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

  • The Leonard Maltin Movie Game

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

    Leonard Maltin has been publishing his Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide under various different titles (The Movie and Video Guide, TV Movies, etc.) since 1969, although he didn’t start putting out annual updated editions until 1987. In 2005 he started publishing Leonard Maltin’s Classic Movie Guide, which only covers movies released in 1960 and before, mostly so he could save space in the annual editions. Either way, the standard annual edition is a pretty fat book, chock full of capsulized movie reviews that are about two or three sentences long, at most.

    This past September at Fantastic Fest, Tim and Karrie League of the Alamo Drafthouse introduced me to the wonder of the Leonard Maltin Movie Game. If Maltin has any moxie, he might want to put out his own edition of this, complete with his smiling mug branded all over the box. Although chances are that you already have everything you need to play, right in your own home. Read on to find out how you can entertain friends, and poke fun at Maltin’s writing style, all in one evening.

    What you need:

    • Pens or pencils
    • Paper or note cards
    • One copy of any edition of Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide. Honestly, the pre-2005 editions are best because they’re stuffed with movies, and the reviews are tiny. If you don’t have one, you can usually find them for under a buck at any good used bookstore, or on the internet.

    That’s it. No fancy dice or colored pawns or a funky playing board. Gather your friends around, hand out the paper and the writing utensils, and you’re good to go.

    How to play:

    Make sure everyone gets a minute or two to glance through the Guide if they aren’t familiar with it. You’ll want to read a couple of the reviews out loud (ignoring the actor and director name listings), just so everyone can get a sense of Maltin’s style. Here’s an example: “Abraham Lincoln, 1930: Huston is excellent in this sincere but static biography of Lincoln; can’t match Griffith’s silent masterpieces.” The key is to pick movies that no one in the group has heard of, and there are enough titles in this book to insure that’s true for years to come.

    So, once everyone is fairly familiar, start the game. Arbitrarily decide who is going to be the first person to read from the book, and everyone else will play. The reader flips to a random page, and starts naming titles until you can find one that nobody is familiar with. Let’s say you end up choosing 1957’s Abandon Ship. Read the title out loud, not the description. Everyone then has to write down their own Maltin-esque review on a piece of paper and hand them in face down. While this is going on, the reader writes down the actual review, and shuffles it in with the rest of the answers.

    After everyone has handed in an answer, the reader reads back all of the reviews in random order. Someone may have written something like this: “Slapstick comedy aboard an aging battleship struggling to pass inspection doesn’t hold water. Stunning performance from Donald O’Connor gets washed away with the rest of the film. ” And so on. The goal here is to ape Maltin’s style as closely as possible. Oddly enough, you’ll naturally fall into it after a round or two. The actual review in the guide for that movie is this, “Tyrone Power is officer suddenly in command of lifeboat holding survivors from sunken luxury liner. Tense, exciting study of people fighting to stay alive while exposed to savage seas and each other.”

    After they’ve all of the reviews been read, everyone else has to individually vote on their favorite. Tally up all the votes at the end, and score it like this: Every time someone voted on your review, that’s a point, and if you voted on the correct Maltin review, that’s a point. Whoever scores the most points wins that round. Play for as many rounds as you like, or until you just can’t take it anymore.

    It will quickly devolve into an effort to try and crack people up by writing extremely wacky reviews, or else someone will try to get ultra-serious and write the best Maltinized reviews ever. Board game nuts will recognize it as a variation of Balderdash, but for movie lovers it can’t be beat. Try it out over the upcoming holidays, and you’ll be spreading the word as well.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Kate Winslet’s Oscar Chances: It’s Up to Her to Make a Distinction

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

    Lust for Life  (1956)

    Midnight Cowboy  (1969)

    Network  (1976)

    Shine  (1997)

    Training Day  (2001)

    A Beautiful Mind  (2001)

    Iris  (2001)

    Tropic Thunder  (2008)

    Elegy  (2008)

    The Reader  (2008)

    Kate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.”

    Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin.

    The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke.

    It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader.

    The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters.

    Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category).

    So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Slouching Towards Top 10: Must-See Blockbusters?

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

    On last week’s episode of FilmCouch, I admitted that I can’t really defend myself against the criticisms that I tend to be friendlier to smaller films than blockbusters; as I pointed out, as of the recording of that episode, the highest grossing film that had a real chance of making my Top 10 of 2008 list had so far been out-grossed by 39 other films. Today, I took another look at Box Office Mojo’s 2008 box office chart, and noticed two things. 1) the film in question, Burn After Reading, has dropped to #41 for the year, likely due to the assent of Twilight into the Top 20; and of the 40 films that outgrossed the Coen Brothers film (which, for them, was a big hit), I’ve only even seen two: Iron Man (#2) which I did like, and 27 Dresses (#31) which … uh… all I can say is that I have insomnia and it was on HBO really, really late.

    I know that I need to remedy this. I need to see some of the year’s highest grossing films, if my cheerleading for some of the lowest-grossing is to be taken as, at least, informed elitism, and not elitism of the knee-jerk variety. But I simply can’t watch all 38 films in the next four weeks. So where to begin? I know that I should have seen The Dark Knight (#1) and Wall-E (#5) over the summer, and I’ll definitely watch both on DVD before the year is out. I do not have much faith that Get Smart (#15) or What Happens in Vegas (#28) will be able to knock A Christmas Tale out of its tentative top slot on my personal Top Ten, but the populist argument would maintain that I have to see them before I dismiss them out of hand, right?

    Or not? Basically, I need you help. Look at the list here, and tell me which high-grossing films you think I absolutely must see before the end of 2008 in order to be able to accurately assess, as a whole, The Year in Movies. I’ll do what I can to catch up with the consensus choice, and will report back on my impressions.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Waterworld: The Musical. Clip of the Day

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

    Ishtar  (1987)

    Xanadu  (1980)

    Waterworld  (1995)

    Con Air  (1997)

    The Postman  (1997)

    Spider-Man  (2002)

    Is it that odd to imagine a Waterworld musical on Broadway? After all, Xanadu made it to the big stage, so anything is possible for infamous turkeys like this one. Sure, it looks rather silly in the video below, the way Patrick Warburton and company have made it, but with the right creative team Waterworld could really work as a kitchy cult attraction. Maybe team up two randoms, the way Marvel has with the upcoming Spider-Man show directed by Julie Taymor and featuring music by Bono. Honestly, there seems to be nothing that Broadway producers could announce that’s any more ridiculous than what’s already been done there.

    So, terrible movie-turned-musical ideas may continue to be easy gags, and they’re possibly even going to make me laugh, but ultimately I would like to go see Con Air: The Musical (from 30 Rock) and Planet of the Apes: The Musical (from The Simpsons) and musicals made out of Waterworld, The Postman, Battlefield Earth and especially Ishtar. Who would love you, Mariner? I would.

    Check out the commercial for Waterworld: The Musical after the jump.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Glory at Sea on YouTube

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

    Michael Tully informs us that the Wholpin boys have made our much beloved Glory at Sea available for viewing in its entirety on YouTube. The 25 minute short is embedded above.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Aasif Mandvi of The Daily Show and Gotham Awards Host: The Media Diet

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

    Aasif Mandvi, Daily Show correspondent and host of tomorrow night’s Gotham Independent Film Awards in New York, was recently named one of FILMMAKER Magazines 25 New Faces of Independent Film. No, silly, not because of his role as a dentist alongside Ricky Gervais in Ghost Town––actually, Mandvi is finishing up production on 7 to the Palace, a feature film in which he stars and co-wrote, loosely based on his own one-man show. Submitting to our Media Diet questioning after the jump, Mandvi gives shout-outs to Slumdog Millionaire and Grey’s Anatomy, and names the only living filmmaker who could possibly capture the Michael Jackson concert experience on film.

    What films have you seen recently? Which ones stuck with you and why?

    I just saw Slumdog Millionaire and I think Danny Boyle is a genius. It just got me excited about making movies and telling stories about India.

    Aside from The Daily Show, what do you consider can’t-miss TV? Any guilty pleasures?

    I’m a huge Family Guy fan and I have to say… my big guilty pleasure is Grey’s Anatomy. What can is say, I love my stories!!!

    How often do you read fiction, and what have you read lately?

    I’m a terribly undisciplined reader but I am reading Taher Shah’s The Sorcerers Apprentice which i am enjoying a great deal.

    Is newsprint dead? Where do you get your news?

    I think all print media is shifting to the internet and in the near future we may have a paperless society altogether, which would be great for the environment…but bad for paper boys all over the country.

    What are your five take-to-a-desert-island bands? What music are you listening to lately?

    Bruce Springsteen
    The Beatles
    The Brothers Gibb
    Coldplay
    Elton John

    If you could collaborate with one filmmaker, who would it be and why?

    I would love to work with Tom McCarthy.

    What would be the ideal pairing of filmmaker and musician for a concert film?

    Wes Anderson and Michael Jackson.

    What was the last thing you saw on YouTube that blew your mind?

    It was a game show, and it was from Japan…’nuff said.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog