SpoutBlog's Recent Activity - Spout

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

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMT

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

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

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

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

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:53:17 GMT

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

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

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:42:31 GMT

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

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

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:20:23 GMT

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

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

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:10:52 GMT

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

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

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

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

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:30:05 GMT

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

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

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:05:26 GMT

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

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

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

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

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:05:39 GMT

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

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

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:03:03 GMT

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

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

http://www.soundonsight.org/

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

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

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:43:26 GMT

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

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

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:42:29 GMT

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

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

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

Spout Group:Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:29:56 GMT

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

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

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

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

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:25:25 GMT

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

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

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

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

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:11:33 GMT

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

Spout Group:Movie Marathons

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:33:02 GMT

Group Name: Movie Marathons
Group Description:

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

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

Check the Guidlines and Suggestions discussion for ideas.

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

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

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:31:56 GMT

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

Spout Post: Men Who Stare At Goats Trailer is Classic Coen-esque Clooney. Today in Film Bloggery 08/27/09

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:00:40 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/28/2009 6:00:40 PM
Body: Will Grant Heslov’s The Men Who Stare at Goats be the greatest George Clooney movie of all time? If you’re a fan of the actor/director’s work in Three Kings, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Burn After Reading and Syriana, then it’s possible you’ll see this as the military/CIA satire he’s been working towards his whole career. The fact that it seems like it should or could have been directed by the Coen Bros. — costars Jeff Bridges, Stephen Root and J.K. Simmons have all worked with the filmmaking duo in addition to Clooney — provides further evidence that this might well be the epitome of Clooney’s career. Based on the non-fiction book by Jon Ronson, Goats is about a reporter (Ewan McGregor) working on a story about a U.S. Army unit employing psychic soldiers. Clooney is one of these “Jedi warriors,” as you can see in the trailer when he bursts clouds and knocks over goats with his mind. One particular bit of slapstick stolen from the underseen Special has me a little worried about the humor here. But how can I not want to see a movie that basically seems to insert “The Dude” into a modern day cross between DePalma’s The Fury and Spies Like Us? Check out other film blog reactions to the trailer after the jump: Mark at I Watch Stuff sees this as “Coen with aspartame”: This trailer for Men Who Stare at Goats is basically Diet Coen Brothers. I’m not going to say it will completely fulfill you in the same way a refreshing Coen Brothers will, but I think you’ll detect enough of that distinctly Coen flavor in Grant Heslov’s comedy–especially with a mustached George Clooney and long-haired, druggie Jeff Bridges–that it should at least tide you over until you can get the real deal Lane Brown at Vulture offers some more similarities to a Coen Bros. film: [Clooney's] regrown his O Brother mustache and cast himself alongside Jeff Bridges, who appears to be playing a telekinesis-enhanced cousin of the Dude in military dress…As we learned with Leatherheads, it’s difficult to intuit simply from a trailer whether Coen-y Clooney movies will be funny or lame, but the use of “More Than a Feeling” here is clever enough. Anne Thompson at Thompson on Hollywood is excited to see another Coen-esque Clooney role: Grant Heslov’s comedy The Men Who Stare at Goats looks pretty funny, I must say. I love George Clooney in full-on dimwit mode (see: O Brother, Where Art Thou?). Rob Hunter at Film School Rejects references another great Clooney in Coen Bros. role: I love goofy ass George Clooney. He’s a solid dramatic actor, but (much like Brad Pitt) he’s at his best when he explores the more quirky, smirky, crazy bastard roles. His character here looks to be an extreme example of the weirdo he played in Burn After Reading which can only be a good thing. The Playlist doesn’t want to mention the Coens, but does: We’ll try to not use the term Coen-esque because it doesn’t seem that screwball-y or quirky (not to mention, it’s facile and overused), but there are some similar shades there. Jeff Bridges as a hippie-like teacher who helps these guys kill and maim people with “Jedi mindtricks” seems pretty damn funny. Vince Mancini at Film Drunk thinks it could possibly use a little less slapstick: I’m on the fence…I counted four jokes in the trailer that involved someone getting hit in the face, which is never a good sign. But on the plus side… Boston. Man, if I had a nickle for every time I got date raped to that song. Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere is also disappointed by the Blake Edwards-style slapstick all over the trailer: All I can tell you is that before watching the trailer, I was semi-pumped about seeing this film in Toronto. I had presumed Heslov, a very smart guy on Clooney’s wavelength and vice versa, would play down the inherently bizarre material and keep it real and let the wackazoid stuff speak for itself. But now, having seen the trailer, I’m feeling a little bit worried. Okay, maybe I shouldn’t be. Maybe this is just a matter of the Overture trailer guys looking to bring in the dumb-asses. Michelle Collins at Best Week Ever, responding to an earlier post wondering if the film’s title is literal, thinks the movie could still use more goats: Even if this is a war movie that might not have any goats, we will choose to believe it is full of them. Today, we catch our first glimpse of the trailer. And, you guys… there is NARY A GOAT TO BE SEEN. OK, maybe one, but we’re pretty sure that’s George Clooney… Gabe at Videogum wishes the book was made into a documentary (which it was) instead: if it had been a documentary, then the very weird and hilarious details from the book, which are real, would have been super weird and super hilarious because of how when things are real then there is no willful suspension of disbelief, there is just belief and disbelief mixed together, because that is life, jump into life. Instead, it has a semi-generic, strangely common-place military farce feel to it (has anyone else noticed how common-place military farces have become? It’s a real catch-22). Big Hollywood is not into the constant military mocking from Hollywood: With so many tales of military heroism left to tell, Clooney and Company choose this… “But “The Men Who Stare at Goats” is inspired by a “true” story,” they’ll say… But why is it always these kinds of “true” stories that get picked? Kofi Outlaw at ScreenRant believes even pro-military people will find the trailer funny: Come on, even all you pro-military Screen Rant readers out there have to admit its pretty funny to try to develop psychic weapons by having soldiers stare at goats! In that context, the title really speaks to the absurdity of warfare and certain militaristic mindsets (I AM NOT BAD MOUTHING THE MILITARY). So scary to think this all happened (is happening?) in real life… S.T. VanAirsdale at Movieline, who sees this as “Inglourious Basterds for the Iraq era,” isn’t even certain the trailer does poke fun at the military: I’m not quite sure what’s being sent up (if anything): Army decorum? The military-industrial complex? Journalists? Enh, who cares? Heslov and his ensemble know what they’re doing, as does Overture, which even makes one of the fall movie season’s most unwieldy, unsellable titles look good in the end. Owen Williams at Empire sees this potentially more like a Dr. Strangelove for the Iraq era: The movie, which is looking awesome, gives us McGregor in the Ronson role (renamed Bob Wilton and saddled with an American accent), and a twitchy Clooney as Lyn Cassidy; a reactivated psychic spy and “Jedi warrior”…We’re intrigued about the part where McGregor is being strangled by a guy with a Dr Strangelove arm. Dustin Rowles at Pajiba celebrates the film’s screenwriter and hopes for his sake and career that this is a hit: Peter Straughan, wrote the script. And it’s a great goddamn script about an Army Battalion that employs paranormal powers in their missions (assuming Goats performs well at the box-office, Straughan has two other scripts in development: The Inventor is a dark romantic comedy about what would happen if a fan could become the person he idealizes; and Our Brand Crisis, which has been optioned by Clooney, focuses on American political campaign strategies used in South America. Here’s the trailer: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: ST. NICK Review

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:00:39 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/28/2009 11:00:39 AM
Body: Two kids — a boy of 11, and a girl of 9, brother and sister, apparent runaways — drag a duffel bag into a crumbly, seemingly abandoned house. Now they live there. No one seems to be looking for them, and they offer no explanation as to where they came from or why they ran away. They could as likely be aliens as lost little children. It’s almost as if they’ve drifted off into another realm, some kind of Oz. The first half of David Lowery’s feature directorial debut St. Nick is devoted to the ways in which this family unit spends their days building a life in their new home. Procuring provisions for cheese sandwiches, salvaging furniture, fixing the toilet. Arguing about the fate of the dog they left behind, and whether or not he misses his under-age owners. Virtually wordless for long stretches of time, St. Nick relies heavily on contemplative imagery to convey meaning –– particularly, the clear-lit landscape or a Texas winter in juxtaposition with the pink-and-white faces of his two young stars, real-life siblings Tucker and Savanna Sears. As both types of images, both equally beautiful and mysterious, become increasingly gray, the film matures from a study of actions infused with a quiet magic, to a study of inaction, of waiting and drifting telegraphing an increasingly palpable sense of fear and dread. Those who have some film festival familiarity with Lowery’s most recent short film, the largely stop-motion A Catalog of Anticipations, may be surprised by his methods here (including many long, slow, fixed, often wide shots), and how long he takes to establish their patterns. In some ways, the title of the short is applicable to the feature: Lowery literally catalogs his character’s movements, showing in painstaking detail how the kids take on some perversion of traditional male and female roles (without anything doing perverted): the boy playing fix-it, building a home by any means necessary and available to him; the girl playing mother to their new “pet” (the decayed skeleton of what used to be a dog). You wait for something to happen, and then you realize that it’s happening — St. Nick reveals itself as a string of vignettes about two lost souls old enough to get themselves lost and enjoy it, but too young to be able to fully grasp the length and obstacles of the road ahead to the point where they, like we, know to wait for the other shoe to drop. They don’t try to get a TV, or comics, or toys. They seem happy to do nothing but what they need to do to maintain their lives. We become comfortable with being with the brother and sister in each heightened moment, whether she’s crafting the world largest, messiest dessert sandwich, or he’s stumbling on a woman playing guitar on her porch and subsequently falling into some kind of love. And then suddenly Lowery gives his characters steeper stakes. St. Nick would make for an intriguing triple feature with two other recent lyrical kids-on-their-own indies, Children of Invention and Treeless Mountain. In those films, the circumstances that lead to the siblings’ separation from parents leaves an imprint — a resentment, a frustration, a determination to get along with or without adults. In St. Nick, our unnamed brother and sister share only that determination, and increasingly, the sister seems like she’d be just as happy at home playing with the dog, with dinner guaranteed. In Children and Treeless, we meet sibling pairs in which the eldest takes on the de facto role of the little adult out of particularly dire necessity. In St. Nick, we meet a sibling pair where the eldest has created a condition of dire necessity in order to prove himself as an adult. The tragic irony is that, as a self-destructive hero in a Western of his own making, he’s mired in necessarily childish make-believe. This review originally appeared during the 2009 SXSW Film Festival. St. Nick screens tonight in New York at Rooftop Films. See also David Lowery’s recent blog post about sitting in a waiting room with Steven Soderbergh. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: THE SEPTEMBER ISSUE Review

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:00:38 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/28/2009 11:00:38 AM
Body: The September Issue is an irresistible pop culture mashup: imagine the Teen Vogue segments of The Hills (though her royal highness Anna Wintour is swapped in for cut-rate LA imitation Lisa Love, the MTV reality show’s masterful manner of spinning diegetic commentary out of eye rolls taken out of context is left intact), genetically blended into an alternate universe version of The Office. Except in this office, the workers actually work, and in fact are terrified not to because their boss is Michael Scott’s polar opposite: impatient, undemonstrative, and absolutely incapable of taking no for an answer. As a portrait of Wintour the person, RJ Cutler’s documentary does little to dig under the surface of Wintour’s iconic, impassive under bangs image. But as a meditation on art vs commerce, emotion vs rationality, and the role of fantasy merchants in the recently-burst economic bubble, The September Issue is both cerebral and accessible. If it’s not as provocative as it could be, it’s definitely entertaining. The themes of the film emerge most clearly via the relationship between Wintour and VOGUE’s creative director, Grace Coddington. A former model a handful of years older than Wintour, Grace started working at American VOGUE on the same day as her now-superior. Both women worked their way up over the course of decades, only to land in a position where Grace is generally agreed to be the best fashion stylist in the world … and yet every move she makes is subject to Wintour’s approval. Wintour is credited with transforming VOGUE by putting actresses on the cover, thus greasing the wheels for high fashion and its associated esoterica to enter the entertainment media. Grace is more of a purist; she puts her shoots together with the artistry of the image as the first and only concern, only to continually suffer the humiliation of having her work end up on the cutting room floor by the market-minded Wintour. Coddington is the only person around the office who doesn’t seem to buy into the Fear of Wintour, which is palpable on film not because her near-peers and underlings speak to it, but in the way they speak to her. When Anna asks a question, the answer offered is almost always inflected like another question; the people around her are terminally non-committal, as if the worst crime one could commit in Wintour’s presence is to have an opinion. If the dominant media image of Anna Wintour, from The Devil Wears Prada and beyond, is that she’s a villain, she doesn’t do much here to disabuse us of that notion, and certainly Cutler does her no favors in the way they present her moments of tyranny. The director begins the film with an clip from a sit-down interview with Wintour, in which the VOGUE editor attempts to defend high fashion from unnamed critics. “Just because someone wants to wear Carolina Herrera instead of” — here she reaches for an example, as if she couldn’t possibly think of anything anyone would “want” to wear more than Carolina Herrera –– “something from Kmart, doesn’t make them a dumb person.” Of course, only a “dumb person” would accuse someone of being “a dumb person” based solely on what they “choose” to wear. The issue is that for most of us the choice between Carolina Herrera and Kmart isn’t actually a “choice”, but a financial imperative. You could chalk this flub up to linguistic imprecision, but Cutler chooses to include right it at the beginning of the film for a reason: it sets the tone for a character whose extreme focus on the bottom line of her magazine causes her to tune out countless realities, up to and including that most of the critics of the fantasy she sells wouldn’t be able to afford that fantasy for themselves. Cutler may not offer much evidence that Wintour is deeper than our pre-conceived image of her, but he does offer revelations in terms of her actual image. Wintour is often shot from below, the classic angle given to a person in a position of power, but in this instance, it reveals the imperfections of the facade. We see that her neck and the area under her chin are severely bagged, and up against her comparatively smooth face, one gets the sense that this is less from age or surgical restraint than from her habit of lowering her chin in pursed-lip frown. And yet, she’s so concerned with her own image that Grace is able to use Cutler’s camera crew against Wintour to get what she wants. Grace and Anna embody the age old conflict between art and commerce, given new spin for an age of luxury obsession with the trap door dropped out. A VOGUE couture spread (Grace’s specialty) was the old, safe way for the masses to indulge in luxuries they couldn’t actually have. But when this kind of photo journalism-as-entertainment is pushed out in favor of cover stories revolving around not just non-models, but “it” girl actresses promoting films via carefully calibrated stories of “relatable” personal heartbreak, the fantasy sold within the pages of VOGUE becomes several degrees less blatant in its fantasy, and moves several steps toward actual accessibility. In a climate in which both the pursuit of art and beauty for the sake of it, and of journalism as mass-culture record of the present and contextualization for the future, have been swiftly pushed to the margins, the pretense of escape via advertisement still soldiers on. Though Cutler’s footage was shot over nine months in 2007, September seems to anticipate our current withdrawl from the addiction of spectacular accumulation. More than just aping the escapism of VOGUE itself, it may be the ideal film for those bitter and bedraggled by our current economic fix. A slightly different verson of this review appeared during the 2009 Sundance Film Festival. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Heathers the TV Show Could Be Very. Today in Film Bloggery 08/27/09

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:00:37 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/27/2009 7:00:37 PM
Body: Though I didn’t include it on my list of 80s movies that need TV series, I could actually see a show based on Heathers being pretty cool. No, I’m not pulling your dick. And no, I didn’t have a brain tumor for breakfast. I’d continue the quoting by saying this isn’t just a spoke in my menstrual cycle, but I don’t have one of those. What I do have is a nearly twenty-year obsession with the movie as well as an odd exception when it comes to the idea of adapting it to other media. Certainly I don’t want anyone remaking Heathers on the big screen, but I’d be first in line for a campy musical version, and I’d read a comic book based on it (the thing would have to be published by Archie Comics, obviously). Of course, I don’t expect this newly announced series idea to be very good. Network television is no place for a show based on Heathers. Not even Fox can get away with what the thing should be like. It wouldn’t be Heathers without all the swearing. And it couldn’t be as dark as it must be, either. However, provided there were some smart minds behind the idea, it could work quite well as an HBO or Showtime program. With a tone somewhere between The Sopranos and Weeds. The way I’m expecting it to be, as long as it’s on commercial television, the show may as well be called Mean Girls instead. Which would be a great idea, actually, if Tina Fey was behind it. So, yeah, Heathers: the TV Show could be very, but it won’t be, and I see what everyone’s damage is over this news. But don’t worry, if it does ever end up on the air, it’ll soon be off and just as forgotten as the shows Ferris Bueller, Dirty Dancing and My Big Fat Greek Life. Check out some blog responses to the news — imagine them recited in a montage of lunchtime poll answers — after the jump: Perez Hilton thinks the show might indeed be very: It may not be the sequel that Winona Ryder had hoped for, but maybe they could get her to play someone’s mom…We actually kind of like this idea. A sequel could come off cheesy, but an elongated, modernized storyline may breathe new life into the Heathers mania. Jarett at PopWrap likes the idea enough to “wear its scrunchie if asked.” He also wonders if there’ll be any cameos: Basically this will be Fox’s version of “Gossip Girl,” which in my opinion, you can never have too much of. No word yet on whether OG stars Winona Ryder, Shannen Doherty, Christian Slater or Martha Dumptruck will return, but considering they could all use the work, I’d expect to see some familiar faces roaming the halls of Westerberg High. S.T. VanAirsdale at Movieline already sees a part for Ryder: All of the principal characters from the original are expected to return for the series…Assuming her unsettling new appearance is reversible, Winona Ryder could be great as the touchy-feely teacher-monster Pauline Fleming. Just saying. Devin Faraci at CHUD.com isn’t too worried about the show given the success of another adaptation: To be honest I’m not going to get up in arms about this for the simple reason that a TV series based on the movie Buffy the Vampire Slayer seemed like a truly awful idea at the time…The show obviously can’t just be JD and Veronica killing students every week, so there has to be something else planned for it, unless it’s just going to be a bitchier, darker version of 90210. Which is possible as well. Scott Thill at Underwire acknowledges the same shows as being followers of and yet potential influences on Heathers: But keeping the cult favorite strange could be tough. The original Heathers skewered social cliques and suicide pacts with absurdist glee…But it’s been replicated by genre freaks like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and mainstream soaps like Beverly Hills 90210, whose star Shannon Doherty started out as a hated Heather. Plus, its story hinged upon surreal teen suicides, a thin foundation on which to base a television series for more than one season. Paul Tassi at JoBlo.com responds to a quote in Variety claiming this “seemed like a fresh and original idea”: You know what would be a fresh and original idea? A fresh and original idea. Prefereably one that wasn’t based on a vastly overrated ‘80s teen angst movie. Yeah that’s right, in my estimation, the original HEATHERS had a great concept, but shit execution. And don’t get me started on Christian Slater. Gabe at Videogum also responds to the claims quoted in Variety: It’s not a franchise if there’s just one movie, and it doesn’t need dusting off if people still care about it. More importantly: doing it for TV isn’t even a fresh and original SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MEDIUM, much less “idea.” They literally don’t have a clue what that word even means anymore. “I want an everything bagel with idea cheese, and a no-fat venti ideaccino.” Jerks. Krystal Clark at ScreenCrave spots a trend and also offers the show’s developers some things to think about: They’ve already adapted 10 Things I Hate About You for ABC Family, so I’m starting to see a theme here. I don’t know how they’ll rework it. Will someone die every episode? Will the entire run of the series focus on whether or not the killers get caught? That’s what they have to think about when tackling this story. Mark at I Watch Stuff assumes the show will be unrecogniable to Heathers fans: So it will be Heathers without all the murdering and suicide? (I assume, in the interest of maintaining some sort of cast.) That doesn’t sound like much of a Heathers to me. Irreverent pranks will never be a substitute for making someone drink drain cleaner. David Wharton at Cinema Blend doubts the movie will translate easily to TV: Its source material at least sets it apart from the glut of other modern teen dramas, but I’m extremely skeptical that any of the edginess or bleak humor of the original will survive a modern TV development process. Sean at Film Junk also doubts the subject matter will remain intact. But it could be popular anyway: It’s a very dark comedy that seems pretty risque even today, so you have to wonder how well this will work on network TV. Still, if done right, it could probably turn out to be a hit. There’s no shortage of teen angst out there today, that’s for sure! Owen Williams at Empire thinks a ten-year-old tragedy would make a faithful adaptation difficult: Heathers was a pretty self-contained story, and a sequel would have been tough to pull off successfully…The fear is that it would have to seriously have its teeth pulled in these post-Columbine times, but we can see a TV series working, especially given the diary-entry structure of the film. Company Town unintentionally presents us with the kind of censorship we’ll be seeing on the series: We have a feeling that Heather No. 1 would react to this news by suggesting an inappropriate act involving a chainsaw, but since we’re a family site we’ll just say “corn nuts.” Amos Barshad at Vulture wonders how this will affect the other Heathers adaptation: Loyal readers of Vulture’s the Industry may recall hearing about a musical version of Heathers starring Kristen Bell. We’re not sure where that’s at in development, but we can only assume that the race is now on for one of the two Heathers remakes to fake the other’s suicide. Mark Lisanti at Movieline suggests some casting ideas for the series, apparently hoping for a Gossip Girl tone. He also uses the opportunity to imagine one of the changes that will occur in the transition to the small screen: Heather McNamara (Lisanne Falk) Sadly, this role will be eliminated during development, following the network note, “Do there really have to be, like, three Heathers? That’s, like, a lot of Heathers. Our testing shows anything more than two Heathers and the demo gets totally confused.” Sorry, Heather McNamara, the focus groups have spoken. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Batman 3 Rumors Return. Today in Film Bloggery 08/26/09

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:00:35 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/26/2009 5:00:35 PM
Body: I was hoping the Inception teaser trailer would keep the Christopher Nolan-obsessed fanboys puzzled and therefore occupied for a while. But someone had to go and spoil the premise of that otherwise cryptic film and now the geeks and gossip rags are back to their old favorite online game: spreading rumors about Batman 3. British tabloid The Sun has made up a story claiming Megan Fox has “signed on” to play Catwoman, despite the fact that there’s no script to guarantee that such a role will even exist. But hey, Fox News has picked up the “news” so it must be true. Then there’s the Harry Knowles-ignited rumor about the third installment potentially being shot “FULLY” in IMAX. Certainly speculating about big and highly anticipated movies is fun. Whether we discuss why Nolan shouldn’t even try to follow The Dark Knight or if we write a list of actresses we’d like to see cast as Catwoman, it’s important that we recognize that it’s all just wishes and wonders. And being able to tell the difference between a viable scoop and a rumor is what separates us respectable blogs from the unreputable people at British tabloids and, umm, Fox News (which, like The Sun, is owned by News Corp.). The only silver lining is those websites that immediately nip such rumors in the butt and then proceed to make fun of the idea further through some kind of list or whatever. Especially when it’s a slow news day, such posts provide good reading. Check out the film blog responses to today’s ridiculous rumors after the jump: Joseph Baxter at The Feed agrees that it’s almost nice to see these sorts of Batman 3 rumors circulating again: While they were rampant at the end of 2008, amidst more credible ones such as Rachel Weisz’s possible casting, it’s been a while since we heard some off-the-wall, “wtf,” Batman 3 rumors. This latest one, therefore, almost seems like an old friend has come to visit. Of course, it joins some others of its ilk such as the “Cher as Catwoman” rumor and of course, the UK Sun’s previous pre-Christmas masterpiece, “Eddie Murphy as the Riddler and Shia LaBeouf as Robin.” Hey, in the bizarro world where these reports are even close to being truthful, it seems that Batman 3 will be a Transformers reunion. Lane Brown at Vulture has one good reason why this rumor is false. And he points out what today is the anniversary of: The Sun “reports” that Megan Fox has “signed on” to play Catwoman in the next Batman movie, which means that Megan Fox will almost certainly not play Catwoman in any upcoming Batman movie. Also, today is the one-year anniversary of last summer’s made-up rumor about Cher playing Catwoman. Kyle Buchanan at Movieline has a list of ways to tell a British tabloid casting rumor is fake. The only one that matters is #5, but here’s the one directly dealing with Batman 3: 1. The rumor in question is about an actor cast in the next Batman film, when even presumptive director Christopher Nolan (currently shooting the Leonardo DiCaprio starrer Inception) has not signed on yet, nor struck a deal to write the script. Mark Lisanti, also at Movieline, has a list of other people who won’t be playing Catwoman. Here’s the one that says the most about how these tabloid rumors get started in the first place: 3. Renee Zellweger Zellweger’s people are still waiting for Warner Bros. executives to return a call from 2002. Proposed tabloid headline: “Renee Zellweger’s Publicist Promised Us An Exclusive On ‘Bridget Jones 3’ If We’d Float Her Name For Catwoman! So, Zellweger Might Be Catwoman, Maybe!!! OK, We Can’t Do This. We Just Can’t. Let The Daily Mirror Be Their Filthy Little Whore This Time. We’re Going Back To Cosmetology School, This Is Getting Undignified.” Mark at I Watch Stuff has come to a conclusion regarding who/what will indeed be playing Catwoman: To sum things up for those of you who haven’t been following every British tabloid casting announcement, the part of Catwoman will now be played by the ensemble of Angelina Jolie, Cher, Miley Cyrus, Julie Newmar, an actual cat, a CGI cat, a lab-created, actual cat-woman, a lady who just owns a lot of cats, Eddie Murphy, and Megan Fox. Todd at IDontLikeYouInThatWay.com guesses how simple and disturbing the Batman 3 plot would be if this rumor were true: Nobody is reporting this except The Sun, so who knows if this is true or not. If it is, congratulations. 120 pages of Batman jacking off seems like it would be pretty easy to write. John at The Movie Blog claims that if the Fox rumor is true then “Santa Claus is real, O.J. didn’t do it and the Oscars love comedies.” Here’s his simple argument: This is not Michael Bay. Nolan is not all about tits and ass. This is his Batman franchise, and there is no way in hell this genius is going to put Megan Fox in it. Period. End of story. No questions asked. I simply can not believe how many people I’ve read on the web today that actually believe this tripe. David Oliver at CHUD.com says it’s not true unless his site says so: Now, until you read it from Devin, Nick or some other outlet way, way more reputable than a British rag, make of that what you will. Chalk it up to however you like. I feel I’ve done my civic duty to disseminate info with a flatbed of salt with which to to take it. Neil Miller at Film School Rejects has a list of reasons Batman 3 will not be shot completely in IMAX. Most of his arguments have to do with the expense, but his fourth point is still the most important at this point in time: 4. The movie might not happen at all. Through all of this, I think we miss the most obvious points. There is no script, the director has not signed and there has been no official indication that a third Batman movie will happen anytime soon. Sure, it is easy to assume that Warner Bros. will want to make another film and capitalize on the heat generated from The Dark Knight, but that doesn’t mean they will be able to get Chris Nolan back on the horse. He has said time and time again that the story needs to be there. What if it is never there? And if the movie never happens, it can’t be in full IMAX then, can it? I know it’s semantics, but I like to reinforce my arguments — especially when I’m clearly right. Alex Billington at FirstShowing isn’t entirely in the doubting boat regarding an all-IMAX Batman: At this point in time, almost anything we hear about the third Batman is always a rumor, because Chris is 100% dedicated to Inception right now and they haven’t so much as even written a single line of the script yet (or so we’ve heard). But then again, if IMAX is to work with Nolan to develop a camera that is smaller, quiet, and can shoot more than 3 minutes, they might as well start working on it now. Nolan is shooting Inception as we speak and an IMAX rep told me that “Inception is definitely one of the titles that we are looking at for 2010.” I have a feeling that means he’s already shooting with IMAX as much as possible. Simon Dang at The Playlist represents the fanbase that wouldn’t even want an all-IMAX Batman: Rumor has it, Christopher Nolan wants to film the third “Batman” film totally in the IMAX format he toyed with in “The Dark Knight.” As good as those certain scenes looked, we hate to admit the idea of having to watch long features on that wide screen doesn’t sound too appealing. Harry Knowles at Ain’t It Cool News pretty much showed us the best way to handle the spreading of an unsourced tip (aka a rumor) in his introductory disclosure. If only all tabloids used this sort of line: I have to say upfront that the nature of this story is a rumor, not because I don’t have solid sources, I do… but because it could simply NOT WORK OUT. That happens sometimes. It is something that the production team are “considering” - but it is an extremely costly process, but one that I believe we would all love to see happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: LACMA Film Program Saved! For Now!

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:00:33 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/26/2009 5:00:33 PM
Body: The LA Times’ Culture Monster blog is reporting that, thanks to donations totaling $150,000 from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and Time Warner Cable/Ovation TV, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art has reversed their decision to end their film program in October, and will now keep the program alive “at least through the end of the fiscal year in June 2010.” The Culture Monster post doesn’t indicate whether or not the LACMA’s Michael Govan and the film fan activist group Save Film at LACMA will go through with the much-hyped “popcorn summit”, scheduled to take place on September 1, to discuss LACMA’s film future, but apparently the Museum is newly committed to “thinking about the history and future of film as art as well as film’s increasing importance in the larger narrative of art history.” Interesting side fact/road to conspiracy theory: David Segal’s recent NY Times profile of The Weinstein Company blamed Harvey’s acquisition of Ovation as one of TWC’s biggest missteps. Is Saving LACMA Film the Brothers’ way of backing up Inglourious Basterds’ big opening weekend with a big “we’re back” gesture? Maybe! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: WE LIVE IN PUBLIC Review

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:01:14 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/26/2009 2:01:14 PM
Body: “I was the smartest kid in town, and the reporters knew it,” brags Josh Harris in We Live in Public, Ondi Timoner’s documentary on the rise and fall of the Internet’s first (and still its most charismatic) video mogul. It’s a telling statement, in that it points to both Harris’ 1990s raison d’etre, and also his Achilles heel: it’s not what you do that matters, it’s that people are watching you do it. Timoner’s portrait of the prescient (and quite possibly crazy) web pioneer will be a must see for anyone interested in internet fame and the phenomenon of casual over-sharing, even if her storytelling tactics are surprisingly stale. A quick-cut pileup of stock footage, video captured by Timoner over a decade on Harris’ trail, and footage recorded during his surveillance projects, Public outlines Harris’ troubled childhood and tricky relationship with his alcoholic mom before clicking into its comfort zone with Harris’ founding of Pseudo.com. Pseudo, launched in 1993, morphed from a Prodigy chat service into an internet TV network, complete with themed channels and on-air personalities. The company –– and Harris –– became best known for throwing wild parties, which by the late 90s had formed the core of the Silicon Alley social scene. For a brief, heady moment in time, celebrities mingled with nerds, and nerds became celebrities — just because, as Silicon Alley Reporter & Weblogs Inc founder Jason Calacanis puts it, “you knew how to set up a modem.” Riding high on hype (and an $80 million “on paper” net worth), in 1999 Harris launched a massive art project called “Quiet,” where he invited dozens of artists to live with him in a bunker complete with firing range and communal showers, with each bed outfitted with a camera and a TV screen. Life was filmed constantly, residents were subject to the interrogation of a CIA operative, and no one was allowed to leave. When the FBI broke into the bunker and made everyone evacuate (they thought it was a cult, and as one member says on screen, “We were quacking and walking like a duck”), Harris and his girlfriend Tanya moved into a loft outfitted with motion control cameras in every room, broadcasting their relationship 24 hours a day to an audience of eager chatters. This project, called “We Live in Public,” fell apart when the relationship cracked under the pressure of surveillance. By this point, Harris’ sanity was slipping away as fast as his fortune, and in late 2001, the entrepreuer disappeared to an apple farm upstate. Harris is a great anti-hero, and the film more than convinces that we haven’t even begun to grapple with the ramifications of our “always on” internet personas. But for all of its fascinations, the frantic pace is frustrating. Timoner’s montages move so quickly that you can’t begin to connect to or contemplate the bulk of her images. This technique is effective in conveying what it felt like to be in the middle of the whirlwind, but it blocks any beyond-superficial understanding of what that whirlwind meant. (The exception to this rule is the section of the film using footage from “We Live in Public” to talk about Josh and Tanya’s break-up; Timoner gives this material time and space to breathe, which only draws attention to the airlessness of the rest of the piece.) Timoner also relies a little too heavily on pop music for commentary. It’s one thing to set a montage of “Quiet” footage to Le Tigre, to remind us what 1999 felt like; it’s another to ask LCD Soundsystem’s “New York I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down” to bring the poignancy to a 9/11 montage. The song might have been a fresher choice had it not been used not long ago (and to greater ironic effect) on an episode of Gossip Girl, but it still would have been a lazy, literal way to inject feeling. But Public ultimately overcomes its grating stylistic flourishes. Most striking is the footage of “Quiet,” which looks like a mash-up of The Real World and Abu Ghraib. In the late 90s, Harris anticipated not just our country’s use of quasi-fascist interrogation, but the fascination with documenting it and sharing that document on social platforms. Every Harris project seen in the film includes a chat room. He figured out the core truth behind social media years before the rest of us: the news, the art, the event itself is nothing unless you enable people to talk about it. This review first appeared during the 2009 Sundance Film Festival. We Live In Public opens in New York this week. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Luke and Brie are on Amazon

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:01:15 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/26/2009 1:01:15 PM
Body: The following review appeared during the 2008 Hamptons Film Festival. Luke and Brie Are On a First Date is now available for rental or purchase via Amazon Video on Demand. Luke and Brie Are On a First Date, which world premiered in the Hamptons last weekend, is the debut feature by Chad Hartigan, a frequent collaborator of Aaron Katz, and there are definitely some superficial similarities between the two filmmakers’ work. Like Katz’s Quiet City, Luke and Brie follows two attractive young people (George Ducker and Meghan Webster) around a city as they break through awkward uncertainty to forge a tentative romantic connection, and with their dreamy, super-intimate videography, both films have a way of enveloping a viewer in the action (or what passes for action), ultimately serving as delivery vehicles for the kind of heightened realism that marks an unexpectedly life-changing night out. But Luke and Brie plays its drama much closer to the surface, and through a little bit of self-reflexivity, a film that’s virtually wall-to-wall conversation manages to avoid feeling too talky. Hartigan, who is a Los Angeles-based box office analyst by day, said after the Hamptons screening that Luke and Brie, based structurally on his own first date with his current girlfriend, was shot in 5 days on a budget of $3000. The small scale of the project opens it up to an obvious criticism: surely, all of us could come up with a single night in our romantic lives that seems worthy of dramatization, and many of us could round up some friends and scrape together a few dollars and take a week off work to tell it. So what makes Luke and Brie special? Maybe nothing, and maybe that’s it — maybe it’s not interesting because it’s entering into unchartered territory, but because it takes us through universal, well-worn feelings and makes them feel new. With his camera often seeming to float over faces in extreme close-up, Hartigan’s micro-focus on the nerves, uncertainties, and ambiguities, the posturing and reflex self-medication and unexpected moments of honesty that fuel the night so nails the harrowing aspect of navigating modern romance — in which it’s always easier to do nothing than to do what one really wants — that he’s able to turn the film’s ultimate surrender to traditional romantic closure into something of a surprise. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Inglourious Basterds Will Be Oscar-Nominated. Today in Film Bloggery 08/25/09

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:01:03 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/25/2009 7:01:03 PM
Body: Here’s a story that broke yesterday but has continued to pick up steam through the movie blogs today: The Weinstein Co. is planning to release box office champ Inglourious Basterds on DVD by the end of the year in order to use the discs for a cheap but aggressive Oscar campaign. This isn’t surprising news considering Harvey Weinstein’s Oscar addiction, but it has suddenly made me aware that Basterds is both deserving of and sure to receive a nod for Best Picture, which would be Quentin Tarantino’s first such nominee since Pulp Fiction 15 years ago. Seriously, if we can be talking about District 9, Star Trek and other genre movies for the top category now that it will include ten contenders, how couldn’t Basterds be seen as a likely nominee? People have celebrated Christoph Waltz’s performance since Cannes, and he’s sure to garner a Best Supporting Actor nod, but few have noted how the film itself is a lock, too. Certainly if Weinstein can get The Reader a surprise Best Picture nomination with only five available slots, he can get this film onto a ballot double the size. Don’t forget the Holocaust rule; how could the Academy ignore a movie that features vengeful Jews assassinating Hitler and 300 other Nazis all at once in a blaze of glory? Never mind that they didn’t get some of the worst offenders involved in the genocide. Could Basterds garner more than the two obvious nominations? I doubt Tarantino will receive recognition for either directing or screenwriting, but who knows? Any other performances worthy? Any tech fields? Variety has an interesting article today on the costume design by Anna B. Sheppard. She’s been twice nominated for, interestingly enough, Holocaust films (Schindler’s List and The Pianist), but this time she was presented with more of a challenge. I have a feeling this third Holocaust-related project could be the one to get her the Oscar. Check out what the other film blogs are saying about Basterds‘ Oscar chances after the jump: Tom O’Neil at Gold Derby first scooped the Weinstein’s Oscar plans, claiming they’re modeled after the Crash strategy. Here is his expectation of the outcome: Beware, Hollywood. Given how red rivers flow in Tarantino pix, the town will be engulfed in a blood tide this December when Harvey unleashes his “Inglourious Basterds” DVD campaign. It will probably pay off with two Academy Award nominations: best screenplay (Tarantino) and supporting actor (Christoph Waltz). Maybe more. “Pulp Fiction” got nommed for best picture when there were only five slots; this year there will be twice as many. Ross Miller at ScreenRant is worried this campaign means a slim, feature-less DVD release, for now anyway, but here are his thoughts on what Basterds‘ Oscar future looks like: Having seen the film twice now, it easily deserves a Supporting Actor nomination for Christoph Waltz (he should also win, IMO), and also a couple for Original Screenplay and Best Director for Tarantino. I have a feeling that at least a couple of those will end up being the case (Actor and Screenplay), with Best Picture maybe slipping in there as well, since the Academy has expanded the Best Picture nominees from five to ten entries. C. Jerry Kutner at Bright Lights After Dark celebrates the return of Rod Taylor in a post that has me wondering if maybe the Academy will honor his very short performance as one of those lifetime-achievement-type nominations. It’s not that unlikely, even if he hadn’t put in such effort: Taylor came out of retirement to play Sir Winston Churchill in Tarantino’s highly personalized take on World War II (as much about the cinema as it is about the War). According to the Miami Herald, Taylor “watched dozens of DVDs to get Churchill’s voice, complete with lisp, and the hunched body language”…Taylor as Churchill appears in one scene only of Inglourious Basterds, saying very little, but dominating the scene with his presence as only a true star can. Brad Brevet at RopeofSilicon would love to see Michael Fassbender nominated, but he just doesn’t see any potential for Basterds outside the Waltz nomination. He presents why the film won’t make the cut for Best Original Screenplay: The Academy can sometimes be hard to judge and I think categories such as Best Original Screenplay will be much easier to sort out as we move along, but I won’t be writing off Inglourious Basterds anytime soon considering the news Inarritu’s Biutiful may not be released this year and the fact Apatow’s Funny People didn’t do so well. But that still has Tarantino battling out with the likes of the following in alphabetical order: * (500) Days of Summer – Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber * Bright Star – Jane Campion * Broken Embraces – Pedro Almodovar * The Hurt Locker – Mark Boal * A Serious Man – Joel and Ethan Coen * Up – Bob Peterson You tell me, do you see it fitting inside the top five with those names? Kristopher Tapley at In Contention sees Basterds more deserving of tech nominations than a writing one: A couple of pieces caught my eye today featuring talent associated with Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds,” a film that, despite my feelings of the narrative, had a rather refreshing visceral sheen to it. That’s a tribute, no doubt, to folks like Bob Richardson, David Wasco, Anna B. Sheppard, etc. One of the pieces Tapley highlights is the pre-Variety showcase of Sheppard at Boxwish, which points out the achievement: Clearly her CV made her an ideal fit for whipping up the era’s authentic period costumes, but it was a challenge that Sheppard was slow to accept until assured that Inglourious Basterds wasn’t a traditional by-the-book retelling of World War II’s horrors, but a boisterous, imaginative and spiky vision of it. As the trailer’s tag-line says “you haven’t seen war until you’ve seen it through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino,” and Sheppard was thrilled to learn that this applied to costumes as well. Lane Brown at Vulture questions the merit of Basterds: Why didn’t the Weinstein Company release Inglourious Basterds closer to awards season? We figured it was because it they didn’t plan on it winning many awards. But Tom O’Neil posits today that Harvey’s plan is to make an Oscar push around the time of its DVD release later this year…It worked for Crash, so we suppose anything’s possible. Bob Westal at Premium Hollywood has doubts about the Academy’s appreciation for both Tarantino and his treatment of the Holocaust: Quentin Tarantino’s films are not Oscar-friendly. The older members of the Academy have traditionally leaned strongly towards a very traditional, essentially literary and middle-class, view of quality which is pretty much the antithesis of the Tarantino aesthetic. It’s only been through his widespread acclaim and a subtle loosening of old prejudices that his films have gotten the definitely limited Oscar recognition they have and, considering what some regard as a too lighthearted view of World War II horrors, I wouldn’t expect this one to be much different. Of course, with ten nomination slots for Best Picture, and the universal groundswell of acclaim for heretofore internationally unknown German actor Christoph Waltz, two or three nominations (including the semi-inevitable “Best Original Screenplay” nod) are almost a certainty. Peter Bart at Variety less-directly addresses Basterds‘ qualifications for the Holocaust rule: Writing in The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg struggles to find a subtext in “Inglourious Basterds” dealing with “Jewish empowerment.” I would argue the only thing on display here is Tarantino Empowerment. He has the power to make very long movies with very self-referential dialogue. He owns the play pen. Kevin Jagernauth at The Playlist sees a potential for four major nods but wonders if Basterds will be hurt more by the fanboy rule than helped by the Holocaust rule: But as the Oscar season shapes up, it will be interesting to see how viable (or not) of a player “Inglourious Basterds” will remain in the major categories. The danger with throwing Tarantino’s film into the Oscar mix is that Harvey could end up with a “The Dark Knight” situation on his hands. As readers might recall, that film did boffo box-office numbers and was universally loved by critics, but as far as the Academy was concerned, it was still just a fanboy film. Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere sees the problem being the film’s violence, despite the fact that we’ve seen a movie like The Departed win four Oscars, including Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture. His argument: The only Inglourious Basterds Oscar nomination that’s going to happen is Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor — end of story. Harvey can blanket Hollywood with DVDs to make sure this happens, but isn’t Waltz’s nomination already pasted into most people’s heads? Tarantino’s screenplay hasn’t a prayer of being nominated for Best Original Screenplay. Not with that damn baseball-bat/brain-matter scene. Gran Shaggy Poo sez the over-50s ain’t goin’ for it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: SpoutBlog: The Book

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:01:21 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/25/2009 12:01:21 PM
Body: In the 26 months or so since I started editing SpoutBlog full time, we have published thousands of posts, covered dozens of festivals, and reviewed hundreds of films. In that time, blogging has become the default format for online content, while at the same time what it means to be a professional film critic has — to put it kindly — evolved. The meme is that the media is dying, but more precisely, information distribution is in a weird kind of limbo: blogs still seem ephemeral, printed matter legitimate. So! We are going to publish a book, a compilation of SpoutBlog’s “greatest hits,” with special emphasis on my reports from festivals, writings on below-the-radar films, and posts that reflect the evolution in online film culture. We’re going to publish it through CreateSpace, then sell it on Amazon and at film festivals and like events. The goal is not necessarily to make money (although we do hope to break even on publishing costs), but to create a physical snapshot of this thing that I’ve devoted the last two years of my life to creating, and that many of you have gotten into the habit of reading. Also, I made an empty promise to myself in grad school that if I wasn’t able to publish a book by the time I was 30, it would be a sign that this writing-about-movies racket wasn’t the right vocation for me. I’m no longer such a believer in signs, but I do still like the idea of publishing books. To do this, we need your help, in three specific areas: 1. Curation: Right now we’re thinking that the book will probably include about 40 posts — about 1-2 per month since I joined the fold. I’m in the process of creating a short list of candidates; I’ve currently whittled the 3,000-something posts down to 53 pieces, although I’m still trying to figure out which posts to include to reflect my coverage of documentary film. If you have favorite SpoutBlog posts that you think absolutely need to be included in this volume — or, if there’s anything specific you think shouldn’t be included — please let me know in the comments. 2. Photography: I’m looking for a New York-based photographer with access to equipment who can shoot the cover image. We have a concept in mind but would love to find someone who could contribute their own ideas. This would need to happen as soon as possible — preferably within the week — and there would be some small compensation — a couple hundred dollars, a couple sample copies of the book. You can email me at karina AT spout DOT come if you’re interested or know someone who is. 3. Promotion: The goal is to have physical copies of the book in hand by the beginning of October. If you are associated with a film festival/event, an independent bookstore, video store, or anywhere else that would be interested in hosting a reading or signing some such endeavor related to the book this fall or winter, please email me. If you have any additional thoughts or questions, please let me know in the comments. Maybe it’s pollyannaish, but I really do want this to be something that benefits from the input of the audience — you, after all, are the reason why I get out of bed every morning. Or, at least, fire up my laptop from bed. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Inception Trailer Has Everyone Guessing. Today in Film Bloggery 08/24/09

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:00:48 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/24/2009 7:00:48 PM
Body: Someone commented on my list of Avatar comparisons last week noting that such a practice could be done with any movie. He/She is correct, though it doesn’t really matter since the point of that exercise was to respond to the certain expectation that came with that film’s hype that it would be unlike anything we’ve seen before. With the teaser for Christopher Nolan’s Inception, however, the similar claims of derivation are simply a normal thing we film bloggers to do trailers, particularly those that give us little clue as to what their movie is about. But deep in our hearts, we all trust Nolan, right? We don’t think he’d make a movie that people would say is just like The Matrix or Identity or Fight Club or Jurassic Park or whatever. Just like the illusionists in The Prestige and also like Batman, I guess, Nolan has a lot up his sleeve. The fact that nobody knows anything about the plot of Inception makes its trailer even more cryptic than it would seem otherwise to just the regular moviegoer who doesn’t follow script reviews and production developments. I wish I knew so little about Avatar — and about pretty much any upcoming movie, for that matter. Check out what the film blogs are saying about the new Inception trailer after the jump. Beaks at Aint It Cool News says about this trailer pretty much what I had wished I could have said about the Avatar trailer: Thus far, all we know about Christopher Nolan’s INCEPTION is that it is a contemporary science-fiction thriller “set inside the architecture of the mind.” This might be frustratingly vague for some, but it’s good enough for me. All I need to know is that one of the world’s most talented filmmakers is hard at work shooting a brainy sci-fi flick on a $200 million budget… Kristopher Tapley at In Contention celebrates the vagueness of the trailer: In fact, it reminds me of a time when trailers did what they were originally supposed to do: pique a viewer’s interest without giving away the plot. And that’s what this discombobulated series of images and sounds does. In fact, I almost wish I didn’t know as much about the plot as I do, because the disorienting action sequence at the tail end of the trailer makes a certain kind of sense that it wouldn’t make if I knew nothing, making the “WTF” moment that much more resonant. Erik Davis at SciFi Squad also celebrates the lack of known plot details: This, I think, is a good thing — too many movies are ruined too far in advance these days, and so for this to hit the teaser trailer stage without a somewhat meaty synopsis having already been revealed, that, well, is a pretty cool thing. Mike Sampson at JoBlo.com is also glad the trailer is so vague, claiming it beats the weekend’s other new trailers for Avatar and Wolfman: …Christopher Nolan’s INCEPTION teaser, is online today and strangely is my favorite of the bunch. Primarily because we still have no real idea what this movie is about and trying to figure it all out with the footage we have in this teaser is part of the fun. Graeme McMillan at i09 isn’t sure if the Matrix similarities are a disappointment: This is, of course, just a teaser, but it does its job - We’re curious to see what’s behind the seemingly random images (One of which is repeated on the movie’s just-launched official site), and wondering whether or not we’re feeling underwhelmed by being reminded of The Matrix so much. Sean at Film Junk is interested in the film because of the Matrix vibe: As I mentioned on the podcast, there are definite echoes of The Matrix here, and since we know it’s supposed to be a sci-fi action film, it seems that the mind will likely serve a surreal battlefield where anything goes. Count me in. Chris Hewitt at Empire is also turned on by the Matrix similarities: It’s pretty damned impressive, and slightly reminiscent of The Matrix in its trippy, free-floating, gravity-defying style, and it’s not at all what we were expecting. We still haven’t the foggiest about what’s actually going on here, but there’s no doubt that it’s going to be cool. Very cool. Neil Miller at Film School Rejects has faith in Nolan and in a particular scene spotlighted in the trailer, even if it is Matrix-like: He’s a great storyteller who is following the second highest grossing film of all-time with an aggressive science fiction pic. And at this point, it’s impossible to judge this movie based on less than a minute of actual footage. But I will say this: that fight scene in the hallway looks pretty cool. Adam Rosenberg at MTV Movies Blog wonders if the film will be as game-changing as The Matrix: I’ve got to say, I get a very “Matrix” vibe off of this trailer. I mean that in a good way; “Inception” doesn’t look like “The Matrix,” it just makes me recall the initial sense of wonderment I felt at seeing the first teaser. Does anyone remember those first teases, before anyone knew a thing about what the Wachowski bros were cooking? What we had was this visually compelling assortment of quick shots, filled with action and all sorts of fancy CG effects. No one knew anything about red pills or blue pills or robot masters or anything of the sort. Kyle Buchanan at Movieline was more reminded of another, earlier film than he was of The Matrix: In particular, how ballsy clever interesting for the teaser to include as one of its few images a direct lift from Jurassic [Park]’s own trailer, which made simple use of a disturbed glass of water. Here, instead of the water reflecting the impact tremor of a nearby T-Rex, it’s tilting upward as though coaxed by the gimbal in Leonardo DiCaprio’s mind. We knew that DiCaprio was playing a rich and powerful CEO, but who could have guessed his fortune was derived from such a novel new take in the sippy cup? Lane Brown at Vulture brings up comparisons to one of Nolan’s own films and also to Fight Club: Plus, there are a bunch of Dark Knight–style aerial shots of a city, indicating that Nolan’s love of helicopter rides has not abated. The tagline (”Your mind is the scene of the crime”) makes us a little worried that this will be one of those films in which, at the end, the good guy turns out to also be the bad guy. Eugene Novikov at Cinematical sees another derivation, but he’s not at all concerned: My immediate instinct was to think of the John Cusack/James Mangold thriller Identity, which I quite liked but would rather not see again, if you get me. But suffice it to say I am not worried that Inception will be a retread. Gabe at Videogum likens the movie to Vanilla Sky, The Matrix, Minority Report and Dark City before attempting to guess the actual premise of the film: But if they’re not going to tell us what this movie is about, we are going to have to make it up. I love making it up! SO, Inception is about a man named Brian (get it? SPOOKY ANAGRAMS!) who is a special agent for the CIA’s Mind Crimes Division who has to go deeper into his own mind than he ever tried before, via Mind Helicopter, to investigate the murder of a Mind Hotel Concierge. But then he wakes up and it had all just been a Dream Crime. Krystal Clark at ScreenCrave also tries to figure out what’s going on: From what I can tell Leonardo DiCaprio’s character seems to be under a lot of stress. I caught a glimpse of Joseph Gordon-Levitt literally bouncing off the walls, and Cillian Murphy being carried off of a helicopter ramp by a couple of suited men. What’s going on here? I think that’s the whole point. I will admit that I am intrigued. Mark at I Watch Stuff tells us what he hopes the movie is not about: Just so long as the mind being the scene of the crime doesn’t mean some Fantastic Voyage scenario where Leonardo DiCaprio is shrinking himself down to the side of a brain cell to literally enter a criminal’s head and find the clues to solve a murder. Ah, who am I kidding? I would love that movie. Katey Rich at Cinema Blend focuses on deciphering one particular scene: The longest scene — just a few seconds– is of a truly awesome fight sequence, in which two people are fighting in a hallway that seems to have lost contact with gravity. One of the fighters appears to be Joseph Gordon-Levitt, while the other might be DiCaprio– or, for all we know, is Ellen Page.That scene is what sells the teaser for me, a vague promise of what’s to come, something weighty and awesome befitting the director of The Dark Knight. Ross Miller at ScreenRant also wants to know what’s going on in that scene: What the hell is going on in that hallway?! It looks like they’re in a hallway that is either being turned on some sort of swivel, or the gravity has been removed/lessened. With all this talk of entering dreams and being, “set within the architecture of the mind,” I wouldn’t be surprised if that was some sort of Matrix style fight sequence dreamt by Leonardo DiCaprio’s character. And what’s with that weird silver spinning top (which can also be found on the film’s official website)? I could go on and on with the questions… The Playlist has some of the more interesting detective work going on with this trailer: First off the man fighting Leonardo DiCaprio in the “Matrix“-style fight is definitely Joseph Gordon-Levitt so we can assume that makes him a villain? Is it Leo he’s fighting? It’s hard to tell. And the man dragged away from the plane as DiCaprio’s character looks on, appears to be Cillian Murphy Lukas Haas. Something odd. Note this screen-cap with Gordon-Levitt and this one too. He’s clearly fighting a black man, but when you cut to other clips of them fighting, it’s clearly two white men. What’s up with that? Another clue of what happens within the film possibly? Strange to think considering so far there are no major African-American actors in the film that we know of. Renn Brown at CHUD.com notes that even when we see the whole film it might not be the easiest to understand: True to his tradition of minimal teaser trailers, Nolan has revealed about a dozen shots- most of which imply gravity will be doing weird shit. Reliance on the ever-rising-strings aside, the trailer is creepy and interesting, and does its job well enough. If the maze logo is any indication, Nolan has made his biggest puzzle movie yet. Anne Thompson at Thompson on Hollywood agrees that a film like this may have no rules: Everything is genre these days. This looks like Matrix meets Shutter Island, which also stars DiCaprio. The scary thing about mind-movies—anything can happen, you don’t know what the rules of reality are. Alex Billington at FirstShowing points out something that makes me wonder if even Nolan knows the whole story yet (or that he could still change the rules if he wants to): …an awesome teaser, especially for a project we’ve known nothing about until now. This hasn’t even finished shooting yet either, they’re still working in Paris, which makes it even more exciting to see. Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere gets the last word for having the only real concern for this movie, a concern that is hardly worth having regarding the difference in size between Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Page: His head is at least 50% larger than hers. Look at them! He could pick her up and carry her under his arm like one of those stuffed Jack Skellington dolls. Page is a very fine actress — nobody’s talking about her emoting here — but she’s obviously in the same size realm as the superb Peter Dinklage (who easily gave the best performance in Sidney Lumet’s Find Me Guilty), Billy Barty, Mickey Rooney and Danny DeVito. Now check out the puzzling trailer: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Is That Really Lauren Bacall on Twitter?

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:01:08 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/24/2009 12:01:08 PM
Body: Twitter hasn’t “verified” her account so it could be a fraud, but here’s hoping that this really is Hollywood legend Lauren Bacall mixing it up on the Twitters. It’s plausible — if you condensed the bitchy, dishy voice of her autobiography into 140 character missives, this Twitterstream is what it would look like. My ten favorite moments of her Twitter stream thus far: 10. When she posted the Twitpic of her walking out of Max’s Kansas City en route to Studio 54 to meet “Mr.Warhol and Mr.Nureyev”. 9. Her response to people complaining about her lit cigarette in said picture, spread out over five tweets, including this commentary on the perks of old age: “The good thing about being 84 is that I can smoke as much as I want, If I was smoking 2 packs a day on the set of To Have and Have Not…..when I was 19 and I am still around 65 years later I can continue smoking as much as i want.” 8. “in LA to discuss with Mr. Scorsese his Sinatra biopic in the works, I wonder who he is going to cast to play me.Who would you guys cast?” 7. Bacall says she’s been offered a role in Quentin Tarantino’s new film opposite Christina Ricci, Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper, in which she would play “the villainess.” “I have never been offered to play a schitzophrenic Russian heroin addicted Kidnapper’s mother before. haha.” Haha indeed. 6. Her first tweet: “I can’t get this God dam thing to work!” 5. Her bio, in which she plugs her autobiography and astutely namechecks her three best films: “Read my book By Myself and Then Some and watch my movies The Big Sleep, To Have and Have Not and Written on the Wind” 4. When she admits that her granddaughter made her watch Twilight. “she said it was the greatest vampire film ever.After the “film” was over I wanted to..smack her accros her head with my shoe, but I do not want a book called Grannie Dearest written on me when I die…” 3. …”So instead I gave her a DVD of Murnau’s 1922 masterpiece Nosferatu and told her, now thats a vampire film! and that goes for all of you! watch Nosferatu instead!” 2. When she calls out her 19 year old, scotch-addled grandson for hitting on a cater waitresses “with Jayne Mansfield size breast and Liz Taylor eyes, men do scumble into the female flesh temptation so fast.” 1. When she then posts a twitpic of said grandson, looking like a complete tool. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Michael Moore’s Capitalism Trailer Seems Dated. Today in Film Bloggery 08/21/09

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:00:57 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/21/2009 5:00:57 PM
Body: The new trailer for Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story debuted yesterday on CNN.com, but obviously the world (including me) was too busy crapping on the Avatar trailer to notice. Even the Wolfman spot received more notice. For awhile last night I thought maybe people, even those on the left, were tired of Moore completely. But no, there has finally been some discussion of the thing today. And the consensus appears to be that Moore isn’t making films any fresher or more groundbreaking than James Cameron is. In fact, Moore’s latest seems surprisingly dated. This is something we’ve expected, of course, given the ongoing story of the economic meltdown, but it is interesting to see so much Bush as well as a complete lack of footage that appears to have been shot since Obama was elected. Worst of all, everyone agrees, is the use of M.I.A.’s “Paper Planes” on the soundtrack. Even if that song hadn’t been used to death by Pineapple Express and Slumdog Millionaire ads, I would think I was watching a trailer from 2008. How about, given the current events, Moore just rereleases Sicko instead? Check out what the rest of the film blogs are saying about the film/trailer after the jump: Seth Abramovitch at Movieline thinks this film looks too vague, gimmicky and outdated: And unlike his past topics (guns, healthcare, the Bush regime), which still felt worthy of having some light shed upon them, there’s nothing here that suggests Moore is covering new ground on a topic that has earned wall-to-wall coverage for well over a year. Has any stone yet been unturned with respect to this particular subject? There’s Bush, and there’s Bush again, and there’s Bush again pressing flesh with Henry Paulson. Moore has made a movie about the crash, but has he made an interesting movie? Ryan Adams at Awards Daily disagrees, believing this will be better than the wall-to-wall coverage of the past year: No matter what your personal feelings might be toward Michael Moore himself, it’s a safe bet that we’ll get a sharper explanation of the meltdown panic from his latest movie than we’ve learned from watching the toadying financial correspondents on cable for the past 8 months. Will it be an accurate explanation? Who knows. But at least it won’t pretend to be authoritative news coverage. It’ll be more useful than most media analysis (by being smarter), and more enjoyable (by being meaner). Lane Brown at Vulture addresses the “Paper Planes” use by pleading with M.I.A. to record a new song to feature in trailers and such: Isn’t it time to give this track a gold watch? We know M.I.A.’s a new mom, but couldn’t she hire a babysitter for a couple of hours, sneak down to the studio, and record a new song about taking people’s money, now that she’s completely desensitized us all to the sound of gunfire? Alex Billington at First Showing is okay with the topic and the M.I.A., but he does have a slight issue with one old-looking aspect: Being a Moore fan, I’ve got to say this looks as awesome, hilarious, and controversial as any of his previous films. This time, Moore tackles Wall Street and our economy. I’m not so sure I like his use of all the cheerful 50’s style footage, but I do love his not-so-subtle use of MIA’s “Paper Planes.” Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere thinks the film looks too familiar: …my first reaction to this trailer was “haven’t we seen Moore dealing with security guys while trying to confront corporate bigwigs a few times before?” It feels a little tired, is all. A little rote. Alex Riviello at CHUD.com sees this as being too much like the antiquated, pre-Sicko Michael Moore style: I’m genuinely curious about the film but am a little worried from the trailer that Moore has become too big of a presence once again. Part of the reason I think Sicko is his best work is that he mostly let the subject speak for itself rather than cheapening things with silly stunts that are good for laugh and not much else. Dustin Rowles at Pajiba is glad to see Moore back to his old style and weight, but agrees the movie is too late: Unfortunately, the bailout debacle seems a little dated. Sicko might have been more appropriate now, while Congress is debating a health-care bill (read: Getting pushed over by a few screechy nutters). We’re slowly coming out of the recession (fingers crossed), and the last thing we need is a reminder of what got us here. We know what got us here: Deregulation and subprime mortgages. I’m not sure I’m that interested in rehashing it. And it’s not like Michael Moore has ever offered solutions. John Cook at Defamer also thinks Sicko should have come out this year instead of this film: Sicko is an exception in a way, but only because it came out too soon. His collection of health care nightmares showed how “death panels” already exist in America (they’re called “insurance claims adjusters”) wcame out during the Bush years and not when, you know, health care reform might be on the top of the political agenda. Mark at I Watch Stuff points out that Moore has become useless since Sicko didn’t seem to influence public opinion on the health care situation: His next documentary should be about why the U.S. should switch to the metric system. That should make for similarly well-intentioned but ultimately futile entertainment. Sean at Film Junk is apparently for once not interested in a Moore film: have to say though, even as a fan of Moore’s films, this is looking a bit weak to me. Maybe they just wanted to get across the basic premise in the trailer and deliver a few punchlines without getting overly complicated, but it really looks like there is absolutely nothing to this movie. I might even say I feel dumber having watched it. Neil Miller at Film School Rejects believes he’ll enjoy the film, but he dislikes the way it’s being marketed: I strongly dislike trailers for Michael Moore’s movies. As you can see in the trailer for Capitalism below, much of the substance is stripped away and the trailer becomes a clip reel of Moore’s shock-gags. I have no doubt that his movie will address the issues at hand, but at this point it appears that he’s just trying to perform a citizen’s arrest on the heads of AIG. Gabe at Videogum thinks the marketing of the film is improving, and he notes that it feels even older than 2008: Well, at the very least, this trailer is much better than the last trailer, right? For one thing, the movie has a name now, which is really useful when advertising a movie, and also (BONUS!) makes you seem like less of a self-involved narcissistic nightmare who is selling a movie on his involvement alone in some kind of distracting cult-of-personality which definitely undermines any serious political point you might have been trying to make. It is also just in general a much less coy trailer. And of course Paper Planes! 2007! Josh Tyler at Cinema Blend believes the movie will fail regardless of how fresh or dated it is: Maybe I’m just cynical, ok I’m definitely cynical, but somehow I think Michael Moore’s new movie is going to fall on deaf ears. Not just because it’s Michael Moore and there’s a large portion of the population that always tunes out when his name is mentioned, but also because America has never been stupider. People are no longer interested in information or facts, they’re mostly interested in whatever they happen to believe, which may or may not be based on reality. Here’s the trailer, courtesy of CNN: Embedded video from &lt;a href=”http://www.cnn.com/video” mce_href=”http://www.cnn.com/video”&gt;CNN Video&lt;/a&gt; Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Avatar Trailer Fails. Today in Film Bloggery 08/20/09

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:00:46 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/20/2009 7:00:46 PM
Body: As if the problems with Fox’s “Avatar Day” promotion weren’t enough, the marketing of James Cameron’s Avatar continued to hit snags today with the faulty debut of the film’s trailer. Despite there being a literal countdown until its premiere, at 10am EST this morning Twitter was abuzz with complaints that the thing not only didn’t work, but that it was a massive failure on the part of Fox, Apple and whoever else was responsible. Not helping matters was the fact that while we waited for the thing to be available on Apple’s site, we looked around the page and noticed the embarrassing copy that reads “FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE ‘TITANIC.’” Meanwhile, others found they could view the trailer on a French MSN site. Then came the biggest fail of all: the trailer was a disappointment! Derivative visuals aside, the movie looks to be a letdown in terms of its responsibility to be a groundbreaking work of cinema. Of course, there could have been no other reaction coming off so much hype. And it is indeed possible that the backlash will turn back around once people see some of the film as its meant to be seen, in 3D. But that’s just the problem of this marketing blunder. While some are saying the trailer shouldn’t have hit the web before “Avatar Day,” I think this particular trailer shouldn’t have been made, let alone released, at all. As I wrote earlier this year in anticipation of Avatar’s marketing, “You really don’t need to show one second of footage. Because we’ll be there no matter what.” However, now that I’ve seen a disappointing mess of CGI and familiar-looking footage, maybe I won’t be there after all — unless I hear legitimate reason to bother (fortunately, I’m sure I will hear one). Check out what the rest of the film blogosphere has to say about the trailer’s failure — or success — after the jump: In a discussion prompt, Erik Davis at Cinematical recaps the morning of the Avatar trailer debacle: If ever there was a trailer launch cluster-f*ck, it was this morning with the supposed release of the first Avatar trailer. The domestic trailer was scheduled to hit Apple at 10am EST, but that never happened and there was no immediate explanation as to why it wasn’t working. But god bless the French because they got their trailer up and running in time for most people to … um, kinda trash it. Granted, Avatar supporters will try to reason with you, offering up several different explanations: 1) You need to watch it in HD, or 2) You can’t watch it on your computer screen, or 3) You need to watch it in 3D, or 4) You need to watch it in 3D on an IMAX screen, or 5) You need to watch it on Pandora with a half-naked Na’vi chick lying in your lap feeding you glowing blue goo. Lane Brown at Vulture wrote up a post just to scorn Apple for its failure: We’d hoped to bring you a post on the new Avatar trailer this morning, but for the second time this week, James Cameron’s massively anticipated 3-D blue-alien movie has proven too game-changing for traditional Internet-based websites. Apple promised to post the teaser at 10 a.m., though all we’re getting are these sad question marks. The day is ruined. Dustin Rowles at Pajiba points out its failure in relation to the hype: And for all the stupid ridiculous hype that’s surrounded this movie, if the trailer is any indication, Avatar is disappointingly just a movie. It will not balance your checkbook. It will not make your head explode. And it will not go down on you, though with a reported budget in the $300 - $400 million dollar range, you’d kind of hoped for that. Mark at I Watch Stuff wants to know where the groundbreaking stuff is at: I mean, that definitely looks like some large-scale, intense action, and I’d love to watch the full film, but I’m still not seeing what game it’s changing. It’s only revolutionary if you were in the bathroom during all the over-sized, not-quite-real-looking battles from Star Wars I-III. Craig Kennedy at Living in Cinema is underwhelmed: I have to say my expectations were extremely low and I’m still totally unimpressed. It looks like a pretty unremarkable cartoon and that’s not good for a movie whose drawing card was supposed to be the visuals and special effects. Worse still, this simply doesn’t look like a movie I want to see. The Playlist is also very disappointed given the context: However, if you were expecting — like we were — realistic looking creatures in the vein of the tangible and frightening monsters in Cameron’s “Aliens,” forget it. These things — and the second half of the trailer — look like something out of a PS2 game and are not far off from that silly Elvin look in the Final Fantasy games. The second half basically turns into one of those mid-game sections of a video game and completely deflates us. This is supposed to be the game changer this year? Kurt Halfyard at Twitch hopes this looks better in the correct format: Honestly, I hope the 3D makes a big difference because while parts of this look amazing others look like a standard - albeit high quality - video game cut-scene and for all the talk and hype and buzz - not to mention the massive amount of money spent, I expect more than this. Patrick Schumacker at Screen Junkies sarcastically applauds the visuals: The digital-imaging effects really do look amazing. We haven’t seen character design this revolutionary since Small Soldiers or Jak and Daxter. In case our simple comparison between Avatar and Delgo didn’t prove the similarities, S.T. VanAirsdale at Movieline presents seven eerie parallels: …maybe Delgo’s creators were on to something when they undertook their story of two races battling it out for the soul of a planet, with some wicked fantasy adventure and a tender love story tossed in for good measure. After all, James Cameron seems to have been influenced by some oddly similar visuals and themes… Mac Bernardin at Entertainment Weekly’s PopWatch has the feeling he’s seen these visuals before, and not just at the movies: I’m kind of underwhelmed. There’s a definite Attack of the Clones vibe to the creatures — which feel like beasts from the sketchbook of an insanely talented 12-year-old — and the world, while expertly realized, just doesn’t carry the charge of the New. I feel like I’ve seen the same landscape on the side of at least one stoner’s van back when I was in high school (the dude who listened to a whole lot of Rush and Yes and quoted Tolkien to score with theater chicks). Rob Bricken at Topless Radio seems to be okay with the trailer but has so many negative points to make about it: Looks neat. Really. I’m just not blown away. Honestly, I’m not trying to be a huge bitch here, but it’s not more astounding to me than Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was when I first saw that trailer…Actually, there is one real problem I see, and that’s the Na’vi aliens, who look… like they’re from Re:boot or something other CG cartoon from the ’90s. They look preposterously CG and goofy to me. Tyler Coates at Man About the Internet addresses the bad copywriting on the website: I hate it when I see people on Facebook who list “The Titanic” as their favorite movie, and not because it’s a stupid pick (even though it is), but because the title of the film is “Titanic,” not “The Titanic.” The copy above the title here blows my mind because it’s both factually and grammatically incorrect, but I think maybe it’s because it’s being marketed to fans of “The Titanic.” Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere also comments about the copy, viewed as a serious offense: The fine fellow who proofed the Apple website copy needs to taken outside, tied to a fence post and Marlon Brando bull-whipped (a la One-Eyed Jacks). As HE reader “maxfm” has pointed out, the top line reads “FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE ‘TITANIC’.” Mind-numbing, unbelievable. Michelle Collins at Best Week Ever can’t figure out what the movie is about, but thinks it has something to do with Japan and “f**kin’ dinosaurs” fucking shit up. But here’s the non-plot stuff she got: The trailer is basically a Jar Jar Binks barf of mish-mashed special effects with a side of Lord of the Rings deleted scenes and more than a pinch of Apocalypto. I’ve watched it three times and still have no idea what the hell this movie is about. Krystal Clark at ScreenCrave has posted a poll, and the results show most readers were underwhelmed. Meanwhile, Krystal complains about the logic of the film’s plot: Avatar takes place in a time where doctors can transport your mind into a false body, but they can’t revitalize the nerves of paraplegics? If Sam Worthington’s character wants to walk, they don’t have the technology to heal him, but they can create an entirely new alien body for him to use instead? But like I said, that’s the plot-picking nerd in me, its all in good fun. A similar plot criticism comes from a comment by “torpid bunny” at The Hot Blog: Also, just to be cranky: they can travel across the galaxy, remotely link a man’s brain to a living body, but they can’t get the guy to walk somehow? He’s confined to a wheelchair?!? Is this really a parable about the lack of affordable health care? (Actually, that movie might be interesting: Yes we can travel to other stars to fight the aliens there. No we can’t pay for you to walk again.) Gabe at Videogum is shrugging now but admits he and everyone else will still see the thing: Obviously, I will see this. You will see this. Your mom will see this. She will call you and say “your father and I are going to see the Aviator.” It will be six weeks after the movie came out when you get that call. But for now I remain non-plussed. NON-PLUSSED! Brian Moylan at Defamer hopes disappointment now leads to appreciation later: Well, we’re glad our expectations have been lowered, so that the 3-D version might still blow us away. Don’t let us down, Cameron. You probably won’t have a chance to make it up to us until your next movie in 2025. Katey Rich at Cinema Blend thinks the trailer sucks but assures us the actual movie will be worth it: the Quicktime format is so limiting, especially for a 3D movie, that the impact of all the CGI wizardry is muted anyway. Already people are complaining that Sam Worthington’s Avatar doesn’t look realistic, that the blue skin looks fake, because they haven’t had enough time to see it move like a human, hear it talk, or see it respond to its world. Having seen it in Hall H, I promise it works. It just needs time to settle in, and just by showing one complete scene at Comic Con, they sold the effect entirely. Cutting together all the random scenes in the trailer just makes you more disoriented. Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere also tries to calm his readers down with a similar defense: The difference between what you’re seeing here on your computer monitors and what Avatar looks like in 3-D is that the CG/animated parts aren’t really “animation” but a much higher and more visually precise synthesis. There’s truly something “extra” about it. The 3-D means a hell of a lot…it really does. You need to see it at one of the special 3D showings on Friday to get what I’m saying. Vadim Rizov at The Independent Eye actually thinks this is the way to sell Avatar: I’d call it a canny, good-looking piece of work; if you’re going to market a 3-D IMAX event movie with a 2-D trailer, this is the way to do it…but the notable thing about the trailer is how CGI-bound it is…when you randomly freeze-frame the HD trailer, everything looks pretty awesome, but there’s no doubt you’re looking at nicely textured CGI creatures. Neil Miller at Film School Rejects doesn’t think this is “the next step in the art of cinema,” but he’s in: …it is awesome. As Sam Worthington’s blue Avatar says in the trailer’s single line of dialog, “this is great.” Based on what we’re seeing in the trailer below, Avatar is a big, awesome and in many ways cartoony film. The scale is grand, the CGI looks pretty spectacular (even when it is a little Smurfy) and I have a feeling that fans will be pleased with what they are seeing, even if it’s in 2D. Alex Billington at First Showing is still very excited after seemingly staying up all night pumping his readers up for the thing: After years and years of waiting and hearing all about the groundbreaking technology that Cameron has been using, we finally get to see what the world on Pandora looks like, and it’s as awe-inspiring and amazing as I’d imagined. Although I’d seen some footage at Comic-Con, this trailer still blew me away, and I can’t wait to see more tomorrow at Avatar Day. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: 10 Movies Avatar Unfortunately Resembles

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:00:30 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/20/2009 4:00:30 PM
Body: James Cameron’s Avatar is supposed to be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. So why does it look so familiar? One of the most disappointing things about the film’s promotion so far is how derivative the film looks in the trailer that (eventually) debuted online today. And much of what we’re reminded of wasn’t even that great to begin with. To help illustrate our feeling of déjà vu, we’ve captured a few screenshots from the trailer and, where available, put them next to their older visual counterparts. Hellboy (2004) The first shot that looked familiar to us is still the one we believe to be most similar to its predecessor. We don’t want to say Cameron ripped off Guillermo Del Toro, but we don’t imagine this is intended as homage, either. Likely it’s just a coincidence, but when the blue guy spoke later on in the trailer I was disappointed that he didn’t have Doug Jones’ voice. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001) We’re not the only ones crushed by how much this movie recalls the Final Fantasy adaptation, a movie that also was expected to be a groundbreaking piece of cinema, yet which was anything but. The sadder thing is that it doesn’t even seem as much like a video game adaptation as it does an actual video game. Hey, if we’re given joysticks in addition to the 3D glasses, we won’t complain. But we don’t think Cameron is that innovative just yet. Starship Troopers (1997) Humans on an alien planet being eaten by nasty creatures? Obviously that’s reminiscent of a certain Paul Verhoeven movie. The military outfits even remind us of those in Starship Troopers. We’ll assume there are no references to Nazi propaganda, but we can dream. Maybe there’s at least a Nazi-like character who wishes to wipe out all the aliens in a sort of blue-person Holocaust. Dungeons & Dragons (2000) We could have gone easy on the dragon-riding shots and say they’re reminiscent of a Harry Potter movie or maybe even The Neverending Story. But honestly the first thing that came to mind was the atrocious RPG adaptation Dungeons & Dragons. We only wish we could find a screenshot of Thora Birch riding a dragon to show how bad that movie’s visuals are. Not to say Avatar’s effects aren’t better, but the reminder still depreciates our interest. Star Wars: Episode II -: Attack of the Clones (2002) We’ll ignore the first Star Wars prequel, because this honestly doesn’t look that terrible. But it does look at least as bad as the latter two films in that trilogy. There’s not really a specific shot to focus on with this one. Just look at any of the busy shots, action scene or otherwise, with all that CG mess going on in the background. Is Cameron the new George Lucas? Well the romantic dialogue in Titanic is as cheesy as that of Attack of the Clones, so we’re not expecting much better from the blue person love story of Avatar. But at least Cameron hasn’t gone back and “fixed” parts of his movies, as much as he probably would prefer to with The Abyss. Delgo (2008) We’re giving credit to this harsh comparison to our friend Drew Taylor, of The Playlist, who Tweeted simply “Delgo, baby, Delgo,” in reply to his editor’s complaints about the Star Wars prequel similarities. We haven’t seen the infamous animated flop, but we’ll take Taylor’s word for it. How many other movies have strange humanoid creatures embracing like those two pairs above? Meanwhile, Kyle Buchanan over at Movieline compares the same shot to a more color-appropriate one from Watchmen. Willow (1988) There are a number of fantasy films in which a main character is suddenly surrounded by enchanting faerie type creatures. The one that first came to mind, though, is the Lord of the Rings wannabe Willow, a movie that was groundbreaking in its effects 20 years ago but which now looks rather silly. Will there be a giant faerie queen that shows up just after this shot? The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) It’s actually not much better that Avatar also reminds us of the real LOTR. Maybe if any of the CG creatures looked as real as Gollum, but instead this trailer called back one specific character and one specific failed sequence from Return of the King. Thanks to the archery gear, the Na’vi look like blue elves, and thanks to the seemingly bad CG, we can’t help thinking back to that embarrassing bit of special effects depicting Legolas battling an oliphaunt. King Kong (2005) If Cameron isn’t the new George Lucas, he’s at least the new Peter Jackson, attempting to seem like the savior of effects-driven cinema only to really deliver a lot of disappointing CG garbage alongside his otherwise innovative visuals. This is why the shot above, despite first making us think of the groundbreaking Jurassic Park, is being compared to the stuff in Jackson’s King Kong that rip off Spielberg’s film. It looks every bit as messy and cartoonish as the prehistoric monsters of Jackson’s disappointing last movie. District 9 (2009) And when Avatar doesn’t simply seem like a Peter Jackson movie, it at least reminds us of a Peter Jackson production, specifically this summer’s District 9. Even though the idea of a human-alien hybrid here involves an intended operation, it is now too reminiscent of the unwanted transition in D9. It doesn’t help Avatar’s case that while different in concept there is still the moment when the hybrid character angrily wishes to leave his prison-like operating room. Does this mean D9 will at year’s end be the more original and influential, if not more groundbreaking, sci-fi movie of the year? We think we should still wait until Avatar is released to really think so. But we’re leaning towards the idea. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Aaron Katz, Lena Dunham shorts at Zero Film Fest in DUMBO

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:00:28 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/20/2009 4:00:28 PM
Body: Chapters 1-12 of R. Kelly’s Trapped In The Closet Synced and Played Simultaneously (2006) by Michael Bell-Smith. Courtesy EAI. from Why + Wherefore on Vimeo. The Zero Film Festival, dedicated to serving “a niche in the independent film community, which has been under appreciated and ignored” by “screening self-financed and zero budget films from filmmakers all over the world”, kicks off tonight with a party in DUMBO, Brooklyn. They’ll be screening short films by some familiar names, including Lena Dunham, Mary Bronstein, Zach Clark and Aaron Katz. According to the fest, Katz’s SXSW 2008 selection Let’s Get Down to Brass Tacks will screen, and Dunham will premiere a new short called Misfire, “about two friends discussing the semantics of a reply to an IM, but it ‘misfires’ when they accidentally hit send.” The lineup also includes Mike Smith’s Chapters 13-22 of R. Kelly’s Trapped In The Closet Synced and Played Simultaneously (see chapters 1-12 above). There’s more info on the event and the fest here. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Member:The_MOW - Mickey Micklon

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:horror

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:butterknife

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:rnt2630

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:dsalaski

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:jennkp

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:Don0262

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:martinluthar

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:clwoolfe

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:XtreamDenny

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:bofo

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:seanjoneswrexham

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:nny921

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:mr_lol

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:fire1311

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Spout Member:Argueta

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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

Film:Funny Games

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMT

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

Film:The Dark Knight

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:13:34 GMT

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

Film:H2

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:45:58 GMT

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

Film:Eleanor: First Lady of the World

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:47:51 GMT

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

Film:Black Test Car

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:01:54 GMT

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

Film:Dumpster Baby

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:53:10 GMT

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

Film:Rick

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:32:48 GMT

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

Film:Speed Racer

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:21:45 GMT

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

Film:Speed Racer [Anime Series]

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:20:43 GMT

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

Film:The Raven

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:13:53 GMT

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

Film:The Ballad of the Sad Cafe

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:25:24 GMT

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

Film:New York, New York

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:22:40 GMT

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

Film:St. Nick

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:01:06 GMT

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

Film:We Are the Strange

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:25:52 GMT

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

Film:The Sadist

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:08:29 GMT

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

Film:The Alligator People

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:04:19 GMT

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

SpoutBlog's Recent Activity - Spout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spout Group:Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!

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

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

Spout Group:Movie Marathons

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

Spout Post: Men Who Stare At Goats Trailer is Classic Coen-esque Clooney. Today in Film Bloggery 08/27/09

Spout Post: ST. NICK Review

Spout Post: THE SEPTEMBER ISSUE Review

Spout Post: Heathers the TV Show Could Be Very. Today in Film Bloggery 08/27/09

Spout Post: Batman 3 Rumors Return. Today in Film Bloggery 08/26/09

Spout Post: LACMA Film Program Saved! For Now!

Spout Post: WE LIVE IN PUBLIC Review

Spout Post: Luke and Brie are on Amazon

Spout Post: Inglourious Basterds Will Be Oscar-Nominated. Today in Film Bloggery 08/25/09

Spout Post: SpoutBlog: The Book

Spout Post: Inception Trailer Has Everyone Guessing. Today in Film Bloggery 08/24/09

Spout Post: Is That *Really* Lauren Bacall on Twitter?

Spout Post: Michael Moore’s Capitalism Trailer Seems Dated. Today in Film Bloggery 08/21/09

Spout Post: Avatar Trailer Fails. Today in Film Bloggery 08/20/09

Spout Post: 10 Movies Avatar Unfortunately Resembles

Spout Post: Aaron Katz, Lena Dunham shorts at Zero Film Fest in DUMBO

Spout Member:The_MOW - Mickey Micklon

Spout Member:horror

Spout Member:butterknife

Spout Member:rnt2630

Spout Member:dsalaski

Spout Member:jennkp

Spout Member:Don0262

Spout Member:martinluthar

Spout Member:clwoolfe

Spout Member:XtreamDenny

Spout Member:bofo

Spout Member:seanjoneswrexham

Spout Member:nny921

Spout Member:mr_lol

Spout Member:fire1311

Spout Member:Argueta

Film:Funny Games

Film:The Dark Knight

Film:H2

Film:Eleanor: First Lady of the World

Film:Black Test Car

Film:Dumpster Baby

Film:Rick

Film:Speed Racer

Film:Speed Racer [Anime Series]

Film:The Raven

Film:The Ballad of the Sad Cafe

Film:New York, New York

Film:St. Nick

Film:We Are the Strange

Film:The Sadist

Film:The Alligator People

Spout Post: Is That Really Lauren Bacall on Twitter?