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

  • Standard Operating Procedure on DVD: share your favorite war films and win

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

    If you opened up a movie trade publication or read a movie-focused blog between October 2007 and February 2008 the odds are good you saw at least one story about how the massive influx of Iraq War-themed films that were being released (The Kingdom, In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, etc) were not only all failing but were causing havoc in the independent film world.

    Their less than fantastic box-office success was not always attributable to the quality of the movie. Nor was it always to do the audience’s perceived lack of interest in movies about our current military situation. But these were easy journalistic hooks on which to hang a story and so became part of our entrenched conventional wisdom.

    Indeed there were some high-quality films released about this subject matter in the last year or so that are deserving of a broader audience. But release patterns don’t always line up with audiences. That’s why the appearance of films such as Heavy Metal in Baghdad on distribution sites like SnagFilms (a Spout partner) is so important: by flattening the distribution field to allow for anywhere, anytime viewing, the audience (at least that portion of it that’s tuned into online viewing, a percentage that’s growing steadily) can find movies that will interest them regardless of whether or not it’s playing at their local multiplex.

    One such film that got lots of headlines upon its release earlier this year was Standard Operating Procedure, a documentary by acclaimed filmmaker Errol Morris about the behind the scenes stories of those pictures showing prisoner humiliation at the Abu Ghraib detention facility. Karina, in her review of the film that also comes with insights from a session with Morris himself, says the film frustrates as often as it enlightens and comes with no easy answers, no clear moralistic conclusions.

    Now Spout is giving you the opportunity to win one of two DVD copies of Standard Operating Procedure.

    We want to hear from you what your top five favorite war (or war-related) movies are. Either leave the list as a comment on this post or, if you’re a member of the Spout community (and you really should be), you can build your own list in this discussion thread specific to the contest. We’ll pick one winner tomorrow and one winner Friday and send you not only the movie but a whole package of Spout goodies as well.

    It’s that simple, so good luck and let’s hear what your favorites are.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • W.’s Factual Backup

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

    W.  (2008)

    It’s debatable whether it’s one of the film’s major strengths or its fatal flaw, but there’s no denying that Oliver Stone’s W. is loaded with actual quotes and dramatizations of documented events. But as if they were anticipating an argument over the film’s factual basis anyway, Lionsgate has set up a companion web site called the W. Film Guide, which essentially breaks the movie down into 83 footnotes.

    These notes basically serve three purposes:

    There are the Look It Up, Smart Guy notes, like 80. W Loved “Cats“, which pegs a scene from late in the film, in which Laura Bush tries to cheer up a despondent George by suggesting they go see his favorite musical, to a passage in Frank Bruni’s book, Ambling Into History. A particularly interesting note in this category is 2. Bush and Nicknames, which offers a reference for each of the pet names used in the movie. Though some critics heard Bush’s shorthand for Condi Rice as “Girl” (including me, although I didn’t note it in my review), the guide says Josh Brolin is actually saying “Guru.”

    There are also quite a few This Didn’t Happen, But Here’s Why It Could Have notes. These cover the creation of composite characters (31. Bush and Earl Hudd Bible Study Group explains that the Hudd character contains elements of James Robison, Billy Graham, and a number of “charismatic Texas preachers”) or the invention of events based on probable cause. “This scene is a nightmare created by the screenwriter,” begins 81. Poppy Comes to W in a Nightmare. “But it represents a probable, psychological truth of the relationship between Bush father and son.”

    And finally, there are Okay, We Totally Made That Up notes, like 83. Ari Fleischer, which admits that Bush’s first press secretary appears in a scene that takes place months after Fleischer was replaced by Scott McClellan “for dramatic and production purposes (i.e., not introducing a new character with only one line in the last minutes of the movie).”

    The guide is kind of fascinating. It’s too bad that the film itself isn’t really provocative enough to spark the kind of debate that would make it more useful.

    Via Movie City News.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Synecdoche Art in Los Angeles

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

    The Circuit points to the news that a Los Angeles art gallery has mounted a show of the paintings of Adele Lack, the estranged wife of Caden Cotard, whose portrait graces the catalog for the show. Which is interesting, because both Lack and Cotard are fictional characters, played by Catherine Keener and Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Kaufman’s Synecdoche, NY, which not coincidentally opens in New York and LA on Friday.

    Even more interesting, a number of art and culture blogs have written up the opening of the show without noting even the connection to the film, never mind the fact that the paintings themselves are movie props and the artist to which they’re credited doesn’t actually exist. One site even includes an image of Keener from the film, without indicating that they’re aware that it’s a publicity still not of an artist, but of a sort-of famous actress playing an artist.

    It certainly seems like clever surreptitious marketing for the film — especially for this film, which resists relegraphing its intent or meaning –– but maybe it’s *too* clever? If the show itself is as free of Synecdoche signage as many of the blog posts about it, at what point are patrons of the show (which ends on Sunday) going to make the connection?


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Deliver: The All-Female Remake of Deliverance

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

    Deliverance  (1972)

    Hearing about Jennifer Montgomery’s Deliver, an all-female remake of John Boorman’s 1972 Deliverance, having its world premiere at BAMcinématek this evening, I got the same feeling I had when my friend Rose told me about her sister’s all-female, Motley Crue tribute band Girls Girls Girls. How exciting! Upending and giving the finger to notions of gender and sexuality always gets me all hot and bothered. As did watching Burt Reynolds strut his sexy stuff in Boorman’s original (with its screenplay and book by that ornery southern, man’s man James Dickey).

    So who would take on the Burt Reynolds role of Lewis – the dude who stands apart from the rest of his male bonding, canoe trip comrades? Yes, Jon Voight as family man Ed, Ned Beatty as insurance salesman Bobby and Ronny Cox as the guitar-strumming Drew are all darn good, but it’s Reynolds’ bad boy Lewis who steals the show, nearly upstaging both the mighty river and the mesmerizing, menacing woods. Cocky and virile, looking like a Castro Street clone with his signature moustache, an open leather vest revealing his hirsute chest and beefy biceps – that phallic cigar tucked sensuously between his lips! – Lewis is the alpha antidote to the trio of nerdy, fisherman hat-wearing salesmen (bodies chastely clothed) who he’s talked into joining him on this ill-planned, back to nature retreat. Reynolds’ Lewis even looks like a Greek god as he wields his bow and arrow, spearing fish for his money shot.

    And that sexual vibe is always lurking just beneath the surface, popping up every once in awhile like a hungry trout. As the men embark downstream with Lewis barking directions about avoiding rocks, he’s kidded with “Is this how you get your rocks off?” When Ned Beatty’s Bobby gets ready to bed down for the night he muses that he had his first wet dream in a sleeping bag. In the canoe Lewis even asks Voight’s Ed (who protests “I like my life” to the dismissive stud) with a wink, “Why do you come with me on these trips?” Lewis gets a rise out of the fact that Ed and the rest of his followers are attracted to the masculine, fearless, take-charge, Marlboro Man ideal he embodies. When Lewis proudly states that he’s never bought insurance in his life – “not enough risk” – it’s with equal bravado and sly taunt. As he comes to the rescue of his buddy like a knight in shining armor, coolly killing the hillbilly who’s about to sodomize pretty blonde Ed, droplets of water drip sexily down his skin as if even the river is magnetically drawn to him.

    And speaking of the infamous rape scene, how on earth would Montgomery’s Deliver pull that off? I wondered. Physically, it couldn’t be much of a challenge (stick a dildo in the hands of a sadistic mountain woman and you’re all set), but metaphorically wasn’t that, well, pointless? The rape of Bobby in Boorman’s original is already both literal and metaphoric (payback for the “city boys’” raping of rural lands throughout history), so isn’t gender an irrelevant concept in a film about social class – The Man above manhood? These questions stayed in my head even as I tuned in to find out if Deliver would deliver.

    Montgomery’s video remake is set in the Catskills (along a river really called, I kid you not, the Beaverkill), and that’s pretty much where the fun ends. Using uncharismatic, self-conscious, stilted, experimental filmmakers/academics in lieu of actual actors (Montgomery and her friends have all the sexual chemistry of Barney and Fred, not Voight and Reynolds), playing a combination of the original male characters and themselves, renders Montgomery’s take a sort of Brechtian exercise meets home movie. Bored halfway through, I thought, “Perhaps I need Cliffs Notes.” So I turned to all I had — the press notes:

    This is the moment (the rape) when a seemingly simple exercise in gender inversion becomes complicated. In the original, the iconic male hillbillies’ hostility toward bourgeois men is based largely on land entitlement. Few women can claim that history of entitlement, and the Catskills are not hillbilly country. Most importantly, there is the false notion that women do not pose a sexual threat to one another. What, then, motivates this rape? At what point do we read it as an unconvincing imitation of a “real” rape? It is the aim of this film to pose critical questions about the gendering of nature, homosocial sexual violence, and the act of filmmaking itself.

    Uh-huh. Leaving aside the “false notion that women do not pose a sexual threat to one another” (Who subscribes to this false notion? If Rosie O’Donnell were a drunk who didn’t take no for an answer, I’d sure run like hell!), I put Montgomery’s question back to her. What, then, motivates this rape? Nothing in Deliver, as far as I could tell, making what was originally a comment on the age-old hostility between the dirt poor and the comfortably condescending middle class, completely unbelievable (even as female-on-female sodomy is unquestionably plausible, just not in this context), rendering the hillbilly rapist as deep as a horror movie murderer (though at least Michael Myers had a back-story). What are mountain men with very specific axes to grind in Deliverance are merely women hillbillies gone wild in Deliver. I just couldn’t shake the sense that even as Montgomery boldly questions Boorman’s film, she neglects to question the validity of her remaking it. Indeed, if she truly was troubled by Boorman and Dickey’s “hegemonic structures of gender,” as she states in her press notes, wouldn’t it have made more sense for her female hillbillies to have taken revenge on patronizing men?

    But perhaps I’m being too hard on an accomplished artist with a limited budget. In all honesty, I wanted to rave about Deliver, I really did. But stripping Boorman’s original of sex appeal, class conflict and its southern roots, and replacing it with, uh…nothing, leaves only half a movie. (And I’ll add that Peggy Ahwesh in the Burt Reynolds role just doesn’t do it for me.) That said, should Montgomery decide to remake The Women with Zizek in the Norma Shearer role, I’ll be the first in line at BAM.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Neal Stephenson: Where Are The Movies?

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

    Sneakers  (1992)

    U-571  (2000)

    Band of Brothers  (2002)

    Loot  (2008)

    Neal Stephenson

    Every week Kevin Kelly will look at different writers whose books should be turned into films, films that were much better as books, or books that should never be turned into films upon pain of death. We’ll also talk about book to movie trends and deals if anything interesting happens.

    My first introduction to Stephenson came back in the mid 90s when I was working at a bookstore in Austin, Texas. I’d read everything William Gibson had written, and was hungry for more when a coworker suggested Snow Crash. It’s a very Gibson-esque book that is probably one of Stephenson’s most cinematic works, meaning that it would probably require the smallest amount of effort to take it from the page to the screen in terms of putting a screenplay together.

    Snow Crash is about a sword-wielding, pizza-delivering hacker who is trying to stop the spread of a computer virus that only affects computer programmers, along with the help of a young female courier who travels around on a high-tech skateboard using a magnetic harpoon to slalom through traffic. Sounds like a movie, right? Hollywood thought so too, since it was optioned by Touchstone Pictures and several drafts were written before it was abandoned due to budget concerns.

    Neal Stephenson has been writing books since 1984, on subjects spanning the ecology, cyberpunk, steampunk, cryptography, artificial intelligence, information trafficking, historical fiction, and speculative fiction. However, none of his works has yet been turned into a movie. If you take a glance at Cryptonomicon or any of the three books in The Baroque Cycle: Quicksilver, The Confusion, or The System of the World, you’ll see why: these are massive tomes that average about about 800 pages in length, and those four titles could take up an entire shelf on their own. Snow Crash, Zodiac, and The Big U are all “normal” sized books, so why haven’t they been smacked onto celluloid?

    The closest thing we’ve had to a cinematic adaptation of Stephenson was the announcement, almost two years ago, that the Sci Fi Channel was turning The Diamond Age into a miniseries, with George Clooney and partner Grant Heslov producing while Stephenson himself was going to write the screenplay.The Diamond Age, or A Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer is Stephenson’s foray into both steampunk and cyberpunk; it involves a Victorian culture clashing with the nanobyte technology of the future. As part of a massive project, a lone engineer puts together an artificially intelligent book that is meant to bond with a young girl and stay with her through adulthood. He tries to sneak a copy out for his own daughter, but it winds up in the hands of a poor girl and changes her life. Science fiction with strong women in the lead roles? There’s your movie right there. However, I’ve tried contacting both the Sci Fi Channel and Clooney’s Smoke House production company, and they’ve both told me they have “nothing to report.” That it’s been two years with no new word about this project is worrisome.

    Cryptonomicon combines the storylines of Allies in WWII trying to capture the German Enigma machine while deciphering their codes with a present-day company trying to set up a data haven for electronic information while searching for buried treasure. Granted, this book is a lot bigger than anything Stephenson had written before, and probably couldn’t be condensed into a single film at all. However, this would make an amazing HBO series: breaking it down to an incredibly simple level, think Band of Brothers meets Loot meets U-571 meets Sneakers. Or something along those lines.

    Stephenson’s newest book Anathem, just published last month, is his first work of pure science fiction. It takes place on another planet called Arbre, although that planet happens to be a lot like Earth. The history of Anathem is very similar to our own, which gives Stephenson the ability for relevant social commentary while writing speculative fiction. In this world, however, mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers live within a protected sanctuary to avoid outside influence, and eventually those two worlds clash. It’s just as massive as his previous works, and on face value it probably doesn’t sound particularly filmic. However, the publishers created a trailer just for the book:

    You can read a 12 page excerpt from Anathem right here, and decide if it’s something you’d like to dive into. If you’re still not sold, you can listen to Stephenson discussing the book at this year’s Book Expo America, or even watch as he reads the first chapter from the book here.

    While I’m not the biggest fan of trying to cram every book ever written into a movie, Stephenson has a very impressive library of work, and some of those would make very interesting films. There are obvious challenges. He’s definitely a cerebral writer who is sometimes in need of a more stringent editor (Cryptonomicon has a segment that is several pages long about the best way to eat breakfast cereal with an invented milk-spoon delivery system), and his prose also tends to be dense and full of dry humor. But whether they are set in the past, present or future, all of his novels are extremely appealing. So where are the movies?

    Top image courtesy of cactusthesaint.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog