, vulnerable, and innocent. Our coquette Lili entices middle-aged Maurice (Etienne Chicot) who clearly has had his fare share of women. He knows the tricks of the game. When Lili jumps out of his car and threatens to find a better time elsewhere he (mocking the situation) asks her “Did I not pay enough attention to you?” He lets her go her own way after asking her for a date later that night. Ignore her just a little and she’ll want him even more. She wants to have sex because she wants to be free of this first boundary to womanhood. But she asserts her independence and proves a challenge to get into bed. Maurice must play the full game. He has to listen to her, talk to her, buy her gifts, promise to see her even if it means driving all night from a far away business trip. He has to go through the motions to make this first time seem meaningful to her. She conquers him even as he conquers her. Lili cries in her bed after a long night with Maurice- a night where she almost willfully lets him rape her. She cries for confusion, loss of youth, and then mostly, her inability to have sex. She is a virgin who wants mostly to loose her virginity. Being so young, she is at risk of being condemned as a slut. Men don’t face the same condemnation. Lili’s inexperience in the bedroom eventually turns Maurice off. A woman finds her distraught in the hotel bed and tries to comfort her. The woman condemns Maurice but Lili is only upset at herself. She knows that Maurice did not take advantage of her. She tried to use him to find her own freedom and could not deliver. Lili calls the woman a bitch for her ignorance. Lili immediately seduces another young man to have sex with her. This time she looses her virginity. When the young man asks her how his performance was she replies “It’s never good the first time”. From this point on she can look forward to more pleasurable encounters. A coy smile at the end of the movie shows that she has conquered man and at least views herself as triumphant- not a trace of guilt to be found. The movie offers a fresh view of women’s sexuality. Of course fourteen is a little young, but Lili is fully aware of what she is doing and of the potential consequences of her actions (ex. Getting pregnant). Breillat at least gives Lili a voice and an admirable independence even though the subject matter is difficult. The movie does not advocate sex at a young age, but it does demand that women be free to use sex as they like, not as how men see fit. The movie allows women to think about their sexuality. This is a freedom I never knew.
]]>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:06:06 GMTkristenkristen Blog11/10/2008 6:06:06 PM I grew up in a puritanical household so at fourteen, I had no concept of sexuality except as an evil that tempts women to defile their bodies. Sexuality has always been used by others to suppress women or used by women as liberation. I was plagued with guilt whenever an unwholesome sexual thought entered my fourteen-year-old head. I even believed that fantasizing about kissing a boy was damnable. This movie is about a girl who is much more aware of reality, society, and sexuality than I was at her age. She is somehow by the age of fourteen liberated, socially free, much more like my sister then myself. I followed all the rules. I trusted adults when they said that this or that was bad and that I shouldn’t do it. I never had stage of rebellion (as a teenager). Maybe I’m more of a rebel these days. I am going to marry a wonderful heathen who I now live unlawfully with. Then again, I had my own reasons for abstinence. I’m a romantic who wants an intimate bond with the love of my life. Yes, I want to be fully devoted to one person. And at the age of fourteen, I knew that I do not want to have children. These things kept my mind away from sex and showed an independence of my own. The protagonist of 36 Fillette, a fourteen-year-old Lili (Delphine Zentout) knows what I never did, her powers as a woman. She longs to be free even at her young age. She is feisty, manipulative, vulnerable, and innocent. Our coquette Lili entices middle-aged Maurice (Etienne Chicot) who clearly has had his fare share of women. He knows the tricks of the game. When Lili jumps out of his car and threatens to find a better time elsewhere he (mocking the situation) asks her “Did I not pay enough attention to you?” He lets her go her own way after asking her for a date later that night. Ignore her just a little and she’ll want him even more. She wants to have sex because she wants to be free of this first boundary to womanhood. But she asserts her independence and proves a challenge to get into bed. Maurice must play the full game. He has to listen to her, talk to her, buy her gifts, promise to see her even if it means driving all night from a far away business trip. He has to go through the motions to make this first time seem meaningful to her. She conquers him even as he conquers her. Lili cries in her bed after a long night with Maurice- a night where she almost willfully lets him rape her. She cries for confusion, loss of youth, and then mostly, her inability to have sex. She is a virgin who wants mostly to loose her virginity. Being so young, she is at risk of being condemned as a slut. Men don’t face the same condemnation. Lili’s inexperience in the bedroom eventually turns Maurice off. A woman finds her distraught in the hotel bed and tries to comfort her. The woman condemns Maurice but Lili is only upset at herself. She knows that Maurice did not take advantage of her. She tried to use him to find her own freedom and could not deliver. Lili calls the woman a bitch for her ignorance. Lili immediately seduces another young man to have sex with her. This time she looses her virginity. When the young man asks her how his performance was she replies “It’s never good the first time”. From this point on she can look forward to more pleasurable encounters. A coy smile at the end of the movie shows that she has conquered man and at least views herself as triumphant- not a trace of guilt to be found. The movie offers a fresh view of women’s sexuality. Of course fourteen is a little young, but Lili is fully aware of what she is doing and of the potential consequences of her actions (ex. Getting pregnant). Breillat at least gives Lili a voice and an admirable independence even though the subject matter is difficult. The movie does not advocate sex at a young age, but it does demand that women be free to use sex as they like, not as how men see fit. The movie allows women to think about their sexuality. This is a freedom I never knew. Spout Post: Re:Great Cinematography! http://www.spout.com/groups/Best_Cinematography_In_Film/Re_Great_Cinematography/275/32815/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: kristen
Post To: Best Cinematography In Film
Post Date: 7/21/2008 9:51:57 AM
Body: I love cinematographer Sven Nykvist (who shot a lot of Bergman's films, Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice, some Woody Allen films etc.). His work is stunning so check him out if you have time.
]]>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:51:57 GMTkristenBest Cinematography In Film7/21/2008 9:51:57 AMI love cinematographer Sven Nykvist (who shot a lot of Bergman's films, Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice, some Woody Allen films etc.). His work is stunning so check him out if you have time. Spout Post: A Plastic Face the only Human Part http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2008/7/15/32605.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 7/15/2008 10:47:32 PM
Body: Get Smart (2008, Peter Segal, USA) * Anne Hathaway began her movie career as the ugly duckling in The Princess Diaries (2001). But as we know, the ugly duckling turns into the most beautiful swan. And Presto! A little bit of makeup and beauty coaching completes her transformation. A darling new woman appears on screen and even snags her prince charming. In 2006, Hathaway co-starred in The Devil Wears Prada playing an unfashionable assistant who transforms into savvy fashion queen. That same year she was named one of the 50 most beautiful people by People magazine. But in life did something strange happen to Anne Hathaway's innocent face? Did she feel the need to undergo a real transformation? Don't her lips seem to crinkle in the most unnatural way? There have been rumors of plastic surgery though none have been confirmed (to my knowledge). In her latest movie Get Smart, Hathaway disguised as Agent 99 discusses her (rumored) plastic surgery. In the self-proclaimed most honest part of the movie (Maxwell Smart played by Steve Carell coaxes the truth from Agent 99). Agent 99 confesses that she used to look like her mother and that she regrets having lost that unique feature. This true moment comes out in the most artificial way because the movie is completely devoid of human nature and incapable of inspired human interaction. In Get Smart, Agent 99 underwent a complete cosmetic makeover because her identity was compromised on a mission. And in the process, she took a few years off her face. Now the agent uses her face to complete her missions. She escapes death by kissing a terrorist (who plummets to earth). She seduces evil Russian Ladislas Krstic to gather necessary information. The actresses' looks are constantly referenced. At dinner, Agent 99 remarks on how it seems she can eat all the carbs she wants without worry because she never seems to get fat. Maxwell Smart creates the funniest part of the movie (or the only funny part) when he consciously mimics Agent 99's kiss tactic in order to throw the enemy off guard. Hathaway's career is marked by an obsession with beauty. This is not unique. Most women, especially actresses, feel the pressure to be beautiful. And fortunately for her, many people think she is beautiful (even if her most sexy role is Agent 99 who had complete facial surgery). As Agent 99, every character in Get Smart finds her attractive regardless of her artificial face. The characters accept her altered face the way the audience accepts her new look for this movie. The characters believe that the face she has is the real Agent 99. And that artificial face does belong to her. So what's all this talk of plastic surgery about? Hathaway denies having plastic surgery but in an interview with the Herold Sun she reveals that “When I was growing up, I wanted a nose job because I just didn’t think my nose was good. Now I feel like it’s [acting] what lets me change my face a lot". Isn't acting a little bit like plastic surgery? She changes her face to fit the demands of the audience. And that is the kind of surgery she is talking about through her character Agent 99. In the same interview, Hathaway exclaims, "I can be glamorous as Agent 99, but I’ve just made a movie with Jonathan Demme where I play a recovering drug addict and I look really rough". The face of an actress is always altered to the movie. So in a strange way, Get Smart touches on an issue directly related to Hathaway's life. Unfortunately, the connection is a little too vague and there are no other human parts in the movie. In many ways, Get Smart is like The Love Guru. The comparisons wrote themselves. These two miserable comedies opened on the same day, inviting the fight to the death competition. The Love Guru died though Get Smart is just as dead boring. The Love Guru offended many of the Roger Ebert type with its juvenile penis and defecation jokes. If this sounds promising, its a facade. Mike Meyers regurgitates his old persona's into a careless plot with mind rotting results. Get Smart suffers from the same insipid nature. In Get Smart, the audience was so starved for jokes that they laughed hysterically when Maxwell slams into a wall and exclaims, "missed it by that much!" (a joke we've all seen a mission times in the trailer). The plot of Get Smart is a rehash of action movies like Mission Impossible and the James Bond series, which could provide fertile ground for a comedy. Unfortunately, the movie includes the never-been-done-before parody of Entrapment where the characters seductively weave their bodies through a web of lasers (obviously a hilarious joke). Terrence Stamp plays an unoriginal villain (one bent on destroying the world). Of course the love story is weak, but at least Hathaway is more than a stupid sex toy existing only to sleep with like Jessica Alba (and she always plays this insult to womanhood). The jokes are so stale that both movies fail even to be escapist entertainment. Instead we realize how miserable we are for having nothing better to do than sit through these blunders of cinema. ~Kristen Gorlitz
]]>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:47:32 GMTkristenkristen Blog7/15/2008 10:47:32 PMGet Smart (2008, Peter Segal, USA) * Anne Hathaway began her movie career as the ugly duckling in The Princess Diaries (2001). But as we know, the ugly duckling turns into the most beautiful swan. And Presto! A little bit of makeup and beauty coaching completes her transformation. A darling new woman appears on screen and even snags her prince charming. In 2006, Hathaway co-starred in The Devil Wears Prada playing an unfashionable assistant who transforms into savvy fashion queen. That same year she was named one of the 50 most beautiful people by People magazine. But in life did something strange happen to Anne Hathaway's innocent face? Did she feel the need to undergo a real transformation? Don't her lips seem to crinkle in the most unnatural way? There have been rumors of plastic surgery though none have been confirmed (to my knowledge). In her latest movie Get Smart, Hathaway disguised as Agent 99 discusses her (rumored) plastic surgery. In the self-proclaimed most honest part of the movie (Maxwell Smart played by Steve Carell coaxes the truth from Agent 99). Agent 99 confesses that she used to look like her mother and that she regrets having lost that unique feature. This true moment comes out in the most artificial way because the movie is completely devoid of human nature and incapable of inspired human interaction. In Get Smart, Agent 99 underwent a complete cosmetic makeover because her identity was compromised on a mission. And in the process, she took a few years off her face. Now the agent uses her face to complete her missions. She escapes death by kissing a terrorist (who plummets to earth). She seduces evil Russian Ladislas Krstic to gather necessary information. The actresses' looks are constantly referenced. At dinner, Agent 99 remarks on how it seems she can eat all the carbs she wants without worry because she never seems to get fat. Maxwell Smart creates the funniest part of the movie (or the only funny part) when he consciously mimics Agent 99's kiss tactic in order to throw the enemy off guard. Hathaway's career is marked by an obsession with beauty. This is not unique. Most women, especially actresses, feel the pressure to be beautiful. And fortunately for her, many people think she is beautiful (even if her most sexy role is Agent 99 who had complete facial surgery). As Agent 99, every character in Get Smart finds her attractive regardless of her artificial face. The characters accept her altered face the way the audience accepts her new look for this movie. The characters believe that the face she has is the real Agent 99. And that artificial face does belong to her. So what's all this talk of plastic surgery about? Hathaway denies having plastic surgery but in an interview with the Herold Sun she reveals that “When I was growing up, I wanted a nose job because I just didn’t think my nose was good. Now I feel like it’s [acting] what lets me change my face a lot". Isn't acting a little bit like plastic surgery? She changes her face to fit the demands of the audience. And that is the kind of surgery she is talking about through her character Agent 99. In the same interview, Hathaway exclaims, "I can be glamorous as Agent 99, but I’ve just made a movie with Jonathan Demme where I play a recovering drug addict and I look really rough". The face of an actress is always altered to the movie. So in a strange way, Get Smart touches on an issue directly related to Hathaway's life. Unfortunately, the connection is a little too vague and there are no other human parts in the movie. In many ways, Get Smart is like The Love Guru. The comparisons wrote themselves. These two miserable comedies opened on the same day, inviting the fight to the death competition. The Love Guru died though Get Smart is just as dead boring. The Love Guru offended many of the Roger Ebert type with its juvenile penis and defecation jokes. If this sounds promising, its a facade. Mike Meyers regurgitates his old persona's into a careless plot with mind rotting results. Get Smart suffers from the same insipid nature. In Get Smart, the audience was so starved for jokes that they laughed hysterically when Maxwell slams into a wall and exclaims, "missed it by that much!" (a joke we've all seen a mission times in the trailer). The plot of Get Smart is a rehash of action movies like Mission Impossible and the James Bond series, which could provide fertile ground for a comedy. Unfortunately, the movie includes the never-been-done-before parody of Entrapment where the characters seductively weave their bodies through a web of lasers (obviously a hilarious joke). Terrence Stamp plays an unoriginal villain (one bent on destroying the world). Of course the love story is weak, but at least Hathaway is more than a stupid sex toy existing only to sleep with like Jessica Alba (and she always plays this insult to womanhood). The jokes are so stale that both movies fail even to be escapist entertainment. Instead we realize how miserable we are for having nothing better to do than sit through these blunders of cinema. ~Kristen Gorlitz Spout Post: "Are you two Gay?" "Nooo... YES!!!" http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2008/7/15/32602.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 7/15/2008 10:11:12 PM
Body: A Night at the Roxbury (1998, John Fortenberry, USA) ** This is the most unintentionally gay movie I have ever seen. I know that Doug (Chris Kattan) and Steve Butabi (Will Ferrell) are brothers in the movie but everyone knows that they aren't brothers in real life. I know, I know, movies require a suspension of disbelief. But the characters act less like brothers and more life lovers to remember that they are supposedly siblings. So you want examples of their gayness? They sleep in the same room on silk sheets in leopard print underwear. Steve wakes up Doug with a twisler and the eats it. They wear matching (flamboyant) outfits. They keep disco balls in their bedroom. They listen to the Bee Gee's while strutting down the street. They work out together in spandex outfits (and Steve allows the equally queer trainer to feel his pecks). Both Doug and Steve are virgins (because they are so in tune with each other that they cannot interact with women). Doug is extremely jealous when Emily tries to steal Steve away. Doug ruins Steve's wedding by holding a boom box high above his head (a Say Anything move- clearly an act of trying to get back together with your girlfriend (or boyfriend)) blasting Haddaway's "What is love?" (I might add that this is the only hilarious part of the movie). Steve is so in love with Doug that he leaves Emily at the alter. He's not ready to give up with "brother" (is it strange that they never fight?). All Steve and Doug like to do is dance like animals in-sync on the dance floor. I like that the movie is secretly gay but it should have been more aware of itself. The movie tries to be about two awkward guys who think they are cool enough to score with hot women. As a result, there are many scenes that unconvincingly try to show that these guys are into women. When Emily has sex with Steve, he does enjoy it until she gets passionate and then he looses interest (gay? yes). When two gold diggers seduce the brothers they keep telling their one-liners and try to figure out what the other one is doing. The girls have a hard time keeping these brothers apart. The movie becomes a mediocre success story of two ignorant club junkies. These not-being-able-to-get-a-woman jokes fall flat because these guys are so clearly gay. When will the wake up to that fact? The movie acknowledges that they are unaware of themselves but still insists that they are straight. Come on Hollywood; let these two out of the closet. The movie tries so hard to mask their gayness. But they're not fooling anyone. The real comedy lies locked away behind the mask of straightness. ~Kristen Gorlitz
]]>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:11:12 GMTkristenkristen Blog7/15/2008 10:11:12 PMA Night at the Roxbury (1998, John Fortenberry, USA) ** This is the most unintentionally gay movie I have ever seen. I know that Doug (Chris Kattan) and Steve Butabi (Will Ferrell) are brothers in the movie but everyone knows that they aren't brothers in real life. I know, I know, movies require a suspension of disbelief. But the characters act less like brothers and more life lovers to remember that they are supposedly siblings. So you want examples of their gayness? They sleep in the same room on silk sheets in leopard print underwear. Steve wakes up Doug with a twisler and the eats it. They wear matching (flamboyant) outfits. They keep disco balls in their bedroom. They listen to the Bee Gee's while strutting down the street. They work out together in spandex outfits (and Steve allows the equally queer trainer to feel his pecks). Both Doug and Steve are virgins (because they are so in tune with each other that they cannot interact with women). Doug is extremely jealous when Emily tries to steal Steve away. Doug ruins Steve's wedding by holding a boom box high above his head (a Say Anything move- clearly an act of trying to get back together with your girlfriend (or boyfriend)) blasting Haddaway's "What is love?" (I might add that this is the only hilarious part of the movie). Steve is so in love with Doug that he leaves Emily at the alter. He's not ready to give up with "brother" (is it strange that they never fight?). All Steve and Doug like to do is dance like animals in-sync on the dance floor. I like that the movie is secretly gay but it should have been more aware of itself. The movie tries to be about two awkward guys who think they are cool enough to score with hot women. As a result, there are many scenes that unconvincingly try to show that these guys are into women. When Emily has sex with Steve, he does enjoy it until she gets passionate and then he looses interest (gay? yes). When two gold diggers seduce the brothers they keep telling their one-liners and try to figure out what the other one is doing. The girls have a hard time keeping these brothers apart. The movie becomes a mediocre success story of two ignorant club junkies. These not-being-able-to-get-a-woman jokes fall flat because these guys are so clearly gay. When will the wake up to that fact? The movie acknowledges that they are unaware of themselves but still insists that they are straight. Come on Hollywood; let these two out of the closet. The movie tries so hard to mask their gayness. But they're not fooling anyone. The real comedy lies locked away behind the mask of straightness. ~Kristen Gorlitz Spout Post: Wall-E Destroys Mankind! http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2008/7/12/32474.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 7/12/2008 7:48:40 PM
Body: Wall-E (2008, Andrew Stanton, USA) **1/2 Be warned: humans grow fatter by the day by consuming fast food in a cup, the earth is in a state of decay, trash lines the cities, and robots- well robots are more cute and cuddly than ever (except…). EXCEPT the evil Hal robot (ok, so the computers name isn’t Hal, but it looks like Hal) bent on destroying man. It must want humans to get fat and it definitely does not want humans to return to earth. But why not? Earth is the universe’s biggest junkyard thanks to the humans’ carelessness (which presumably sent them up into space in the first place). But I guess evil Hal knows that complacent, fat humans are better than environmentally conscious ones. And good thing this Hal does not have a brain, because if it did it would know that letting fat humans who barely have a bone structure because of extreme decay (so much so that they can barely walk) and who think that pizzas grow on trees wouldn’t survive a day on the barren waste filled earth. Or maybe this evil Hal likes the human’s and wants them to survive, even if it means they live in The Brave New World. The mission? For humans to return to earth- for after 3,500 years the earth’s atmosphere is finally able to support life, again. But Hal cannot let them complete the mission. Thank goodness for the anthropomorphic robots Wall-E and Eve. Aren’t they adorable? They can get the plant to the center of the spaceship so that humans can return home. Too bad these intelligent, capable, and loveable robots do not realize that earth for these pathetic humans is a death trap. The humans on the ship may envision earth as a utopia but they are unaware of the death and struggle that awaits them on earth. Without their food in a cup (their soma) how will they live? Food does not grow in a matter of days unlike the cheerful ending implies. No one realizes the utter destruction that the darling robots Wall-E and Eve unknowingly inflict upon these bestial humans. I would say even the creators at Pixar did not think that their safe, family friendly entertainment would secretly be the end of mankind. But now they have been warned, even the cutest robots reap destruction. Is this evil what unknowingly happens when a movie tries to be the family friendly 2001: A Space Odyssey? Let’s face it, Wall-E opens in the full glory of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Using the avant-garde technique first discovered by 2001- visuals as a means of storytelling- Wall-E discards dialogue for the first 27 minutes. Standard narrative storytelling has never been as abstract as this curious little robot Wall-E, after all isn't it shocking to hear no dialogue and just sound effects! 2001 would be glad that its avant-garde techniques (such as no plot, a 30-minute sequence of rapid colors, a star child, and monoliths) would be realized in this non-threatening, easy to swallow story made for audiences of all ages. After all, Kubrick intended to make a heartwarming, human tale, its just that Hal destroyed the mission. And now the humans in Wall-E stand to meet a similar fate as the humans in 2001. Why did we ever trust the robots! ~Kristen Gorlitz
]]>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:48:40 GMTkristenkristen Blog7/12/2008 7:48:40 PMWall-E (2008, Andrew Stanton, USA) **1/2 Be warned: humans grow fatter by the day by consuming fast food in a cup, the earth is in a state of decay, trash lines the cities, and robots- well robots are more cute and cuddly than ever (except…). EXCEPT the evil Hal robot (ok, so the computers name isn’t Hal, but it looks like Hal) bent on destroying man. It must want humans to get fat and it definitely does not want humans to return to earth. But why not? Earth is the universe’s biggest junkyard thanks to the humans’ carelessness (which presumably sent them up into space in the first place). But I guess evil Hal knows that complacent, fat humans are better than environmentally conscious ones. And good thing this Hal does not have a brain, because if it did it would know that letting fat humans who barely have a bone structure because of extreme decay (so much so that they can barely walk) and who think that pizzas grow on trees wouldn’t survive a day on the barren waste filled earth. Or maybe this evil Hal likes the human’s and wants them to survive, even if it means they live in The Brave New World. The mission? For humans to return to earth- for after 3,500 years the earth’s atmosphere is finally able to support life, again. But Hal cannot let them complete the mission. Thank goodness for the anthropomorphic robots Wall-E and Eve. Aren’t they adorable? They can get the plant to the center of the spaceship so that humans can return home. Too bad these intelligent, capable, and loveable robots do not realize that earth for these pathetic humans is a death trap. The humans on the ship may envision earth as a utopia but they are unaware of the death and struggle that awaits them on earth. Without their food in a cup (their soma) how will they live? Food does not grow in a matter of days unlike the cheerful ending implies. No one realizes the utter destruction that the darling robots Wall-E and Eve unknowingly inflict upon these bestial humans. I would say even the creators at Pixar did not think that their safe, family friendly entertainment would secretly be the end of mankind. But now they have been warned, even the cutest robots reap destruction. Is this evil what unknowingly happens when a movie tries to be the family friendly 2001: A Space Odyssey? Let’s face it, Wall-E opens in the full glory of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Using the avant-garde technique first discovered by 2001- visuals as a means of storytelling- Wall-E discards dialogue for the first 27 minutes. Standard narrative storytelling has never been as abstract as this curious little robot Wall-E, after all isn't it shocking to hear no dialogue and just sound effects! 2001 would be glad that its avant-garde techniques (such as no plot, a 30-minute sequence of rapid colors, a star child, and monoliths) would be realized in this non-threatening, easy to swallow story made for audiences of all ages. After all, Kubrick intended to make a heartwarming, human tale, its just that Hal destroyed the mission. And now the humans in Wall-E stand to meet a similar fate as the humans in 2001. Why did we ever trust the robots! ~Kristen Gorlitz Spout Post: Re:Desert Island http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_Desert_Island/598/30674/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: kristen
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 6/6/2008 2:55:43 PM
Body: If I could only watch three movies for the rest of my life (or until rescued) I easily pick 1. Fellini's 8 1/2- in order to remember humanity 2. Demme's Stop Making Sense- It's a perfect concert of my favorite music. Nothing makes me happier. i could watch it every day of my life. Third, This is a tough one, but I ruled out Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice (with would remind of the ever present struggle on the island, a spritual battle, and the ultimate sacrifice) and so the number 3 is... 3. Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut because I need to remember what a real loving relationship looks like.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:55:43 GMTkristenMovie Games6/6/2008 2:55:43 PMIf I could only watch three movies for the rest of my life (or until rescued) I easily pick 1. Fellini's 8 1/2- in order to remember humanity 2. Demme's Stop Making Sense- It's a perfect concert of my favorite music. Nothing makes me happier. i could watch it every day of my life. Third, This is a tough one, but I ruled out Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice (with would remind of the ever present struggle on the island, a spritual battle, and the ultimate sacrifice) and so the number 3 is... 3. Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut because I need to remember what a real loving relationship looks like. Spout Post: Re:Exorcist or Psycho?? http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Exorcist_or_Psycho/222/30559/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: kristen
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 6/5/2008 2:27:07 PM
Body: The remake of Psycho or the original? Just kidding. I'd say for that definately Hitchcock's Psycho is better.
]]>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:27:07 GMTkristenHORROR MOVIES 1016/5/2008 2:27:07 PMThe remake of Psycho or the original? Just kidding. I'd say for that definately Hitchcock's Psycho is better. Spout Post: Re:What's new at the UICA http://www.spout.com/groups/GR_Movies_and_Happenings/Re_What_s_new_at_the_UICA/125/30556/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: kristen
Post To: GR Movies and Happenings
Post Date: 6/5/2008 2:01:45 PM
Body: Jacques Rivette has a new movie called THE DUCHESS OF LANGEAIS that open on July 11 at the UICA. Check out his masterpiece Celine and Julie go Boating to tie you over until the next film.
]]>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:01:45 GMTkristenGR Movies and Happenings6/5/2008 2:01:45 PMJacques Rivette has a new movie called THE DUCHESS OF LANGEAIS that open on July 11 at the UICA. Check out his masterpiece Celine and Julie go Boating to tie you over until the next film. Spout Post: Re:Foreign Gems http://www.spout.com/groups/Friends_of_Foreign_Flicks/Re_Foreign_Gems/591/30555/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: kristen
Post To: Friends of Foreign Flicks
Post Date: 6/5/2008 1:58:16 PM
Body: Check out Hiroshi Teshigahara's Woman in the Dunes. Celine and Julie go Boating (masterpiece by Jacques Rivette) Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice
]]>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:58:16 GMTkristenFriends of Foreign Flicks6/5/2008 1:58:16 PMCheck out Hiroshi Teshigahara's Woman in the Dunes. Celine and Julie go Boating (masterpiece by Jacques Rivette) Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice Spout Post: Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List http://www.spout.com/groups/Directors/Re_Total_Film_s_Greatest_Directors_Ever_List/406/30554/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: kristen
Post To: Directors
Post Date: 6/5/2008 1:54:17 PM
Body: Kudos to you for watching "Toby Dammit", one of Fellini's best. Anyway, if you can get your hands on it, watch Fellini's Casanova. My 10 Best Directors List- 1. Federico Fellini 2. Andrei Tarkovsky 3. Charlie Chaplin 4. Stanley Kubrick 5. Werner Herzog (best living director) 6. Woody Allen 7. Wong Kar-Wai 8. Jean Luc Godard 9. David Lynch 10. Maybe Jacques Rivette The fact that M. Night Shamalan even made the list is disgraceful. And though most people might not know of him, Hiroshi Teshigahara is a great filmmaker and should be included in the list.
]]>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:54:17 GMTkristenDirectors6/5/2008 1:54:17 PMKudos to you for watching "Toby Dammit", one of Fellini's best. Anyway, if you can get your hands on it, watch Fellini's Casanova. My 10 Best Directors List- 1. Federico Fellini 2. Andrei Tarkovsky 3. Charlie Chaplin 4. Stanley Kubrick 5. Werner Herzog (best living director) 6. Woody Allen 7. Wong Kar-Wai 8. Jean Luc Godard 9. David Lynch 10. Maybe Jacques Rivette The fact that M. Night Shamalan even made the list is disgraceful. And though most people might not know of him, Hiroshi Teshigahara is a great filmmaker and should be included in the list. Spout Member:The_MOW - Mickey Micklon http://www.spout.com/members/148616/default.aspx 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
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTThe_MOWMickey Micklon369Uberlister (>100)Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:50:30 GMTMember Spout Member:horror http://www.spout.com/members/144661/default.aspx Identity: horror
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 1/17/2009
Last login: 1/17/2009
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMThorror1Beginner (<10)Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:27:41 GMTMember Spout Member:butterknife http://www.spout.com/members/127080/default.aspx Identity: butterknife
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Blog posts: 1
Member since: 4/2/2008
Last login: 4/2/2008
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTbutterknife1Beginner (<10)Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:18:37 GMTMember Spout Member:rnt2630 http://www.spout.com/members/95208/default.aspx Identity: rnt2630
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/13/2007
Last login: 9/13/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTrnt26300Beginner (<10)Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:16:00 GMTMember Spout Member:dsalaski http://www.spout.com/members/94482/default.aspx Identity: dsalaski
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTdsalaski0Beginner (<10)Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:47:53 GMTMember Spout Member:jennkp http://www.spout.com/members/94443/default.aspx Identity: jennkp
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTjennkp0Beginner (<10)Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:45:31 GMTMember Spout Member:Don0262 http://www.spout.com/members/94195/default.aspx Identity: Don0262
Films listed: 2
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/9/2007
Last login: 9/9/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTDon02622Beginner (<10)Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:33:14 GMTMember Spout Member:martinluthar http://www.spout.com/members/93901/default.aspx Identity: martinluthar
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTmartinluthar0Beginner (<10)Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:58:58 GMTMember Spout Member:clwoolfe http://www.spout.com/members/93885/default.aspx Identity: clwoolfe
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTclwoolfe0Beginner (<10)Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:09:50 GMTMember Spout Member:XtreamDenny http://www.spout.com/members/93661/default.aspx Identity: XtreamDenny
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTXtreamDenny0Beginner (<10)Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:49:41 GMTMember Spout Member:bofo http://www.spout.com/members/93627/default.aspx Identity: bofo
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTbofo0Beginner (<10)Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:57:17 GMTMember Spout Member:seanjoneswrexham http://www.spout.com/members/93570/default.aspx Identity: seanjoneswrexham
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTseanjoneswrexham0Beginner (<10)Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:31:57 GMTMember Spout Member:nny921 http://www.spout.com/members/92277/default.aspx Identity: nny921
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 11/20/2008
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTnny9210Beginner (<10)Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:27:22 GMTMember Spout Member:mr_lol http://www.spout.com/members/92275/default.aspx Identity: mr_lol
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 9/3/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTmr_lol0Beginner (<10)Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:25:57 GMTMember Spout Member:fire1311 http://www.spout.com/members/91742/default.aspx Identity: fire1311
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/1/2007
Last login: 9/1/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTfire13110Beginner (<10)Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:48:24 GMTMember Spout Member:Argueta http://www.spout.com/members/91469/default.aspx Identity: Argueta
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 8/31/2007
Last login: 8/31/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTArgueta0Beginner (<10)Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:52:15 GMTMember Film:Funny Games http://www.spout.com/films/Funny_Games/288707/default.aspx 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
]]>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMTFunny Games2007Michael Haneke27Tag Target (>10)241483http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s288707.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Funny_Games/288707/default.aspxFilm Film:The Dark Knight http://www.spout.com/films/The_Dark_Knight/288704/default.aspx 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
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:13:34 GMTThe Dark Knight2008Christopher Nolan149Tag Target (>10)98156554http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s288704.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Dark_Knight/288704/default.aspxFilm Film:H2 http://www.spout.com/films/H2/397884/default.aspx Title: H2
Year: 2009
Director: Rob Zombie
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 1
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:45:58 GMTH22009Rob Zombie111http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s397884.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/H2/397884/default.aspxFilm Film:Eleanor: First Lady of the World http://www.spout.com/films/Eleanor_First_Lady_of_the_World/10331/default.aspx Title: Eleanor: First Lady of the World
Year: 1982
Director: John Erman
Number of blog posts: 1
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:47:51 GMTEleanor: First Lady of the World1982John Erman1http://www.spout.com/images/no_image.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Eleanor_First_Lady_of_the_World/10331/default.aspxFilm Film:Black Test Car http://www.spout.com/films/Black_Test_Car/328181/default.aspx Title: Black Test Car
Year: 1962
Number of Lists: 2
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:01:54 GMTBlack Test Car196224http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u37747stl5z.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Black_Test_Car/328181/default.aspxFilm Film:Dumpster Baby http://www.spout.com/films/Dumpster_Baby/273527/default.aspx Title: Dumpster Baby
Director: James Bickert
Number of Lists: 1
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:53:10 GMTDumpster BabyJames Bickert1http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t76920jjhow.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Dumpster_Baby/273527/default.aspxFilm Film:Rick http://www.spout.com/films/Rick/235722/default.aspx Title: Rick
Year: 2002
Director: Curtiss Clayton
Times Tagged: 1
Number of Lists: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:32:48 GMTRick2002Curtiss Clayton1Slightly Tagged (1-5)12http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t51978e8qnf.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Rick/235722/default.aspxFilm Film:Speed Racer http://www.spout.com/films/Speed_Racer/297765/default.aspx 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
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:21:45 GMTSpeed Racer2008Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski90Tag Target (>10)1641163http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s297765.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Speed_Racer/297765/default.aspxFilm Film:Speed Racer [Anime Series] http://www.spout.com/films/Speed_Racer_Anime_Series/32330/default.aspx Title: Speed Racer [Anime Series]
Year: 1967
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:20:43 GMTSpeed Racer [Anime Series]19671113http://www.spout.com/images/no_image.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Speed_Racer_Anime_Series/32330/default.aspxFilm Film:The Raven http://www.spout.com/films/The_Raven/317289/default.aspx Title: The Raven
Year: 2007
Director: Ulli Lommel
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 1
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:13:53 GMTThe Raven2007Ulli Lommel21http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u08974fjkcg.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Raven/317289/default.aspxFilm Film:The Ballad of the Sad Cafe http://www.spout.com/films/The_Ballad_of_the_Sad_Cafe/2239/default.aspx Title: The Ballad of the Sad Cafe
Year: 1991
Director: Simon Callow
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:25:24 GMTThe Ballad of the Sad Cafe1991Simon Callow22http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t54643em1b1.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Ballad_of_the_Sad_Cafe/2239/default.aspxFilm Film:New York, New York http://www.spout.com/films/New_York_New_York/24524/default.aspx 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
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:22:40 GMTNew York, New York1977Martin Scorsese23Tag Target (>10)125722http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u47828gvtpe.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/New_York_New_York/24524/default.aspxFilm Film:St. Nick http://www.spout.com/films/St_Nick/402616/default.aspx Title: St. Nick
Year: 2009
Director: David Lowery
Times Tagged: 3
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 5
SpoutRating: 5
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:01:06 GMTSt. Nick2009David Lowery3Slightly Tagged (1-5)255http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s402616.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/St_Nick/402616/default.aspxFilm Film:We Are the Strange http://www.spout.com/films/We_Are_the_Strange/314016/default.aspx Title: We Are the Strange
Year: 2007
Director: M dot Strange
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:25:52 GMTWe Are the Strange2007M dot Strange334http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s314016.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/We_Are_the_Strange/314016/default.aspxFilm Film:The Sadist http://www.spout.com/films/The_Sadist/29811/default.aspx Title: The Sadist
Year: 1963
Director: James Landis
Number of Lists: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:08:29 GMTThe Sadist1963James Landis43http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t27402rl1sl.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Sadist/29811/default.aspxFilm Film:The Alligator People http://www.spout.com/films/The_Alligator_People/50507/default.aspx Title: The Alligator People
Year: 1959
Director: Roy Del Ruth
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:04:19 GMTThe Alligator People1959Roy Del Ruth212http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t46806zj8ua.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Alligator_People/50507/default.aspxFilm