list JimBell's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ JimBell's Recent Activity - Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg JimBell'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: Goodbye Solo review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/11/15/44373.aspxPost By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 11/15/2009 11:44:45 PM
Body: Why are neo-realist films (neo-neo-realist?) such as Goodbye Solo (2008) so difficult to understand? Goodbye Solo should be the rather straight-forward story of a buoyant, good-hearted cabbie, Solo (Suleymane Sy Savane), who tries to save a ride, William (Red West), from committing suicide. But trying to figure out what the film is saying is difficult. Why? For one thing, the film makers put a tremendous effort into making things looks real, and maybe they don’t put as much effort into making things meaningful. This suggestion is based on the assumption that you cannot do everything or else you get cognitive overload. In Goodbye Solo, the city of Winston-Salem is so vividly portrayed that it almost becomes a character. Long shots of deserted, down-at-heel streets create a slightly menacing atmosphere, and shots of humdrum motels foster an empty feeling, a sense of separation. The acting is equally realistic, with the actors showing the natural complexity of people. More specifically, Solo is helpful to the point of being aggressive. And he is always upbeat except when he crashes in moments of serious defeat and reflection. On the other hand, William is realistically extremely stubborn, resentful of someone barging into his life, and only subtlely softens under the pressure of friendship. As you’d expect, the plot is also a lot like real life, taking turns you don’t expect if you have the typical Hollywood movie template as your viewing framework. When the movie suddenly ends, I’m left thinking, “Well, that was a fascinating slice of life, but like a slice out my life, what does it mean?” This question contains within it the seeds of a second reason these neo-realist films are difficult to understand: They strive to be like life, which is, in my experience, perplexing. Do Director or Scriptwriter comes up to me and says, “Hey, Jim, all that crap you just went through means that . . . “ So a lot of the work is left up to the viewer. As a reviewer of fims for friends and associates, I’m wary of putting too much of myself into movies. I shudder at idiosyncratic interpretations. As someone said about Freudian interpretations of movies and their ubiquitous phallic symbols, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” Goodbye Solo says, on the face of it, that compassion, generosity, and friendship sometimes does nothing for the person you’re trying to help. One spiritually-oriented reviewer said the movie shows “the difficulty of compassion,” and that is putting it mildly. In this case, it is more like futility. Do I need to support this more? After two weeks of wonderful friendship from Solo, William, as planned, throws himself off a cliff. A third reason Goodbye Solo is difficult to understand is that the “in your face” meaning is not at all what the film says. A hint of this comes from the last lingering image of Solo and his stepdaughter standing in non-realistic triumphant fashion on Blowing Rock cliff. Another hint comes when we realize that, despite the title and the main plot line, the film is not just about Solo and William. It is also about Solo and his family and about Solo and his career. Solo’s family is a mess. His Mexican-American wife has booted him out largely because he is studying to become a flight attendant and, if he succeeds, will seldom be home. Yet Solo loves his step-daughter and has a great relationship with her. Solo’s career is also a mess. He does not particularly like driving a cab, but as a relatively new immigrant, it is the work he could find. He studies hard for his airline attendant’s examination and seems extremely well qualified, but he fails. Each of these three plot lines has a turning point. With William, it is when Solo decides to accept William’s wishes, live by their original agreement, and drive William to his jumping place. A tough defeat but one to accept. With his family, the turning point is when Solo asks his daughter to accompany him on the trip to Blowing Rock jump. Solo says he’s not strong enough to do it by himself. Looking on the positive side regarding his family lends strength. On the drive home from the jump, solo’s daughter asks if he’ll give the flight attendant’s exam another shot, and, still smarting from the failure, he says yes. Looking on the positive side regarding his career affirms Solo’s commitment to life. Now we see the theme emerging, but it hasn’t been easy. Creating a neo-realist movie that is difficult to understand has its pluses and minuses. Viewers read the Rorschach ink blots any way they want; for example, “Goodbye Solo shows the unbridgeable gap between black and white Americans.”. Some viewers stop watching is exasperation as they “watch paint dry.” Some viewers just accept not getting it and move on the next, more predictable movie. Others struggle and throw up their hands in despair. To friends, some who enjoyed the film give reviews where they have to hide in poetry and vagueries that they loved the movie but cannot explain what it was about. I’m guessing the film makers put up with all of these drawbacks for the big Ah-ha! You ponder, struggle, maybe discuss the film or read reviews, and then suddenly—Ah ha!—you know why they made the film. Hard-won insight is much more powerful and valuable than a telegraphed message.
]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:44:45 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog11/15/2009 11:44:45 PMWhy are neo-realist films (neo-neo-realist?) such as Goodbye Solo (2008) so difficult to understand? Goodbye Solo should be the rather straight-forward story of a buoyant, good-hearted cabbie, Solo (Suleymane Sy Savane), who tries to save a ride, William (Red West), from committing suicide. But trying to figure out what the film is saying is difficult. Why? For one thing, the film makers put a tremendous effort into making things looks real, and maybe they don’t put as much effort into making things meaningful. This suggestion is based on the assumption that you cannot do everything or else you get cognitive overload. In Goodbye Solo, the city of Winston-Salem is so vividly portrayed that it almost becomes a character. Long shots of deserted, down-at-heel streets create a slightly menacing atmosphere, and shots of humdrum motels foster an empty feeling, a sense of separation. The acting is equally realistic, with the actors showing the natural complexity of people. More specifically, Solo is helpful to the point of being aggressive. And he is always upbeat except when he crashes in moments of serious defeat and reflection. On the other hand, William is realistically extremely stubborn, resentful of someone barging into his life, and only subtlely softens under the pressure of friendship. As you’d expect, the plot is also a lot like real life, taking turns you don’t expect if you have the typical Hollywood movie template as your viewing framework. When the movie suddenly ends, I’m left thinking, “Well, that was a fascinating slice of life, but like a slice out my life, what does it mean?” This question contains within it the seeds of a second reason these neo-realist films are difficult to understand: They strive to be like life, which is, in my experience, perplexing. Do Director or Scriptwriter comes up to me and says, “Hey, Jim, all that crap you just went through means that . . . “ So a lot of the work is left up to the viewer. As a reviewer of fims for friends and associates, I’m wary of putting too much of myself into movies. I shudder at idiosyncratic interpretations. As someone said about Freudian interpretations of movies and their ubiquitous phallic symbols, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” Goodbye Solo says, on the face of it, that compassion, generosity, and friendship sometimes does nothing for the person you’re trying to help. One spiritually-oriented reviewer said the movie shows “the difficulty of compassion,” and that is putting it mildly. In this case, it is more like futility. Do I need to support this more? After two weeks of wonderful friendship from Solo, William, as planned, throws himself off a cliff. A third reason Goodbye Solo is difficult to understand is that the “in your face” meaning is not at all what the film says. A hint of this comes from the last lingering image of Solo and his stepdaughter standing in non-realistic triumphant fashion on Blowing Rock cliff. Another hint comes when we realize that, despite the title and the main plot line, the film is not just about Solo and William. It is also about Solo and his family and about Solo and his career. Solo’s family is a mess. His Mexican-American wife has booted him out largely because he is studying to become a flight attendant and, if he succeeds, will seldom be home. Yet Solo loves his step-daughter and has a great relationship with her. Solo’s career is also a mess. He does not particularly like driving a cab, but as a relatively new immigrant, it is the work he could find. He studies hard for his airline attendant’s examination and seems extremely well qualified, but he fails. Each of these three plot lines has a turning point. With William, it is when Solo decides to accept William’s wishes, live by their original agreement, and drive William to his jumping place. A tough defeat but one to accept. With his family, the turning point is when Solo asks his daughter to accompany him on the trip to Blowing Rock jump. Solo says he’s not strong enough to do it by himself. Looking on the positive side regarding his family lends strength. On the drive home from the jump, solo’s daughter asks if he’ll give the flight attendant’s exam another shot, and, still smarting from the failure, he says yes. Looking on the positive side regarding his career affirms Solo’s commitment to life. Now we see the theme emerging, but it hasn’t been easy. Creating a neo-realist movie that is difficult to understand has its pluses and minuses. Viewers read the Rorschach ink blots any way they want; for example, “Goodbye Solo shows the unbridgeable gap between black and white Americans.”. Some viewers stop watching is exasperation as they “watch paint dry.” Some viewers just accept not getting it and move on the next, more predictable movie. Others struggle and throw up their hands in despair. To friends, some who enjoyed the film give reviews where they have to hide in poetry and vagueries that they loved the movie but cannot explain what it was about. I’m guessing the film makers put up with all of these drawbacks for the big Ah-ha! You ponder, struggle, maybe discuss the film or read reviews, and then suddenly—Ah ha!—you know why they made the film. Hard-won insight is much more powerful and valuable than a telegraphed message. Spout Post: Outsourced review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/11/10/44342.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 11/10/2009 2:56:23 PM
Body: Outsourced (2006) takes the very serious topic of outsourcing, treats it with a light touch, and presents an alternative view of it. Todd (Josh Hamilton) sees his entire phone-order department outsourced to India, and he saves his bacon by reluctantly agreeing to go to India to train his replacement and the Indian workers who are replacing the operators in Seattle. Although things do not go well at first, quiet comedy abounds. Refreshingly, Outsourced does not try for laughs by making the characters quirky. In fact, Todd is relentlessly ordinary. This leads to one of the most deft touches of this intercultural movie: When Todd runs into a culture he doesn’t understand, and when nearly everything is going wrong, he does not become louder and more ridiculous, he becomes quieter. Although this could lead to a long dull stretch in the movie, it allows the Indian culture to come to the fore. The comedy arises not from individual quirkiness but from the environment. When Todd gives an insistent neighbourhood boy a rupee, the boy gives him a hug—and steals his cell phone. He later returns it. Todd allows him to choose a pencil for art work, and the kid grabs the whole bunch and runs off. Todd has a lot to learn. But the movie does not try to teach us about India. Rather it shows India in action and lets us learn what we are ready for. It is a great compliment to a movie when you like it enough to start searching for small things it could have done better. Outsourced occasionally feels a little bit amateurish or low budget. But for every tiny amateurish shot there are many wonderful touches. For example, when Todd and his new Assistant Manager, Asha (Ayesha Dharker), are forced to check into a hotel, the only room available, the manager claims, is the Kamasutra Room—and the camera shows a close up of the name and rate on the board. This is clunky. In support of this shot, you could argue that it was taken from Todd’s subjective point of view, but all other shots in the movie were from an exterior point of view, showing Todd finding his way in a strange land. But after this clunker shot comes, a minute later, a first tentative kiss, with no dramatic close-up, no atmospheric panorama, but rather a standard two-head shot which allows us to see, after the kiss, Todd’s almost imperceptible nod. Excellent. Another example. When filming the change-of-seasons festival where the Indians throw coloured dyes at each other, there is an impressionistic shot of a mob of people at the bottom of the screen and an impenetrable cloud of red dust at the top. This shot does not fit with the rest of the cinematography which is very matter of fact. It is also probably not accurate, because when you mix red dust, blue dust, and some other colours, you get an unphotogenic grey. This shot is out of place because the movie has been emphasizing an almost-documentary style. Yet, in the same sequence, Todd drops his inhibitions and, covered with red and blue pigment, he grabs some bombs and fires back. But here’s the little detail I love—he throws hard! He was a pitcher in college, and he hits both guys square on the head. This detail lets observant viewers know that while Todd has “stopped resisting” Indian society, he’s not completely happy about it and he’s not going to give up on his own culture. This fish-out-of-water comedy has two serious, underlying issues. In spite of vast differences between cultures, genuine human contact is possible. People can connect and care for each other across considerable divides. This message is refreshing in light of the many Hollywood movies which posit the opposite. The other issue is outsourcing, and here I don’t think the film plays fair with the issue. It tries to get us to see that there are more important things in life than your job, for example, your parents and getting married. However, the film stacks the deck. All the laid-off Indian workers have learned so much English and so many skills that they can all get jobs elsewhere. Only the laid-off manager will have great difficulty, and Todd steps in and saves the day. But stacking the deck in the argument glosses over the problem of profit above all else, the problem of multinational corporations that have no concern for the community, and the problem that today in the USA there are about 16,000,000 able-bodied people unable to find work. I really enjoyed Outsourced as far as it went. I can see why it picked up audience awards and best picture awards at smaller festivals—Seattle, Palm Springs, San Jose, Bend, and Tipton, Iowa. We empathize with Todd and root for him to make the best of a tough situation. He and Asha have excellent, natural chemistry, and we hope against hope that their romance will flourish. And it s such a treat to watch an upbeat movie.
]]>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:56:23 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog11/10/2009 2:56:23 PMOutsourced (2006) takes the very serious topic of outsourcing, treats it with a light touch, and presents an alternative view of it. Todd (Josh Hamilton) sees his entire phone-order department outsourced to India, and he saves his bacon by reluctantly agreeing to go to India to train his replacement and the Indian workers who are replacing the operators in Seattle. Although things do not go well at first, quiet comedy abounds. Refreshingly, Outsourced does not try for laughs by making the characters quirky. In fact, Todd is relentlessly ordinary. This leads to one of the most deft touches of this intercultural movie: When Todd runs into a culture he doesn’t understand, and when nearly everything is going wrong, he does not become louder and more ridiculous, he becomes quieter. Although this could lead to a long dull stretch in the movie, it allows the Indian culture to come to the fore. The comedy arises not from individual quirkiness but from the environment. When Todd gives an insistent neighbourhood boy a rupee, the boy gives him a hug—and steals his cell phone. He later returns it. Todd allows him to choose a pencil for art work, and the kid grabs the whole bunch and runs off. Todd has a lot to learn. But the movie does not try to teach us about India. Rather it shows India in action and lets us learn what we are ready for. It is a great compliment to a movie when you like it enough to start searching for small things it could have done better. Outsourced occasionally feels a little bit amateurish or low budget. But for every tiny amateurish shot there are many wonderful touches. For example, when Todd and his new Assistant Manager, Asha (Ayesha Dharker), are forced to check into a hotel, the only room available, the manager claims, is the Kamasutra Room—and the camera shows a close up of the name and rate on the board. This is clunky. In support of this shot, you could argue that it was taken from Todd’s subjective point of view, but all other shots in the movie were from an exterior point of view, showing Todd finding his way in a strange land. But after this clunker shot comes, a minute later, a first tentative kiss, with no dramatic close-up, no atmospheric panorama, but rather a standard two-head shot which allows us to see, after the kiss, Todd’s almost imperceptible nod. Excellent. Another example. When filming the change-of-seasons festival where the Indians throw coloured dyes at each other, there is an impressionistic shot of a mob of people at the bottom of the screen and an impenetrable cloud of red dust at the top. This shot does not fit with the rest of the cinematography which is very matter of fact. It is also probably not accurate, because when you mix red dust, blue dust, and some other colours, you get an unphotogenic grey. This shot is out of place because the movie has been emphasizing an almost-documentary style. Yet, in the same sequence, Todd drops his inhibitions and, covered with red and blue pigment, he grabs some bombs and fires back. But here’s the little detail I love—he throws hard! He was a pitcher in college, and he hits both guys square on the head. This detail lets observant viewers know that while Todd has “stopped resisting” Indian society, he’s not completely happy about it and he’s not going to give up on his own culture. This fish-out-of-water comedy has two serious, underlying issues. In spite of vast differences between cultures, genuine human contact is possible. People can connect and care for each other across considerable divides. This message is refreshing in light of the many Hollywood movies which posit the opposite. The other issue is outsourcing, and here I don’t think the film plays fair with the issue. It tries to get us to see that there are more important things in life than your job, for example, your parents and getting married. However, the film stacks the deck. All the laid-off Indian workers have learned so much English and so many skills that they can all get jobs elsewhere. Only the laid-off manager will have great difficulty, and Todd steps in and saves the day. But stacking the deck in the argument glosses over the problem of profit above all else, the problem of multinational corporations that have no concern for the community, and the problem that today in the USA there are about 16,000,000 able-bodied people unable to find work. I really enjoyed Outsourced as far as it went. I can see why it picked up audience awards and best picture awards at smaller festivals—Seattle, Palm Springs, San Jose, Bend, and Tipton, Iowa. We empathize with Todd and root for him to make the best of a tough situation. He and Asha have excellent, natural chemistry, and we hope against hope that their romance will flourish. And it s such a treat to watch an upbeat movie. Spout Post: Cheri review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/11/10/44332.aspxPost By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 11/10/2009 2:06:25 AM
Body: Cheri (2009) is poorly made movie telling in a remote and detached manner the story of the love affair between a middle-aged prostitute and a spoiled young lover. We do not care much about Lea (Michelle Pfeiffer), although she seems a cut above the other courtesans. Cheri (Rupert Friend) is half her age: she is his unofficial godmother. He is a spoiled brat and womanizer, selfish and beautiful and quite immature. Now that we have characters we don’t like or care mush about, we are further distanced from their heartbreak by prominent and superficial music which contradicts the emotions we should be feeling. Having a staccato, bouncing score drown out a lover’s cries of anguish may epitomize the superficiality of the Belle Époque around 1900 in France, but it also distances the viewer. If that was not enough, we have the classic method of keeping viewers at arm’s length, the voice-over narration. The movie even ends with this narration, and I would be greatly surprised if you felt a twinge of sorrow for the tragedy it tells. Your consolation can be that the movie looks great—lush settings, great costumes, and Michelle Pfeiffer and Rupert Friend looking their best.
]]>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:06:25 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog11/10/2009 2:06:25 AMCheri (2009) is poorly made movie telling in a remote and detached manner the story of the love affair between a middle-aged prostitute and a spoiled young lover. We do not care much about Lea (Michelle Pfeiffer), although she seems a cut above the other courtesans. Cheri (Rupert Friend) is half her age: she is his unofficial godmother. He is a spoiled brat and womanizer, selfish and beautiful and quite immature. Now that we have characters we don’t like or care mush about, we are further distanced from their heartbreak by prominent and superficial music which contradicts the emotions we should be feeling. Having a staccato, bouncing score drown out a lover’s cries of anguish may epitomize the superficiality of the Belle Époque around 1900 in France, but it also distances the viewer. If that was not enough, we have the classic method of keeping viewers at arm’s length, the voice-over narration. The movie even ends with this narration, and I would be greatly surprised if you felt a twinge of sorrow for the tragedy it tells. Your consolation can be that the movie looks great—lush settings, great costumes, and Michelle Pfeiffer and Rupert Friend looking their best. Spout Post: The Brothers Bloom review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/11/10/44330.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 11/10/2009 1:04:30 AM
Body: Whether you like The Brothers Bloom (2008) will largely depend on your sense of humour and your tolerance for being fooled. Film maker Rian Johnson assumes you are “full of beans” like he is, and that you’ll follow the twists and turns of the caper with interest. It worked for me, but a sense of humour and a tolerance for ambiguity are highly individual. I liked the sly sense of humour. For example, when the con artists Bloom (Adrian Brody) and his brother Stephen (Mark Raffelo) select a lonely American heiress as their last target, they get Penelope (Rachael Weicz) who “collects hobbies”—we see a montage of her playing a variety of musical instruments, spinning discs, leaping into the air for karate kicks, and so on, ending with a piece of origami that looks a bit sad. The karate and the fancy paper appear later in the movie, which to my mind makes the montage of hobbies not gratuitous but which to some people seems merely smug. There is an intelligent “conceit” or extended metaphor that runs throughout the film: writing a life. Stephen plans his masterful cons like a Russian writer planning a sprawling novel, but Bloom is getting tired of always playing a part and wants to live an unwritten life. This raises the question of whether you can lead an unwritten life. The film does not explore this deeply because it is a fast-paced caper, but it provides a serious idea to anchor the shenanigans. It also sets up Penelope to reinterpret the metaphor in the climactic scene—what matters is who does the writing. If Bloom no longer has his brother writing roles for him, he can try to write his own life, the best story he can create. I thought the handling of the metaphor was deft, but others might see it as too smart for its own good. The actors were so good I could relax and trust they’d pull off any scene, funny or serious or ambiguous. I enjoyed a movie that assumed I was smart enough to remember a sentence about blood made early in the movie to interpret a key scene late in the film. The only noteworthy weakness is thatm try as I might, I cannot figure out Stephen’s motivation for his behaviour in the climax of the movie. I can guess, but the film does not give us much to go on. Still I found the entire movie a fun and entertaining romp.
]]>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:04:30 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog11/10/2009 1:04:30 AMWhether you like The Brothers Bloom (2008) will largely depend on your sense of humour and your tolerance for being fooled. Film maker Rian Johnson assumes you are “full of beans” like he is, and that you’ll follow the twists and turns of the caper with interest. It worked for me, but a sense of humour and a tolerance for ambiguity are highly individual. I liked the sly sense of humour. For example, when the con artists Bloom (Adrian Brody) and his brother Stephen (Mark Raffelo) select a lonely American heiress as their last target, they get Penelope (Rachael Weicz) who “collects hobbies”—we see a montage of her playing a variety of musical instruments, spinning discs, leaping into the air for karate kicks, and so on, ending with a piece of origami that looks a bit sad. The karate and the fancy paper appear later in the movie, which to my mind makes the montage of hobbies not gratuitous but which to some people seems merely smug. There is an intelligent “conceit” or extended metaphor that runs throughout the film: writing a life. Stephen plans his masterful cons like a Russian writer planning a sprawling novel, but Bloom is getting tired of always playing a part and wants to live an unwritten life. This raises the question of whether you can lead an unwritten life. The film does not explore this deeply because it is a fast-paced caper, but it provides a serious idea to anchor the shenanigans. It also sets up Penelope to reinterpret the metaphor in the climactic scene—what matters is who does the writing. If Bloom no longer has his brother writing roles for him, he can try to write his own life, the best story he can create. I thought the handling of the metaphor was deft, but others might see it as too smart for its own good. The actors were so good I could relax and trust they’d pull off any scene, funny or serious or ambiguous. I enjoyed a movie that assumed I was smart enough to remember a sentence about blood made early in the movie to interpret a key scene late in the film. The only noteworthy weakness is thatm try as I might, I cannot figure out Stephen’s motivation for his behaviour in the climax of the movie. I can guess, but the film does not give us much to go on. Still I found the entire movie a fun and entertaining romp. Spout Post: Easy Virture review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/10/1/44094.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 10/1/2009 10:39:24 PM
Body: Easy Virtue (2008) got a difficult reception, but the movie almost works. You’d think it would work. It’s a breath of fresh air—a Noel Coward piece of wit and satire is a pleasant change from grunting super creatures. It has a good director—Stephan Elliot’s The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994) was a wonderful piece of Australiana. It has excellent actors—Kristin Scott Thomas, Colin Firth, and others. The English country estate is gorgeous and the cinematography does it justice. So why didn’t the movie work? This frothy movie doesn’t get good until it gets serious. The first half of the movie is all giddiness and fluff. Although some viewers might find this tolerable or even amusing, I found it tiresome and then inconsequential, so I was set to not watch the second half. Okay, so the rich English aristocrat brings home a sexy American divorcee and the snotty family doesn’t like her much. But then suddenly the mother yells at her immature son saying that he is blind, oblivious, a disappointment: He should be running the estate and know that it is bankrupt. This revelation is followed shortly by the father explaining to the inquisitive American that he is not a happy camper because he led the men of his village into WWI and brought none of them home alive. Now the comedy of manners has some bite. If the serious element had come earlier, we would have laughed more knowing the depths the social wit subtly manifested. Just when you’re liking the movie, the ending sort of flops. There’s a preachy, old-fashioned, Agatha Christie-style wrap up and analysis which is out of place and should have been rewritten and reshot. And then in the final scene—I won’t give away the somewhat surprise ending—the ambiguity is entirely unproductive. So struggling through the overly loud music, and the mumbled upper-class accents was, in the end, not worth it, but a few judicious changes would have made Easy Virtue a substantial delight.
]]>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:39:24 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog10/1/2009 10:39:24 PMEasy Virtue (2008) got a difficult reception, but the movie almost works. You’d think it would work. It’s a breath of fresh air—a Noel Coward piece of wit and satire is a pleasant change from grunting super creatures. It has a good director—Stephan Elliot’s The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994) was a wonderful piece of Australiana. It has excellent actors—Kristin Scott Thomas, Colin Firth, and others. The English country estate is gorgeous and the cinematography does it justice. So why didn’t the movie work? This frothy movie doesn’t get good until it gets serious. The first half of the movie is all giddiness and fluff. Although some viewers might find this tolerable or even amusing, I found it tiresome and then inconsequential, so I was set to not watch the second half. Okay, so the rich English aristocrat brings home a sexy American divorcee and the snotty family doesn’t like her much. But then suddenly the mother yells at her immature son saying that he is blind, oblivious, a disappointment: He should be running the estate and know that it is bankrupt. This revelation is followed shortly by the father explaining to the inquisitive American that he is not a happy camper because he led the men of his village into WWI and brought none of them home alive. Now the comedy of manners has some bite. If the serious element had come earlier, we would have laughed more knowing the depths the social wit subtly manifested. Just when you’re liking the movie, the ending sort of flops. There’s a preachy, old-fashioned, Agatha Christie-style wrap up and analysis which is out of place and should have been rewritten and reshot. And then in the final scene—I won’t give away the somewhat surprise ending—the ambiguity is entirely unproductive. So struggling through the overly loud music, and the mumbled upper-class accents was, in the end, not worth it, but a few judicious changes would have made Easy Virtue a substantial delight. Spout Post: Duplicity review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/10/1/44093.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 10/1/2009 10:33:47 PM
Body: Duplicity (2009) is forgettable. You’d expect it to make an impression because with Tony Gilroy at the helm (Jason Bourne movies; Michael Clayton) and a fleet of top-notch actors . . . But even if we grant that it is a romantic caper film and not supposed to be substantial, it is still not a particularly good romantic caper film. Why? Take the romantic part. Even though Clare (Julia Roberts) and Ray (Clive Owens) have some on-screen chemistry, what is the basis of their attraction? We don’t know. They are both professionals who lie for a living and work in the unsavoury field of corporate espionage. Should we care about them? Take the caper part. We don’t know until well into the movie that there is a caper. At first it seems like industrial espionage; then, through a series of flash backs, we see that Clare and Ray are trying to pull a fast one. When the caper comes to a conclusion, it’s not what you expected. But this surprise ending is a cheat: You were given no hints, no chance to figure it out yourself. It was simply sprung on you, making it all that much more forgettable.
]]>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:33:47 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog10/1/2009 10:33:47 PMDuplicity (2009) is forgettable. You’d expect it to make an impression because with Tony Gilroy at the helm (Jason Bourne movies; Michael Clayton) and a fleet of top-notch actors . . . But even if we grant that it is a romantic caper film and not supposed to be substantial, it is still not a particularly good romantic caper film. Why? Take the romantic part. Even though Clare (Julia Roberts) and Ray (Clive Owens) have some on-screen chemistry, what is the basis of their attraction? We don’t know. They are both professionals who lie for a living and work in the unsavoury field of corporate espionage. Should we care about them? Take the caper part. We don’t know until well into the movie that there is a caper. At first it seems like industrial espionage; then, through a series of flash backs, we see that Clare and Ray are trying to pull a fast one. When the caper comes to a conclusion, it’s not what you expected. But this surprise ending is a cheat: You were given no hints, no chance to figure it out yourself. It was simply sprung on you, making it all that much more forgettable. Spout Post: Easy Virtue review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/10/1/44092.aspxPost By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 10/1/2009 10:05:22 PM
Body: Easy Virtue (2008) got a difficult reception, but the movie almost works. You’d think it would work. It’s a breath of fresh air—a Noel Coward piece of wit and satire is a pleasant change from grunting super creatures. It has a good director—Stephan Elliot’s The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994) was a wonderful piece of Australiana. It has excellent actors—Kristin Scott Thomas, Colin Firth, and others. The English country estate is gorgeous and the cinematography does it justice. So why didn’t the movie work? This frothy movie doesn’t get good until it gets serious. The first half of the movie is all giddiness and fluff. Although some viewers might find this tolerable or even amusing, I found it tiresome and then inconsequential, so I was set to not watch the second half. Okay, so the rich English aristocrat brings home a sexy American divorcee and the snotty family doesn’t like her much. But then suddenly the mother yells at her immature son saying that he is blind, oblivious, a disappointment: He should be running the estate and know that it is bankrupt. This revelation is followed shortly by the father explaining to the inquisitive American that he is not a happy camper because he led the men of his village into WWI and brought none of them home alive. Now the comedy of manners has some bite. If the serious element had come earlier, we would have laughed more knowing the depths the social wit subtly manifested. Just when you’re liking the movie, the ending sort of flops. There’s a preachy, old-fashioned, Agatha Christie-style wrap up and analysis which is out of place and should have been rewritten and reshot. And then in the final scene—I won’t give away the somewhat surprise ending—the ambiguity is entirely unproductive. So struggling through the overly loud music, and the mumbled upper-class accents was, in the end, not worth it, but a few judicious changes would have made Easy Virtue a substantial delight.
]]>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:05:22 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog10/1/2009 10:05:22 PMEasy Virtue (2008) got a difficult reception, but the movie almost works. You’d think it would work. It’s a breath of fresh air—a Noel Coward piece of wit and satire is a pleasant change from grunting super creatures. It has a good director—Stephan Elliot’s The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994) was a wonderful piece of Australiana. It has excellent actors—Kristin Scott Thomas, Colin Firth, and others. The English country estate is gorgeous and the cinematography does it justice. So why didn’t the movie work? This frothy movie doesn’t get good until it gets serious. The first half of the movie is all giddiness and fluff. Although some viewers might find this tolerable or even amusing, I found it tiresome and then inconsequential, so I was set to not watch the second half. Okay, so the rich English aristocrat brings home a sexy American divorcee and the snotty family doesn’t like her much. But then suddenly the mother yells at her immature son saying that he is blind, oblivious, a disappointment: He should be running the estate and know that it is bankrupt. This revelation is followed shortly by the father explaining to the inquisitive American that he is not a happy camper because he led the men of his village into WWI and brought none of them home alive. Now the comedy of manners has some bite. If the serious element had come earlier, we would have laughed more knowing the depths the social wit subtly manifested. Just when you’re liking the movie, the ending sort of flops. There’s a preachy, old-fashioned, Agatha Christie-style wrap up and analysis which is out of place and should have been rewritten and reshot. And then in the final scene—I won’t give away the somewhat surprise ending—the ambiguity is entirely unproductive. So struggling through the overly loud music, and the mumbled upper-class accents was, in the end, not worth it, but a few judicious changes would have made Easy Virtue a substantial delight. Spout Post: Re:Which of these movies directed by Stanley Kubrick is your favorite? http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_movies_directed_by_Stanley_Kubri/657/43983/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: JimBell
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 9/22/2009 8:15:26 PM
Body: What an amazing list of movies! Even though I got a huge kick out of Dr. Strangelove, 2001 has stayed with me--a classic.
]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:15:26 GMTJimBellMovie Polls9/22/2009 8:15:26 PMWhat an amazing list of movies! Even though I got a huge kick out of Dr. Strangelove, 2001 has stayed with me--a classic. Spout Post: Re:Which of these recent Brad Pitt roles is your favorite? http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_recent_Brad_Pitt_roles_is_your_f/657/43915/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: JimBell
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 9/16/2009 1:16:00 AM
Body: [I went with Troy, not because Brad was so good in it but because he made a heroic effort to support a not-very-good movie.
]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:16:00 GMTJimBellMovie Polls9/16/2009 1:16:00 AM[I went with Troy, not because Brad was so good in it but because he made a heroic effort to support a not-very-good movie. Spout Post: Amongst White Clouds review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/9/10/43846.aspxPost By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 9/10/2009 2:25:10 AM
Body: Amongst White Clouds (2005; documentary)—I don’t have much to say about this fine documentary except it is for a limited audience and I really liked it. This young guy (Edward Burger) is reading about Buddhism when he realizes that there are people out there living the life now that he is only reading about. So he learns Mandarin (yes), tracks down the hermits living in some mountains in China, and moves in amongst them—for years. I admire the dedication. With camera in hand, he interviews the different Buddhist monks living a mile or so apart in the mountains. I found their different versions of Buddhism intriguing. It is not that they are confused or uncertain or misinformed or eccentric, but, as the Buddha said, you have to find your own path, and they have, each one emphasizing a different aspect of the teachings. I also really liked the seclusion. Actually, not the seclusion but rather the way the monks handled the seclusion. It was an inspiration.
]]>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:25:10 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog9/10/2009 2:25:10 AMAmongst White Clouds (2005; documentary)—I don’t have much to say about this fine documentary except it is for a limited audience and I really liked it. This young guy (Edward Burger) is reading about Buddhism when he realizes that there are people out there living the life now that he is only reading about. So he learns Mandarin (yes), tracks down the hermits living in some mountains in China, and moves in amongst them—for years. I admire the dedication. With camera in hand, he interviews the different Buddhist monks living a mile or so apart in the mountains. I found their different versions of Buddhism intriguing. It is not that they are confused or uncertain or misinformed or eccentric, but, as the Buddha said, you have to find your own path, and they have, each one emphasizing a different aspect of the teachings. I also really liked the seclusion. Actually, not the seclusion but rather the way the monks handled the seclusion. It was an inspiration. Spout Post: Re:Which of these from Tim Out's list of 10 greatest directorial debuts of all time is your favorite? http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_from_Tim_Out_s_list_of_10_greate/657/43844/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: JimBell
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 9/10/2009 12:42:01 AM
Body: [Although I've only seen half the film, I'll go with Mr. Kane. I think the film had so much of the passion and intelligence that Wells brought to film making, usually for the good but not always. JIMBELL
]]>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:42:01 GMTJimBellMovie Polls9/10/2009 12:42:01 AM[Although I've only seen half the film, I'll go with Mr. Kane. I think the film had so much of the passion and intelligence that Wells brought to film making, usually for the good but not always. JIMBELL Spout Post: The French Connection (1971) review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/8/20/43665.aspxPost By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 8/20/2009 7:06:53 PM
Body: When I saw The French Connection (1971) years ago, I thought it was fantastic. When I rewatched it last night, I thought it was good but not that remarkable. In American film history, it holds a prominent place, partly as sparking gritty urban crime dramas. But how does it view in and of itself? It’s probably worth mentioning, because we’d mention it for any film that never won a bunch of Academy awards, but the opening scene in France is incomprehensible. Some guy goes home and some other guy shoots him. Later we recognize the shooter as the accomplice (Marcel Brozzuffi) of the French drug smuggler, Alain (Frenando Rey). But we have to listen to the director’s commentary on DVD to learn that the victim was a French undercover agent. The plot thereafter is easy to follow because it is largely a series of chase scenes, the most famous being Popeye Doyle’s (Gene Hackman) driving a “borrowed” car under the elevated train tracks as he chases the killer on the commuter train. The strength of the film is its documentary style. Director Friedkin has a background in documentaries and was inspired by two European movies Breathless and Z which had a documentary look and feel. No sets were used, and the dirt and low light of New York creates a powerful sense of place. The film is based on an actual case, and the Popeye Doyle in real life was an on-set adviser, and even appeared in the film. By sticking reasonably close to what went down, the film surprises with interesting details. For example, Doyle and his partner, Rosso (Roy Scheider), are having a drink in a well-known nightclub when they notice a young guy unknown to them spreading a lot of money around at a table with known gangsters. On an off-duty hunch, they follow him, and thus start the investigation that broke a major drug smuggling ring. Director Friedkin tried to show the fine line between cop and criminal, a theme done much better in later movies such as Heat. It doesn’t work in The French Connection. Doyle appears to be an obsessive, brutalizing, racist cop, but we don’t get any insight into his character. Why is he obsessive? Not a clue. When he smashes people around and yells racist epithets at them during a raid on a bar, is he acting naturally or aiming for effect? Not a clue. The villain Alain appears to be a charming and cultured Frenchman, but we don’t know. He gives his young wife a gift, but we have no idea what motivated him. He dines in a fine New York restaurant, but we do not hear his conversation and so have no idea how to interpret this—extravagant decadence? or just another meal? or gourmet appreciation of the fine things in life? We also do not know what motivates the mastermind to smuggle heroin because he already owns a prosperous shipyard. The theme of the fine line between cop and criminal goes nowhere. Still it’s a good movie with an energetic documentary style, a palpable inner city setting, and a dynamic and inventive sound track. It also gives a glimpse into police work before cell phones, GPS, and squads of human rights lawyers. It ends with shots of the criminals and how little time they did. It is not clear whether this is a film device or fact, but it is fact. It left me amazed at how much law enforcement work went into achieving a pyrrhic victory—a good chance there were behind the scenes payoffs.
]]>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:06:53 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog8/20/2009 7:06:53 PMWhen I saw The French Connection (1971) years ago, I thought it was fantastic. When I rewatched it last night, I thought it was good but not that remarkable. In American film history, it holds a prominent place, partly as sparking gritty urban crime dramas. But how does it view in and of itself? It’s probably worth mentioning, because we’d mention it for any film that never won a bunch of Academy awards, but the opening scene in France is incomprehensible. Some guy goes home and some other guy shoots him. Later we recognize the shooter as the accomplice (Marcel Brozzuffi) of the French drug smuggler, Alain (Frenando Rey). But we have to listen to the director’s commentary on DVD to learn that the victim was a French undercover agent. The plot thereafter is easy to follow because it is largely a series of chase scenes, the most famous being Popeye Doyle’s (Gene Hackman) driving a “borrowed” car under the elevated train tracks as he chases the killer on the commuter train. The strength of the film is its documentary style. Director Friedkin has a background in documentaries and was inspired by two European movies Breathless and Z which had a documentary look and feel. No sets were used, and the dirt and low light of New York creates a powerful sense of place. The film is based on an actual case, and the Popeye Doyle in real life was an on-set adviser, and even appeared in the film. By sticking reasonably close to what went down, the film surprises with interesting details. For example, Doyle and his partner, Rosso (Roy Scheider), are having a drink in a well-known nightclub when they notice a young guy unknown to them spreading a lot of money around at a table with known gangsters. On an off-duty hunch, they follow him, and thus start the investigation that broke a major drug smuggling ring. Director Friedkin tried to show the fine line between cop and criminal, a theme done much better in later movies such as Heat. It doesn’t work in The French Connection. Doyle appears to be an obsessive, brutalizing, racist cop, but we don’t get any insight into his character. Why is he obsessive? Not a clue. When he smashes people around and yells racist epithets at them during a raid on a bar, is he acting naturally or aiming for effect? Not a clue. The villain Alain appears to be a charming and cultured Frenchman, but we don’t know. He gives his young wife a gift, but we have no idea what motivated him. He dines in a fine New York restaurant, but we do not hear his conversation and so have no idea how to interpret this—extravagant decadence? or just another meal? or gourmet appreciation of the fine things in life? We also do not know what motivates the mastermind to smuggle heroin because he already owns a prosperous shipyard. The theme of the fine line between cop and criminal goes nowhere. Still it’s a good movie with an energetic documentary style, a palpable inner city setting, and a dynamic and inventive sound track. It also gives a glimpse into police work before cell phones, GPS, and squads of human rights lawyers. It ends with shots of the criminals and how little time they did. It is not clear whether this is a film device or fact, but it is fact. It left me amazed at how much law enforcement work went into achieving a pyrrhic victory—a good chance there were behind the scenes payoffs. Spout Post: Bringing Up Baby review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/8/19/43640.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 8/19/2009 3:05:17 PM
Body: It’s difficult to judge a screwball comedy such as Bringing Up Baby (1938) because it is screwball. The term comes from a baseball pitch popularized by Carl Hubble in 1934 where the ball travels in an unpredictable path. So you cannot insist on plot coherence. What is paleontologist Dr. David Huxley (Cary Grant) doing taking a leopard to New Jersey on the day he is supposed to marry his icy research assistant? You cannot demand realistic characterization. Why does Susan Vance (Katharine Hepburn), a beautiful, ditzy socialite, suddenly pick David off a golf course to be her future husband? You cannot even hold the movie to the genre standards of a “screwball comedy,” because the term has no agreed-upon definition. It is generally applied to certain films made from 1934 to the early 1940s. Mistaken identities often add to the chaos, but not in Bringing Up Baby. Because of the Great Depression, class is often an issue, but not in Bringing Up Baby. Rather this film features the classic screwball romance—a mismatch in temperament and wealth between man and woman, with the woman planning the marriage from the get-go. The film also features farce, placing the characters in ridiculous situations. For example, as the two leads exit the party, she steps on his tux tails and rips his suit, and he tells her to leave him alone. When she turns to go back into the party, he is standing on the hem of her dress and rips the back panel out of it. She, however, is in no mood to listen to a word he says and walks back into the party unaware that her undergarments are exposed. When she finally figures it out, he’s there to help her make a Chaplinesque exit. In 1938, New York Times film critic Frank Nugent slammed the movie because it had no original jokes. But, again, who says the jokes in a screwball comedy have to be fresh? The bottom line is the movie has to make you laugh or smile or, at least, be quietly amused, and a lot of that humour has to come from farcical situations. Bringing Up Baby worked for me! Why? The plot of a scatterbrained woman getting an good-looking nerdy professor to marry her avoids a couple of obvious pitfalls. She could be too scheming to be likeable, but Susan is so chaotic that she doesn’t really have a master plan of how to get her man. Katharine Hepburn was wonderful. I never realized how good-looking she was—and the outfits she wore made her look more attractive. She had a girlish charm that made it difficult to dislike her. As for her victim, he could have become nasty about how she was screwing up his orderly life, but Dr. Huxley soldiers on, never getting vicious, always holding onto the hope that things will work out reasonably. Just as I never realized how attractive Hepburn was, I never knew what a solid actor Cary Grant was. I had assumed he was another handsome face. I didn’t know he’d run away from home to learn his vaudeville chops with a touring acrobatic company, or that at 18 he’d left the company in New York to pursue a gruelling life of stage plays and third-rate movies before he finally hitting his stride in films such as Bringing Up Baby. The comedy is not just monodimensional farce. There’s slapstick—she drops an olive, he steps on it and falls on his top hat. There’s madcap chaos—three people talk at once and the dog, George, starts barking. There’s sly jokes—Dr. Huxley is introduced at dinner as a big game hunter, and he quietly spends the meal getting up to look for a dog. As another example, Dr. Huxley and Susan have to calm the ubiquitous pet leopard by signing, “I can’t give you anything but love, baby,” when the leopards’ name is, of course, Baby, and the two singers who don’t get along are falling love. There’s situational jokes—just when Dr. Huxley and Susan lose Baby, a traveling circus loses its dangerous leopard. And there’s the abstract conceptual joke—a dignified, systematic man of science is reduced to a humbled, confused man in love. I enjoyed the whole thing from start to finish.
]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:05:17 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog8/19/2009 3:05:17 PMIt’s difficult to judge a screwball comedy such as Bringing Up Baby (1938) because it is screwball. The term comes from a baseball pitch popularized by Carl Hubble in 1934 where the ball travels in an unpredictable path. So you cannot insist on plot coherence. What is paleontologist Dr. David Huxley (Cary Grant) doing taking a leopard to New Jersey on the day he is supposed to marry his icy research assistant? You cannot demand realistic characterization. Why does Susan Vance (Katharine Hepburn), a beautiful, ditzy socialite, suddenly pick David off a golf course to be her future husband? You cannot even hold the movie to the genre standards of a “screwball comedy,” because the term has no agreed-upon definition. It is generally applied to certain films made from 1934 to the early 1940s. Mistaken identities often add to the chaos, but not in Bringing Up Baby. Because of the Great Depression, class is often an issue, but not in Bringing Up Baby. Rather this film features the classic screwball romance—a mismatch in temperament and wealth between man and woman, with the woman planning the marriage from the get-go. The film also features farce, placing the characters in ridiculous situations. For example, as the two leads exit the party, she steps on his tux tails and rips his suit, and he tells her to leave him alone. When she turns to go back into the party, he is standing on the hem of her dress and rips the back panel out of it. She, however, is in no mood to listen to a word he says and walks back into the party unaware that her undergarments are exposed. When she finally figures it out, he’s there to help her make a Chaplinesque exit. In 1938, New York Times film critic Frank Nugent slammed the movie because it had no original jokes. But, again, who says the jokes in a screwball comedy have to be fresh? The bottom line is the movie has to make you laugh or smile or, at least, be quietly amused, and a lot of that humour has to come from farcical situations. Bringing Up Baby worked for me! Why? The plot of a scatterbrained woman getting an good-looking nerdy professor to marry her avoids a couple of obvious pitfalls. She could be too scheming to be likeable, but Susan is so chaotic that she doesn’t really have a master plan of how to get her man. Katharine Hepburn was wonderful. I never realized how good-looking she was—and the outfits she wore made her look more attractive. She had a girlish charm that made it difficult to dislike her. As for her victim, he could have become nasty about how she was screwing up his orderly life, but Dr. Huxley soldiers on, never getting vicious, always holding onto the hope that things will work out reasonably. Just as I never realized how attractive Hepburn was, I never knew what a solid actor Cary Grant was. I had assumed he was another handsome face. I didn’t know he’d run away from home to learn his vaudeville chops with a touring acrobatic company, or that at 18 he’d left the company in New York to pursue a gruelling life of stage plays and third-rate movies before he finally hitting his stride in films such as Bringing Up Baby. The comedy is not just monodimensional farce. There’s slapstick—she drops an olive, he steps on it and falls on his top hat. There’s madcap chaos—three people talk at once and the dog, George, starts barking. There’s sly jokes—Dr. Huxley is introduced at dinner as a big game hunter, and he quietly spends the meal getting up to look for a dog. As another example, Dr. Huxley and Susan have to calm the ubiquitous pet leopard by signing, “I can’t give you anything but love, baby,” when the leopards’ name is, of course, Baby, and the two singers who don’t get along are falling love. There’s situational jokes—just when Dr. Huxley and Susan lose Baby, a traveling circus loses its dangerous leopard. And there’s the abstract conceptual joke—a dignified, systematic man of science is reduced to a humbled, confused man in love. I enjoyed the whole thing from start to finish. Spout Post: Tootsie review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/8/17/43569.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 8/17/2009 1:48:24 PM
Body: Tootsie (2008) is a wonderful comedy, but it is dated. Sydney Pollock does a great directing job, and the cast is superb. But the one joke gets a bit tiresome. An unemployed, idealistic, and obnoxious actor (Dustin Hoffman) gets a job on a soap opera by pretending to be a woman. Then it is one awkward situation after another. Although the actor, Michael, does grow, we don’t see it until the final scene where he says he was a better man as a woman than he was as a man. This wraps up the dated theme: So many men are sexist pigs, and they need to get in touch with their feminine side to become better. Michael is a womanizer (we hear), the TV producer is a sexist, and the star of the soap opera comes on to all the women. The kindly old gent who falls for Michael/Dorothy insists men should be men and women should be women—roosters don’t lay eggs. All the women are struggling with these unenlightened men.. Arguably, the biggest revolution in our society in the last half century has been in women’s rights, and the situation today is substantially different than when Tootsie was made a quarter century ago.
]]>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:48:24 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog8/17/2009 1:48:24 PMTootsie (2008) is a wonderful comedy, but it is dated. Sydney Pollock does a great directing job, and the cast is superb. But the one joke gets a bit tiresome. An unemployed, idealistic, and obnoxious actor (Dustin Hoffman) gets a job on a soap opera by pretending to be a woman. Then it is one awkward situation after another. Although the actor, Michael, does grow, we don’t see it until the final scene where he says he was a better man as a woman than he was as a man. This wraps up the dated theme: So many men are sexist pigs, and they need to get in touch with their feminine side to become better. Michael is a womanizer (we hear), the TV producer is a sexist, and the star of the soap opera comes on to all the women. The kindly old gent who falls for Michael/Dorothy insists men should be men and women should be women—roosters don’t lay eggs. All the women are struggling with these unenlightened men.. Arguably, the biggest revolution in our society in the last half century has been in women’s rights, and the situation today is substantially different than when Tootsie was made a quarter century ago. Spout Post: Dhamma Brothers review http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/8/10/43467.aspxPost By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 8/10/2009 11:22:55 PM
Body: Dhamma Brothers: East Meets West in the Deep South (2008) achieves its purpose wonderfully, but I wish it had had a different purpose. Director Jenny Phillips is a psychotherapist with a PhD in cultural anthropology who wanted to do something like the Peace Corps work she’d done in her youth. She got involved with the prison down the street from her practice, and she soon heard that a penitentiary in the deep south was going to try serious meditation with some of the hard-core inmates. Her purpose in making the film, I’d say, was to show that even the most violent offenders should not be warehoused but rather treated as human beings who happen to have been convicted of murder. The documentary achieves its purpose by focusing on a small number of inmates such as OB and Grady. OB was part of a group young guys who wantonly shot at and killed people driving by. Although OB did not pull the trigger, he tried to protect his friends who did. When the offer of Goenka-style Vipassana meditation came to the prison, he says, “I was at a crossroads.” He was questioning lots of things, and after going through the 10 days of intensive meditation, he says he “slowed down” thus giving himself time to think before acting. Brief clips of his family reinforce the message that this is a decent human being who has paid 17 years for youthful stupidity but is now a guy who could make it on the outside. Grady, who was drunk out of his gourd and driving the get-away car in a robbery where his two buddies stabbed a guy to death, knows he will never get out, so he wants his prison/home to be a better place to live. This, he comes to realize, starts with himself. He seems to truly incorporate the meditation practice into his daily living. Ingraining the deceptively simple concept that everything changes, Grady repeatedly says to himself, “It’ll be all right in a minute.” This stops so many negative reactions. Imagine if you said this and believed it. As a proponent of the meditation program, Grady says that, after 150 guys have been through the Goenka program, he can tell in the exercise yard whether an inmate has taken the course “by the way he carries himself.” So we do get to know some of the guys and realize there is a big difference between “he is a murderer” and “he is a person who was involved in a murder.” Personally, however, I wish the film had explained the meditation program much more thoroughly. It is nice to know that these guys have changed for the better, but what exactly facilitated this change? The film does not explain where the Goenka method came from, creates the false impression that it is the same as Vipassana meditation (it is a small branch), and fails to explain what the guys do sitting on their cushions for 10 days. Worse, a glimpse of some of the charts taped on the wall of the retreat area have strange words and give the impression that there was a lot more in-depth stuff going on—but we never learn what it is. It’s a film I won’t forget. As Jenny Phillips said on Oprah’s Soul Series, these guys are “human beings in great misery looking for solutions.” Ironically, their motivation for enlightenment is generally more fierce than yours or mine. I just wish the film had paid a lot more attention to the method that facilitated their transformation.
]]>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:22:55 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog8/10/2009 11:22:55 PMDhamma Brothers: East Meets West in the Deep South (2008) achieves its purpose wonderfully, but I wish it had had a different purpose. Director Jenny Phillips is a psychotherapist with a PhD in cultural anthropology who wanted to do something like the Peace Corps work she’d done in her youth. She got involved with the prison down the street from her practice, and she soon heard that a penitentiary in the deep south was going to try serious meditation with some of the hard-core inmates. Her purpose in making the film, I’d say, was to show that even the most violent offenders should not be warehoused but rather treated as human beings who happen to have been convicted of murder. The documentary achieves its purpose by focusing on a small number of inmates such as OB and Grady. OB was part of a group young guys who wantonly shot at and killed people driving by. Although OB did not pull the trigger, he tried to protect his friends who did. When the offer of Goenka-style Vipassana meditation came to the prison, he says, “I was at a crossroads.” He was questioning lots of things, and after going through the 10 days of intensive meditation, he says he “slowed down” thus giving himself time to think before acting. Brief clips of his family reinforce the message that this is a decent human being who has paid 17 years for youthful stupidity but is now a guy who could make it on the outside. Grady, who was drunk out of his gourd and driving the get-away car in a robbery where his two buddies stabbed a guy to death, knows he will never get out, so he wants his prison/home to be a better place to live. This, he comes to realize, starts with himself. He seems to truly incorporate the meditation practice into his daily living. Ingraining the deceptively simple concept that everything changes, Grady repeatedly says to himself, “It’ll be all right in a minute.” This stops so many negative reactions. Imagine if you said this and believed it. As a proponent of the meditation program, Grady says that, after 150 guys have been through the Goenka program, he can tell in the exercise yard whether an inmate has taken the course “by the way he carries himself.” So we do get to know some of the guys and realize there is a big difference between “he is a murderer” and “he is a person who was involved in a murder.” Personally, however, I wish the film had explained the meditation program much more thoroughly. It is nice to know that these guys have changed for the better, but what exactly facilitated this change? The film does not explain where the Goenka method came from, creates the false impression that it is the same as Vipassana meditation (it is a small branch), and fails to explain what the guys do sitting on their cushions for 10 days. Worse, a glimpse of some of the charts taped on the wall of the retreat area have strange words and give the impression that there was a lot more in-depth stuff going on—but we never learn what it is. It’s a film I won’t forget. As Jenny Phillips said on Oprah’s Soul Series, these guys are “human beings in great misery looking for solutions.” Ironically, their motivation for enlightenment is generally more fierce than yours or mine. I just wish the film had paid a lot more attention to the method that facilitated their transformation. Spout Post: Re:Which of these Hollywood films released in 1939 is your favorite? http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_Hollywood_films_released_in_1939/657/43394/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: JimBell
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 8/4/2009 7:31:27 PM
Body: I haven't seen half of these films because, generally, I don't like films before about 1940. (My fault. Nothing wrong with the films. I just spend all my time noticing old-fashioned things rather than getting immersed in the movie.) But I remember as a kid--no, not in 1939!--loving Stagecoach. I must have been a violent, gun-totin' little critter.
]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:31:27 GMTJimBellMovie Polls8/4/2009 7:31:27 PMI haven't seen half of these films because, generally, I don't like films before about 1940. (My fault. Nothing wrong with the films. I just spend all my time noticing old-fashioned things rather than getting immersed in the movie.) But I remember as a kid--no, not in 1939!--loving Stagecoach. I must have been a violent, gun-totin' little critter. 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