Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • Kim’s Video Looking For A Home For Its Videos

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    New York gentrification moves faster than video format extinction. Kim’s Video on Avenue A shut down while I was in grad school at NYU, and that made it hard enough to find VHS copies of older films that hadn’t yet been released on DVD (and hasn’t that space gone through like three cheesy bars since Kim’s lost their lease? Please advise.) Later, I ended up buying a bunch of those tapes (including Fassbinder’s Gods of the Plague and Herzog’s Where the Green Ants Dream) at Mondo Kim’s on Saint Marks. Now, that Kim’s location is getting ready to move, and they’re unloading their library of 55,000 video rentals in the process.

    A couple of local eye witnesses have sent in reports of a flyer that’s being passed out at the store (Ray Pride has posted a scan), advertising Mr. Kim’s search for “institutions, schools, businesses or individuals who can accomodate Kim’s full line of film collection.” Apparently, they want to keep the collection intact; in fact, the stated mandates for parties interested in acquiring it are an ability to devote “3,000 square feet of space, committment to give access to Kim’s members (charging minimum membership fee), and maintaining the collection.” Takers can click above for contact info.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • 10 Best Political Passion Projects

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Bob Roberts  (1992)

    The Green Berets  (1968)

    Malcolm X  (1992)

    Meet John Doe  (1941)

    Reds  (1981)

    Wilson  (1944)

    Dead Man Walking  (1995)

    Darfur Now  (2007)

    W.  (2008)

    Oliver Stone has long been synonymous with political passion projects, but his latest film, W., may be his most ambitious effort yet, if only because of how quickly the thing came together and got made. Now the serio-comic biopic about our sitting president is about to hit theaters, less than ten months after anyone had heard of its inception, and it’s getting a number of favorable reviews, will possibly rule the box office this weekend, and could even garner an Oscar nomination for Josh Brolin, who portrays the man with the titular initial, George W. Bush.

    But not all political passion projects are quite as successful as W. is expected to be. Some such films have been banned, while some have simply failed to acquire an audience on more democratic grounds, whether in terms of box office, critical or awards recognition. Yet regardless of the reception of a political passion project, either at the time of release (or intended release) or decades later, it may be regarded as an achievement merely for being made, because it can be a difficult task for a filmmaker, no matter how famous or powerful, to completely, without compromise, express his or her politics using such a collaborative and populist form of art as cinema.

    We’ve put together a list of 10 political passion projects that were (and are) successful on both levels. They’ve been embraced by a wide audience, a majority of critics and/or the Academy, and they also manage to be as uncompromising in their political passion as is possible in Hollywood.

    The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin, 1940)

    For his first “talkie”, Chaplin took on Hitler and the Nazis when it was still taboo for American media to do so. And it became his biggest hit ever in spite of its controversial subject matter. Considering one of the major problems with W. is reportedly Oliver Stone’s inability to mix the serious scenes with the comic, he might have benefitted from looking again at this film, one of the greatest political satires of all time.

    Meet John Doe (Frank Capra, 1941)

    Capra had already made a number of greater films with political subject matter, but this was pretty much his ultimate passion project, a culmination of themes he’d worked with on similar films like Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But as successful as those films were in terms of Capra’s political expression, and as free as the filmmaker seemed to be throughout his illustrious career at Columbia Pictures, he always felt at least a little stifled by studio head Harry Cohn, and so with this, his first semi-independent project (co-produced and distributed by Warner Bros.), he had the most creative control yet. Unfortunately, the result wasn’t nearly as popular as his past films and the film is also not nearly as tight a work. However, more than 65 years later, it’s still one of the best displays of a filmmaker attempting to work out and express his political ideals in a mainstream film.

    Wilson (Henry King, 1944)

    Long before Oliver Stone and political documentarians made it more common and acceptable to make a movie about disliked politicians, producer and 20th Century Fox founder Darryl F. Zanuck developed this passion project about his favorite president, Woodrow Wilson. And the result would seem to have been a great success based on its reception by critics and the Academy Awards (nominated for 10, it won 5 Oscars, including Best Original Screenplay), yet it was a terrible, terrible flop at the box office, apparently because the public didn’t like or care about Wilson as much as Zanuck did. And legend has it that Zanuck was so embarrassed by the failure that he forbade his staff to ever mention its title again. Despite it’s Oscar success, it is unfortunately unavailable on DVD.

    The Green Berets (Ray Kellogg, John Wayne, John Gaddis and Mervyn LeRoy, 1968)

    Regardless of whether or not you agree with John Wayne’s politics, you have to give the guy some respect for making a stand with this film, which displays his support for the Vietnam War. It was a bold move for anybody, even one of Hollywood’s biggest stars, to dare go up against the zeitgeist of the times. And of course it was and is very much hated because of its heavy handed pro-war message.

    Reds (Warren Beatty, 1981)

    Beatty had already shown himself to be something of a politically minded celebrity, and he would go on to a greater reputation for being a liberal actor/filmmaker, but here with his first solo directing effort, he made an ambitious epic about the American communist John Reed and released it in a year that ushered in the most conservatively materialistic decade of the 20th century. Despite the political climate of the country, though, it was relatively successful at the box office, and it went on to recieve 12 Oscar nominations, of which it won 3, including a Best Director trophy for Beatty.

    Malcolm X (Spike Lee, 1992)

    Whether or not you believe it should have been nominated for more Oscars or if it was politically and racially ignored, the success of Malcolm X, both financially and culturally, was a terrific achievement for Spike Lee, who had made and has made less ambitious political passion projects before and since, some even arguably better than this one.

    Dead Man Walking (Tim Robbins, 1995)

    Robbins had already begun making political statement films a few years earlier with Bob Roberts, but this film, which he also produced, is the greater passion project. It may occasionally put off supporters of the death penalty, but those performances by Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon (who won an Oscar) simply can not be ignored.

    The Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson, 2004)

    You can’t think about passion projects without this film immediately coming to mind –– and not just because it has the word passion right there in the title. As for the political part, as much as some of us would prefer not to think of religion as being a part of politics, it certainly is, and both the marketing and reception of Gibson’s film were very much from political perspectives, possibly even more so than from straight religious perspectives.

    Good Night, and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005)

    Perhaps the best cinematic celebration of journalism since All the President’s Men, Clooney’s film is also possibly the classiest political passion project since guys like Beatty, Robbins and Clooney decided to go behind the camera and express their ideals.

    Darfur Now (Ted Braun, 2007)

    At a time when famous people like George Clooney and the double duty of “Brangelina” get equal respect and flak for being so political, it’s refreshing to see this documentary defend celebrity action while also examining the film’s specific cause. Produced by and featuring Don Cheadle (and also featuring Clooney), the doc is not technically the actor’s project as much as it is Braun’s, yet due to Cheadle’s passionate interest in the Darfur issue and his involvement with and in the film, and because he’s the biggest name on the production, it can certainly be accepted as equally his political effort.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Monty Python and the Sarah Palin Parrot Sketch. Clip of the Day

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    W.  (2008)

    What’s better than hearing from young, generally apolitical American movie actors on their opinions regarding the presidential election? Hearing from old, generally funny British movie actors on their opinions regarding the election. I’m not sure what is so interesting about John Cleese talking smack about Sarah Palin, but it’s become a very popular clip, despite the fact that it’s just Cleese chatting and not, as I wish he was, presenting an anarchic parody sketch featuring a talking parrot intended to represent the vice presidential candidate. Perhaps the Monty Python gang could have written something as silly as the McCain/Palin campaign, but I’d much rather see proof of that than hear about it.

    So why am I featuring the clip today? Well, perhaps in anticipation of W., this will just be a week filled with celebrity endorsement videos. No, I’d rather not, especially since a lot of them, like the Hayden Panettiere ad on FunnyorDie.com are not even a little bit amusing. Besides, yesterday’s clip already pointed out that these things aren’t exactly all that film-related (and at least Joseph Gordon-Levitt had visual aids). So here’s the real reason I’m commenting on this video: please, John Cleese, or anybody else, make some political videos that are actually funny. Remember how great the Will Ferrell as George W. Bush ads for ACT were four years ago? That’s what I’m talking about. Paris Hilton spouting her economic policy a while back was fine and all, but when a few mediocre and obvious sketches from SNL represent the best political parody we have at a time so close to a major presidential election, it’s time for someone to rise to the occasion of hilarity.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Cargo 200 on YouTube

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Cargo 200  (2007)

    This might be the least safe-for-work thing I’ve ever blogged. Cargo 200, Alexei Balabanov’s gruesome indictment of Russian devolution circa 1984 which was one of my favorite films from this year’s Fantastic Fest (it also played Telluride and Toronto in 2007), is available for viewing in nine parts on YouTube.

    This is either the best way to watch this film or the worst. As I noted in my review, one of the best things about Cargo is its slow build –– it takes forever for anything actually disturbing to happen, but then once shit goes bad, it just gets worse and worse and worse –– and the power of the mounting revulsion might get lost if you’re watching it in chunks. That said, you also have the option to either skip, or skip directly towards, the really, really sick stuff. For the record, that gets started in part four. It gets much, much worse in part seven. Enjoy!


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • The Zombie Next Door: The Science of the Walking Dead

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    White Zombie  (1932)

    28 Days Later  (2003)

    I Am Legend  (2007)

    Two weeks ago I wrote a list of five doomsday films ranked by plausibility. The response to this piece made me realize that I overlooked the most pressing apocalyptic threat of all: zombies.

    The onslaught of the living dead has been a mainstay of horror cinema for decades, beginning with the Bela Lugosi vehicle White Zombie in 1932. Over the following years zombies popped up in movies as one of many monstrous villains, often filling the minion role. It wasn’t until George Romero’s groundbreaking 1968 film Night of the Living Dead that the idea of a zombie apocalypse was introduced. Romero’s cannibalistic zombies have since become the archetype used in countless films, books, and video games. The cause of the virulent plague of the walking dead varies, however. Everything from spiritual curses, viruses, chemical weapons, and alien microorganisms have been used to explain the origin of zombies. Below the jump we examine the real-world evidence behind some of these threats, and which ones you should be most worried about.

    Much of the popular lore surrounding zombies can be traced back to Haitian Voodoo. Sorcerers, known as bokors, are said to be able to animate the dead, forcing them to work as their slaves or warriors. This is more or less what Bela Lugosi was up to in White Zombie, except that he was a wealthy white plantation owner who used zombie slaves to work his sugar mill. It was all just business until he tried to use his power to improve his ailing love life; then things got wacky.

    In the 1980s, Harvard ethnobiologist Wade Davis went to Haiti to try to track down a physiological basis for Voodoo zombification. He discovered that the bokors used a special “zombie powder” to induce trances in victims, which could apparently last for years. The powder contains a poison known as tetrodotoxin, or TTX. Davis wrote a best-selling book about his research adventure, The Serpent and the Rainbow. The problem with Davis’ theory is that the powder, while it does contain decaying human flesh and God knows what else, has only a very small amount of tetrodotoxin. Even if it did contain more, it would only slur your speech, stifle your breathing, and possibly kill you, but it wouldn’t turn you into a sugar plantation zombie slave. If the bokors get technical and decide to weaponize zombie powder, then we could have a real apocalyptic threat on our hands. But it would be more like an old-fashioned chemical weapons attack, not a true zombie plague.

    For the walking dead to go from being a mere nuisance to a force capable of ending humanity, the affliction really needs to be contagious. In Night of the Living Dead, those killed by zombies soon rise to join their ranks, thereby growing the undead horde at an exponential rate. This model has been used in countless films since, with varying explanations about the nature of the zombie plague.

    In Romero’s classic, a reporter says something about a probe returning from Venus having exploded in Earth’s atmosphere. While it’s possible to imagine that a virus from an alien world could do just about anything, including raising the dead, other zombie movies have searched for terrestrial origins for zombification. One idea is that rather than zombies being reanimated corpses, they’re living people afflicted by a really nasty form of rabies. I Am Legend and 28 Days Later can both be read in this way. While the rabies model does account for altered behavior, and transmission through biting, there’s something about the voracity and speed of a rabid being that just isn’t quite zombie-like. The afflicted hordes in both films move much faster than Romero’s zombies, which would serve to spread the infection at an accelerated rate. As much as I love 28 Days Later, slow moving zombies are scarier, even if they’re a little easier to fend off. Either way, if scientists were ever to alter the rabies virus to have an extremely short incubation period and heightened symptoms, we could have a whole lot of very crazy people with the ability to infect more.

    The Return of the Living Dead, released in 1985, added a key element to zombie mythology: brains. Where Romero’s ghouls wanted to eat all human flesh, Dan O’Bannon’s zombies hungered specifically for human brains. In Return the cause of zombification was a bungled military experiment involving a poison called trioxin, which is a real chemical, but thankfully it does not cause people to become nearly indestructible walking corpses. Eating the brains of the dead, however, can have some horrifying real-world consequences. In the 1950s an American physician and researcher discovered a troubling disease affecting the Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea. They called it kuru, which means “trembling with fear.” The neurological disease caused patients to shake uncontrollably and burst out in maniacal laughter before dropping dead. On a cellular level, the condition is not unlike Mad Cow Disease, and if you know anything about how that is spread, you probably know where this is going. It turns out the Fore people had rather strange funeral practices, which involved eating the bodies of the deceased. Kuru was more prevalent among women and children, because they ate the brains of the dead, while the men dined on the rest of the body. The disease itself does not make people more likely to hunger for brains, but the story does drive home a disturbing point: Not only will people eat one another if their wagon train gets stranded in a mountain pass, they will also consume their kin due to cultural forces alone. In other words, peer pressure. Combine a global food shortage with some charismatic and insane leaders, you’ve got yourself a zombie apocalypse.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Bill Ayers’ Documentarian Speaks

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Striking while the “Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist” iron is hot, AJ Schnack has published a post on his blog by Sam Green, the co-director of the Oscar-nominated documentary The Weather Underground. Green, who says Ayers has “become a good friend” of he and his co-director Bill Siegel, talks about the frustrations of watching his subject become a Republican talking point. As Green points out, the McCain/Palin argument connecting Obama to Ayers compltely omits any explanation for how a “terrorist” can become a “Distinguished Professor” thanks to thirty years of cultural evolution. “To have all of his work, and what he’s about, so publicly misrepresented must be extremely painful,” Green writes. “There really is nothing, or at least nothing significant, at the heart of the Ayers-Obama connection.” More here.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog