1) Newspaper film reviews – This is an old approach to finding which movies to watch. And yet it still works! Well, not always, The challenge is for you to find a movie critic that has a taste in movies that is similar to your tastes. This takes time and effort on your part. You might find a good critic right away, but it generally takes time. The critics are only people, and they make mistakes too. The strategy is for you to read a critic’s reviews and judge how well their opinion matches with yours. After a while, you’ll get a good sense of which critic agrees most with your tastes. Once you find a critic that you like, stay with them! It’s hard to find a good one.

2) RankAMovie.com – RankAMovie is a web site that allows anyone to add movies and rank movies in various categories. We all know the classic categories: best horror, best comedy, best drama, etc. Well, this web site helps you find recommendations for the best movie to watch at 2 o’clock in the morning when you don’t feel like sleeping. It’s a good way to find a recommendation for a good Baseball movie. Simply view a category that interests you, and read the description of any movies that you have not already seen. Once you do see a film, go back and rate it with a happy or sad face, to help tell others whether it’s a good film to watch.

3) Netflix – The netflix web site has revolutionized the modern day approach to renting movies. You can browse their vast stocks of movies, and add movies to you queue. As you watch movies and return them, they’ll mail you the next movie in your queue. Your account type determines how many movies you can have rented at any one time. You can rent a movie and then rate it on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best. The web site has a tool that will acknowledge which movies you have enjoyed in the past, and it tries to match your interests with other movie fans. Based on other people’s ratings of movies, you’ll get recommendations of what you can watch next.

4) Fan sites – This is not necessarily a way to find new movies to watch, but can help you find other movies fans with similar tasts to yours. Of course, you’ll need to be a fan of some actor or type of movie first. Let’s say you love horror movies, then you could find a horro fan site and read the site for recommendations. Sometimes the fan site will help you find good movies. But, sometimes these sites are not so helpful.

5) Friends -Yes, your friends are a great way to find new movies to watch. Simply ask them during lunch for a recommendation. You could send them a quick email to ask for recommendations. Better yet, pick up the phone and ask them for recommendations. And, of course, ask how they are and say hello. They’ll thank you for calling.

Your free time is limited. Use these various methods to find good movies. Don’t waste your free time with bad movies. And remember to visit these web sites or contact friends to help others find good movies to watch!

Mike Chalek is a research analyst for http://www.RankAMovie.com/ which is an online movie ranking system. The RankAMovie.com web site is a community-based system for maintaining and organizing lists of movies. All movies are added by users! There are many movie categories. Each category has many movies. These lists can be used for finding a new movie to watch.

Author: Mike Chalek
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Hybrid and Electric Cars

Director Eric Valli started out in life as a cabinet maker in Dijon, France, before he set out for the Himalayas. There he met Thilen Lhondup and Karma Tensing Nylma Lama. The film is born of the friendship between these three men, spanning 20 years. Their common wish is to preserve on film the beauty of the ancient Dolpo culture before it melts away “like snow in the sun” as Nylma puts it. The astonishing fact is the two men are not actors; they simply play themselves. This adds true depth that could not otherwise have been captured on film.

The Dolpo region where the film is set is actually in Nepal but with more Tibetan cultural influence. It is the story of an aging chief whose son’s life is taken in the mountains. A rival clan tries to take over leadership in the son’s place, but the old man is determined for leadership to stay in his family, grooming his young grandson for the task. The community survives by driving yaks into the mountains to gather salt, which they trade for grain in far-off towns. The suitability for leadership thus revolves around inner and outer strength rather than bloodlines, and a drawn-out battle of wills ensues.

Although the story is fictional, the attention to facts is seamlessly comprehensive, covering everything from domestic life, to surviving the merciless elements, to Buddhist traditions and rituals such as sky burial.

It was shot at altitudes of over 5000 metres, covering 1400km on foot with 200 yaks over 21 peaks, and temperatures between +30 and -40 degrees. Without the all-or-nothing passion and sincerity of every member of the team this film could surely not have happened. That strength and dedication shine through every scene, making it a feast for the eyes and heart.

The photography itself is enough to change one’s perspective of the world forever (Valli has gone on to become one of the region’s greatest photographers, regularly contributing to publications such as National Geographic). It is the humanity of the characters that is most breathtaking though: their valour, determination and integrity. This film is a glowing tribute to a culture that simply must not be forgotten.

Sumangali Morhall is a member of the Sri Chinmoy Meditation Centre. She enjoys finding inner and outer beauty in nature and the arts. She also edits sumangali.org dedicated to the spirit of serendipity.

Author: Sumangali Morhall
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Lowest Price Prototype PCB Assembly

oGenre: War, Western, Adventure

oDirector: John Ford

oScreenwriter: Walter D. Edmonds

oMusic: Alfred Newman

oMain Actors: Claudette Colbert (Lana), Henry Fonda (Gil), Edna May Oliver (Mrs. McKlennar)

oNominations of Academic rewards: best supporting actress (Edna May Oliver), Best Cinematography (Ray Rennahan and Bert Glennon).

This historical film basically is depicting revolutionary era of American History in 1776 and the problems of Americans with Tories, the Indian Allies of British Army in the territory of Mohawk River. With this basic theme, the story is started with the marriage of Gil Martin (Henry Fonda), a war-era farmer with a well born women Lana (Claudette Colbert). The film from the beginning showed the process of their shared life which is simultaneous with Indians invasions to Mohawk. To start their life, they moved to Dorr field, Close to Mohawk in a cabin built by Gil. During the story we see how these two and other neighbors are engaging to defend their land from Indians invasion and the changes that happened to their family role during the wars. Men joined the army and moved to frontier for defending the lands and women stayed at home to take care of children and nursing the war injured. Indians invasions were showed too much cruel and savagery and Americans lost their home, farming lands and properties. Blue Back was the only Indian in this film who was with Americans and was spying for them about Indians attacks. Lana and Gil found a job in Mrs. McKlennars house and she gave them salary, room and food. She was very serious but very kind and caring widow who supported them so much during the war crisis for their cabin was burned by Indians invasion.

Lana during the war gave birth to a son and a Mother Role added to her responsibilities and also Gil was supposed to handle a Father Role but he was busy with war so Lana had to play instead of him as well. Their family formation became more completed as we move on threw the end of the film and we can see how much Lana had changed from the beginning of the story. Now she know how to live like a frontier women .At last they move backed to their territory to build up their Cabin again and the Americans could defeated Indians and made a unity of 13 sates of America. The film ended with showing American Flag which impressed the belonging sense of Americans to a united nation.

In this film you can find out how American society was at that time. Economy was based on agriculture, men and women both worked on the farms, rich families had black slaves. Politics was very important to people. And the soon they got to know each other they asked about their affiliation to political parties. Everything was collective and individualism was not meaningful at that time. Because it was a crisis era and Americans needed to be united for defeating their subjugation under British colonization. They helped each other at the time of Indian’s invasion. They all support one another even. While running away they helped each other to be safe.
This film is produced in 1939. This is by the way that in 1930s the Production Code wrote by Jesuit Priest and a catholic Layman as a list of could and could not depict in Hollywood movies. Not only political themes and acts of graphic violence to be censored but issues of sex and sexuality in the movies were strictly monitored. Even the couples sexual relationship was prohibited to be depicted. That is why in this film you could easily feel the traces of production code. Gil and Lana’s relation is limited in front of the camera and in it instance this film is not like today’s American films which sexual relationship is very common in it.

Christianity in this film is very salient. For church was one of those important and central institutions in the Mohawk’s people’s life. Church was shown as a safe place that women and children could refuge to it while Indians invaded. Marriage took place there and even important news and declaration of unity for fighting against Indians was announced there.
A drum along the Mohawk has a war, Adventure and western Genre. Western because Americans were fighting against Indians and tried to remove the wilderness.

Characters

Henry Fonda is the actor of Gil Marti role. He was born in Nebraska in 1905 and died in 1982. He started working with Hollywood in 1935 Fonda’s career gained momentum after his Academy Award-nominated performance in 1940′s The Grapes of Wrath. He also played Abraham Lincolns role Young Mr. Lincoln. He was patriarch of famous family actors his daughter Jane Fonda, son Peter Fonda, granddaughter Bridget Fonda, and grandson Troy Garity.In 1999, he was named the sixth Greatest Male Star of All Time by the American Film Institute.

Fonda as Gil Martin in this film is around 30-35, tall and thin man with blue eyes. He is very brave who cared about his country and family very much. He was serious, logical and hardly smiled during the film. Although he was a typical masculine character (patriarchal) but emotionally he was very depended to Lana (his wife) and needed her supports a lot.

Claudette Colbert played Lana’s role. She was born in 1903 in Paris and died in 1996. This French American actress in 1939 was nominated the best actress of Academy Award in it happened one night. Colbert was known for a versatility that led to her becoming one of the biggest box-office stars of her time. In 1999, she was ranked as the 12th greatest female star of all time by the American Film Institute. Colbert as Lana in Drums along the Mohawk was elegant, sensitive and well born who left her father’s big house in Albany and married to Gil and moved to a cabin in door field. In he beginning of the film she didn’t know how to live like a frontier women and was not used to hard life. But as the story moved on and she could experience different situation and learned how be behave and how to support her husband by being strong. She worked beside her husband on the farm and while Indians invaded and they lost their properties she tried to cooperate with her husband to tolerate the hardships better.

Edna may Oliver as Mrs. McKlennar was born in 1883 in Massachusetts and died in 1942 in California. She was nominated Award Academy for her appearance in Drums along the Mohawk. During the 1930′s, she was one of the American screen’s best-known character actresses often playing tart-tongued spinsters. Edna was a descendant of the 6th American president John Quincy Adams. She as Mrs. McKlennar was thin, tall, very serious, tart_toungued widow who had very masculine voice. She behaved tough with men and never let them take advantage of her. But the interior part of her characteristic was very supportive not just to Gil and Martin but to all her neighbors who were suffering of Indians invasion. She didn’t scare of Indians as well. While tow Indian invade her room and burned all her stuffs she was shouting at them and sitting on her bed that was her husbands memorial and didn’t let them to burned it. This part of the film was very expressive. The bed was a symbol of the Americans sense of belonging to their land that Indians invaded it and wanted to remove them all. She gave Gil and Lana a chance to work for her and have room, food and money for survival. She was very generous as well. At the time of her death she granted all her properties to Gil and Lana.

Vocabulary

This film was in English language. The literature was not hard to me and even the accent and pronunciation of the word was clear to me. I think they didn’t have local accent that I could understand except Lana’s accent seemed to me a bit close to British.

Conclusion

American exceptionalism was conceptualized in this film because Indians were depicted savage, cruel and violent people and Americans were shown as tractable. Americans didn’t invade Indians unless Indians did it first. All Americans did was a reaction to Indians savagery. Drums along the Mohawk was very unilateral film that tried to depict Indians as savage and noncivilized. This is by the way that Americans very cruel to them as well during the history. History is a fair document to judge about Americans and Indians. Americans had also made many troubles for Indians such as cultural, economical and political problems. Many of them were killed by Americans, their culture was manipulated by them, they were removed form their original lands. Trial of tears in 1833 showed the Americans cruel policies against Indians.

Author: Najmeh Mohammadkhani
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
How Electric Pressure Cookers Work

Be Careful What You Wish For

Movie Mama Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Recommended For: Middle school age and above

Starring: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Ian McShane, Jennifer Saunders, Keith David and John Hodgman
Directed By: Henry Selick
Running Time: 1 hr. 40 min.
MPAA Rating: PG for thematic elements, scary images, some language and suggestive humor.
Genre: Kids/Family/Fantasy/Animation

Coraline Jones (Dakota Fanning), a young girl who has just moved into the quirky Pink Palace Apartments, is desperate to find a bit of adventure. Her workaholic parents ignore her, and her new neighbor Wybie Lovat (Robert Bailey Jr) annoys her to death. Her other neighbors, Miss Spink (Jennifer Saunders) and Miss Forcible (Dawn French), as well as Mr. Bobinsky (Ian McShane), offer some entertainment, but what really intrigues Coraline is a tiny locked door in her apartment. Through it she finds a parallel world where her “other mother” (Teri Hatcher) cooks fabulous meals, and her “other father” (John Hodgman) plays with her all day long. She ventures back to this world several times and finally decides she would rather stay there forever. But in order to stay, Coraline must make a hair-raising sacrifice, one she would never succumb to, no matter how wonderful the world seems to be.

Coraline is a typical 11-year-old, spunky and eager to experience the world. She is overbearing at times, but only because she lacks much-needed attention from her parents. Pre-teens will relate to her circumstances and find her an intriguing character. Director Henry Selick paints a depressing world around Coraline, but the incredible stop-animation makes her world beautiful and exciting for the viewer. I loved all the Michigan references, since Plugged In Parents is based there! However, even with superb voice talent and genius animation, the plot is still a bit soft.

PROS
In the beginning, Coraline’s parents seem an awful sort, the kind you want to run away from. But we find out later that their lack of interest in Coraline is a phase of sorts. They are going through a financial hardship and are focusing on a project that will hopefully improve their way of life. Coraline, as a youngster, simply cannot grasp that her parents are working so hard just for her–to make her life better. Most children have experienced this sort of thing, especially lately with the economy doing so poorly. I see this as a relevant topic, and urge parents to use Coraline as a discussion starter.

Coraline learns that no matter what hardships her parents are facing, she would rather be with them and experience genuine love, than trade them for material things, which are never fulfilling enough.

CONS
Even though I think kids across the world are going to adore Coraline, there are a few things I must mention. The second half of the film contains some truly frightening images for young ones. Though the plot line softens near the end, the realistic animation may trigger nightmares in some. Even I found myself tense a few times!

Mr. Bobinsky’s large, round tummy is often bare, showing a disgusting layer of belly hair. He’s always doing acrobatics and the camera just so happens to zero in on his crotch more than I’d like. At one point, he almost does the splits on a pair of pruning shears.

Miss Spink and Miss Forcible are retired British actresses who have a shelf full of their deceased, stuffed Scottish Terriers. They’re the type of old women that have huge busts and rear ends, and faces that make you shudder, but they still consider themselves divas. This wouldn’t be so bad until one of them appears naked on screen for quite a few minutes. And I’m not talking half naked, I’m talking 99.9% naked. The director threw it in for the shock factor–to make us cringe and squirm in our seats. I’m sorry it was there and feel awful for the thousands of kids who will have to sit through it.

Other than that, Coraline attempts to use a stick as a dowsing rod to find a hidden well. Fortunes are told, a cat kills a mouse, and a few mild curses like “jerk wad” and “puss wuss” are tossed about.

OVERALL
Not the best film of all time, but probably the best stop-animation film of all time.

Megan is the staff family movie reviewer for pluggedinparents.com. For more parenting articles on health and safety, nutrition, baby, money and tech, family life, pets, and movie reviews, visit pluggedinparents.com today!

Author: Megan P.
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Gadget reviews

The Nativity Story focuses on the period when Mary and Joseph journeyed to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus. Adding layer to the human characters of Mary and Joseph, they are clearly shown as real people. The story puts a heart in the condition of the recognizable teenager Mary who faces the mundane problem of being an unwed pregnant teen. Her parents are completely worried about her getting stoned. It may be a very common premise overall, but the difference here is that it involves a character in a holy tale, the pregnant teen is the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Christ. The story also exposes how Marys husband, Joseph, takes the complicated and humiliating situation with her wife breaking away from her vow in reference to their tradition (when she was supposed to remain pure for one year after marriage). And what gives depth to this familiar tale is actually the more human side of the story of the young couple facing the complications in their society.

This straight-up Nativity story promotes a simple by-the-Book approach visually interpreted in a more engrossing manner. Faithful to the Bible, Jesus is portrayed with utmost respect. It tells the tale in traditional, biblical means the way the devout Christians would expect it. Clearly, it does not veer from tradition and does not pass the offensive route. It considerably validates the idea that the birth of Jesus is one of the most lyrical and emotionally resonant stories in religious literature. Reverently made as it is, it pleases the believers who dont want their faith tested. It may have a complete sense of literality in the story (it becomes nothing new with the countless biblical stories already told all these times) and only extends a bit of cinematic and dramatic license in characterization in order for it to fit better as a film, but the most interesting part of this cinematic interpretation of the Nativity is that it goes beyond the major details of the mere events and digs deeper into the possible realities of the human experiences of the characters. The film also contains many episodes not exactly mentioned in the Bible, but these scenes may have possibly occurred (without being offensive in presentation) for instance, Mary being afraid to marry a man she doesnt know, Mary and her friends playing and running around like the usual teenagers, and Joseph being teased by a friend with a sight of Mary passing by.

The main and supporting characters are given more dimensions in terms of characterization. Keisha Castle-Hughes makes an appropriately soulful Mary. Castle-Hughes may not look exactly like the usual Mary shown in various films and art works, but her features, facial expressions, and aura becomes a really effective Mary in this film rendition. Oscar Issac becomes an ideal Joseph who tries to come to terms with his wifes Immaculate Conception. The most engaging scenes (apart from the expected marvel of the scenes of Jesus Christs birth) involve Marys mortified parents Anna played by Hiam Abbass and Joaquim played by Shaun Toub, and the shocked Joseph trying to maintain composure amidst the scandalous pregnancy anticipated in the mundane aspect of the situation. Isaac effectively conveys tenderness, doubt, courage, and transcendence as Joseph. Alexander Siddig as Angel Gabriel, Stanley Townsend as Zechariah and Shohreh Aghdashloo as Elizabeth are quite okay for their roles. However, some of the characters, especially the minor ones are either completely black, white, or robotic which becomes another weakness for the film. Ciarn Hinds as King Herod and Alessandro Giuggioli as his son Antipas are absurdly malevolent in an over-the-top way. They are like the background talents becoming completely wooden in doing their roles. The guards of King Herod are made too black in terms of character as well. Thus, the film becomes partly a theater-like extravaganza with a not so positive effect. The presentation of the Three Wise Men goes a bit off at a certain point. The utilizing of the films cinematic license in order to build up their characters does not become effective enough. Actually, it seems more of the performances going a little overboard. There are a few times that their acting becomes quite annoying. In their silken robes, the Wise Men look authentic, but they really lack some soulfulness in their characters because of the need to come up with some comic appeal that could possibly help maintain the escapist type of capturing the scenes and details. And so, The Wise Men played by Stefan Kalipha as Gaspar, Eriq Ebouaney as Balthasar, and Nadim Sawalha as Melchior come off more like the Three Stooges. It falls off more especially in scenes like Balthasar looking like a gay while touching the arms of Melchior (in awe of the sight of the baby Jesus). It may be intended for some comic effect but it actually becomes quite off.

Overall, the story is good, and thats a given. As a Christmas film (and it can pass as a Holy Week film as well), The Nativity Story is tailor made for the Catholics who are faithful to the Bible. It is actually like reading the Bible through moving images in the big screen. The religious undertones are direct to the point. However, the execution obviously favors the safe over the challenging. Some people who tend to have high expectations for such a new cinematic treat may find it like a TV special only brought to theatrical life. With the present higher expectations for this era of post-modernism, some people may find it too restraint, inert, and something too much of the same thing. But personally, this seems to be the intention of the filmmaker more than becoming a deconstructionist or non-realist masterpiece, the film is intended to become a classically wholesome film with a DVD market for the Christians to enjoy watching with their families and friends. Clearly, there is none of the anti-clerical, anti-establishment fury of the recent films inspired by religious stories as the Da Vinci Code and Passion of the Christ. And what surfaces mainly is the films simplicity and humble awe that paves way to the old school appeal for such a story.

The Nativity Story has a sincerity that is sometimes quite moving, and sometimes just too quiet. A clean re-telling from its source material, it is a movie that may not take full advantage of its cinematic license, but neither does it completely betray the viewer. As simple as its title, it exudes a Hallmark Channel film appeal with its greeting card imagery and sweet, wholesome interpretation. How moved a viewer can become with this holiday fare depends on ones basic sense of human empathy and values. But obviously, this kind of motion picture depicting the birth of the Saviour is a nice family movie treat. It stirs the soul beyond the frantic holiday season of mere eating, shopping, and giving gifts for the personal excitement and gratification and for the capitalists best time to gain profit. Indeed, it is a dutiful, traditional film, and for such intentions of reclaiming the roots of the Yuletide season for its story of love, sacrifice, celebration, and holiness, it does not necessarily become a useless thing. It becomes a thoughtful motion picture offer that can be enjoyed by anyone who appreciates potent drama, period stories, and religious messages.

The film is beautifully shot and the locations are captivatingly recreated. Personally, with this film being partly from the Scriptures and partly imagined, I wouldnt be sure of how accurate the littlest details can be. Nevertheless, it is a well conceived, traditional religious film in its entirety. It proves that the visual and storytelling possibilities of Bible stories become really appealing and touching. Director Catherine Hardwicke pays attention to details on things like make-up, clothes, food and activities that make The Nativity Story seem so real (it justifies her being a production designer as well). The cinematography complements the production design. Moreover, Hardwicke fills the story with just enough realism weaved with the heavenly signs needed like angels coming down to earth as messengers of God. The realistic special effects and painted backgrounds suggest the present technological advantage of the era that makes the visual pleasure for this moving picture more convincing. The sound elements and musical score are okay. However, the more disappointing part is the problem with the films continuity. For the keen-eyed, more especially, it is noticeable to see a characters background jumping/disappearing from one shot to another. Also, some things and people arent exactly in the same places during changes in camera angles.

The Nativity Story shows in the country just in time with the week where the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is slated (December 8 ). It surrounds the events leading to the birth of Jesus in a well versed visual translation of the Biblical tale. The film has a tame picture-book sincerity. It sticks to the familiar details of the narrative and dramatizes them with without bringing anything new to the table, but it offers a beautifully shot Bible story that can last for generations.

Author: Rianne Hill Soriano
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Netbook, Tablets and Mobile Computing

If you grew up watching Transformers in the morning before school and then again in the afternoon you will absolutely enjoy this film. For those of you who are new to the concept you will find the Transformers 2007 movie review good enough to entice you to the theatre to discover for yourself what all the hype is about.

This live action transformer movie is going to take the prize for the best action movie of year, maybe even the best action movie that has ever been made. For the very beginning of the Transformers movie you will be entranced. It starts out with the both the Autobots and the Decepticons living in peace on Cybertron.

The war begins after the leader of the Decepticons, Megatron, finds out about the power of the cube. The cube is a vital item because all life forms are derived from it. Megatron wants to take the power from the cube so that he can transfer all the life of Earth into his own Transformer. He left Cybertron when it got destroyed in the battle between the Autobots and the Decepticons.

The cube fell to Earth which is why all the Autobots and Decepticons ended up there. The Autobots came to save Earth from the hands of Megatron. Of course he came there to take over the entire Earth.

I have to tell you about one specific part of the show in this Transformers the Movie review. Sam has a cell phone that gets turned into a Transformer. Probably the best thing about the Transformers movie is the action scenes. It is very hard for me to explain to you in this Transformer movie review just how brilliantly done they are. You will absolutely love the final fight of the movie. It takes place in the middle of Los Angeles.

The Transformers themselves are very well done. There are a few differences from the original animated cartoon but I think you will find them for the better. I dont want to give any secrets so I will just tell you Megatron has an amazing look you dont want to miss.

There are plenty of other changes as well. For example Bumblebee used to be a Volkswagen Beetle. In this live action Transformers movie Bumblebee takes on the form of the 2008 Chevy Camaro that isnt on the market yet. Optimus Prime is still an amazing semi truck, and Ratchet is a Ambulance. The voices of the Transformers are very powerful and they are a good replica of the original programming from the early 80s.

By now you realize this is a very positive Transformers movie review but I cant help it. Some remakes are best not done, but Michael Bay really did a marvellous job of taking the Transformers to the big screen. If you are worried about being the oldest person in the theatre dont be the average age group is between 21 and 40.

The Transformers movie really kept the audience at the edge of their seats for the entire show. People were really into it, even applauding and yelling at one point. I am planning to go see the movie again next week. If you only make it to see one movie this year, make it Transformers. I will be back before you know it to give you the Transformers Movie review for Transformers 2!

Get the 20th anniversary special collectors, edition Transformers DVD Metal Box Set. Complete seasons of the Transformers cartoon series 1 through 4 on 15 high quality DVDs, 5.1 Dolby surround sound. Also get the Transformers movie, collectors card, poster and more. Get your set at http://www.TransformersDVDSet.com

Author: Roger Dale
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: WordPress plugin Guest Blogger

THE GOOD: Trying to find something good to say about a film like this is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. However, to be fair, director Wolfgang Petersen has assembled a solid cast, led by the always dependable Kurt Russell and Josh Lucas, the latter giving the most interesting performance in the film as the ruthless career gambler who finds a heart as he changes from only saving himself to helping to save the others that follow him out of the disaster. Richard Dreyfuss always does well with what he is given, despite been given a two-dimensional cliched role that in someone else’s hands would have been completely laughable. It’s hard to see why this assembled cast would want to do a film with such a bad script but they are the only ones who make the film watchable. That said, they must have been cringing during certain scenes, particularly Dreyfuss and his introductory scene. The only other good thing I have to say about the film is its dramatic opening shot of the Poseidon ship; it lasts the length of the film’s opening credits and seamlessly combines fantastic computer generated images with live action shot on the boat set.

THE BAD: It is amazing that a film with a budget of $160 million did not devote any of those financial resources to the script. One would think that was the foundation of any film, and the makers of the original 1972 “The Poseiden Adventure” were able to do this without an issue and for much less money in churning out what is considered a classic disaster film. The characters are shallow and predictable (with the exception of Josh Lucas’ Dylan Johns character). There is no story, only silly moments stringing together the supposed tense action as the characters try to escape the capsized luxury liner. Take for example the actual capsizing; the captain sees a CG wave approaching the ship and exclaims a very corny, “No…” before the wave in all its CG glory cracks in to the ship, leading to much destruction and passenger deaths which are needlessly graphic (people getting impaled, burnt in fireballs, having lifts fall on top of the them, and that’s all before the water gets in to the ship). When everything calms down, one of the other crew announces to everyone they were hit by a “rogue wave”; whether or not this is scientifically accurate I’m not sure, but it was the first of many moments that made me burst out in laughter due to its dreadfully stupid delivery. The film then shifts in to disaster mode with a group of individuals led by Lucas and Russell trying to make it out to safety, riddled with all the typical devices such as the ‘close-to-drowning’ escapes, a couple of ‘tragic’ death scenes and the exclamation of love between two young hopefuls. In the end when a decision has to be made, the boyfriend of Russell’s daughter insists on engaging the deadly task as he is the best qualified. However, with precious seconds being wasted, he wants his girlfriend to tell him she loves him before he goes. In the mean time, Russell goes and does the deed himself which leads to his supposedly tragic demise. Maybe in the hands of a director who wanted to make all this work all of these cliches and disaster devices would have worked but for some reason none of the direction in this film will do anything except make you laugh at what you are watching. Wolfgang Petersen came in to this film with some directing credibility and he has effectively torpedoed his career with this film; he would have to direct one hell of a film before he could get rid of the tag: “the director of Poseidon”.

Author: Todd Murphy
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Excise Tax

THE GOOD: As a franchise, “Star Trek” had been languishing in tired old material and looked dead in the water, largely thanks to regurgitated story lines and an unwillingness to take risks. Thankfully, director J.J. Abrams takes all the right risks to inject life in to the franchise, and from a story and execution standpoint, one cannot underestimate how bold and ambitious the risks Abrams has taken with this film. This film is a super-charged version of “Star Trek”; action-packed, big visuals, dramatic story points and great character moments. In essence, this is the first “Star Trek” film that has been afforded the resources to be a big event film, something which has not been attempted since the first 1979 film (which did not take advantage of those resources). The visuals are spectacular, the action is first rate and the world created finely detailed. All of this would be for naught if the characters were not up to scratch and for the most part they are. Chris Pine somehow manages to embody Captain Kirk without being William Shatner.

You see the character in him, just as with Zachary Quinto as Spock, although in this case, his physical resemblance is extraordinary. Karl Urban is perhaps the most successful as Dr. McCoy, managing to create some of the great touches that made this character so loveable by the late DeForest Kelley. Leonard Nimoy’s inclusion as the elder Spock was a master-stroke, allowing for a continuation from the old series; the writers cleverly used his character in a scenario that allows this film to serve as both a sequel and a prequel at the same time, thereby avoiding the trap of adhering to the franchise’s continuity (and thus potentially disappointing hardcore fans). The one thing to appreciate the most however is that Abrams was clearly not afraid to allow big and devastating things to occur in the story starting with the destruction of Vulcan and its race, a pinnacle of the original series, at the hands of bad guy Romulan Nero (a very strong Eric Bana). In this story, anything goes, and that is precisely what this franchise needed; a sense of urgency and a lack of knowing what will happen to the fate of the characters and the story. “Star Trek” is finally refreshed and revitalised to boldly go in to the future where no franchise has gone before.

THE BAD: Although “Star Trek” is arguably the best film in the series, aside from “Wrath Of Khan”, there are some minor things that did not work through the reboot. First is Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. He truly looks like he is not enjoying the performance he has to give, and for the most part, unlike the original Chekov, this character is annoying and silly. John Cho as Sulu is not particularly distinctive, largely because he is not given much to do apart from a big action scene. The musical score is another point of contention; it seems somewhat clumsy in comparison to the more elegant and classical pieces written for previous films, although the inclusion of the original theme music at the end of the film is welcome. Also, the fast-paced execution and over-use of jerky camera moves can be somewhat exhausting and is clearly geared towards the Gen-Y or teen male markets. Hopefully in future sequels the pace can be toned down at least in some areas to allow for the drama to unfold more organically rather than as an impressive piece of fast editing.

Author: Todd Murphy
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Import duty tariff

THE GOOD: Dan Brown’s novel was an instant best-seller and caused much controversy over its exploration of the ultimate conspiracy of all time: that the Catholic Church has kept the true nature of Jesus Christ and his royal blood line a secret so as to maintain the established religious order and keeping people’s faith. Much of the dialogue and detail that made the book so fascinating is present in the movie and makes for intriguing debate, including the war between the Prior of Sion (an order dedicated to the truth of Jesus) and Opus Dei (a secret offshoot of the Church dedicated to destroying the Prior of Sion and its secret). In the scenes where Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen) explore the stories of the Holy Grail and its actual meaning, and more importantly, why the Church would kill to keep it a secret, the film will at least peak your interest as the book so effectively did. Ian McKellen is the one member of the cast who is clearly relishing his time in the pulp conspiracy spotlight, lending an energetic performance as Teabing to the overall aesthetic as he goes through lengthy explanations of Da Vinci’s work and the history of the whole thing. Langdon’s introduction at a university lecture at the head of the film is quite interesting in his explanations of symbols and their interpretation. If nothing else, the material raises the possibility that symbols, stories, and even what we know as truth could have been distorted over time and history by those seeking to change its influence to satisfy their own ends.

THE BAD: Aside from the ideas its raises and the visuals, everything about this film is astonishingly bad. Ron Howard must have checked his brain at the door when he signed on as director because there are so many illogical plot holes, uninspired acting, stupid dialogue and a clumsy attempt to make the film a thriller by inserting a chase plot over what is essentially a dialogue-driven and professorial conspiracy piece. The biggest mistake of all, and I know this as I have read the book, is that the film follows the book to the letter. Film translations from novels always undergo changes in order to take advantage of the film medium and “The Da Vinci Code” should have been no exception. This story, as structured, works perfectly in the book but it is death on film. Character is substituted for exposition. The thriller aspect in the book looks arbitrarily pasted on to the dialogue sequences, leaving no tension at any point in the film. As a result, you have the likes of the brilliant Tom Hanks looking totally flat, only having an arbitrarily inserted minor plot dealing with his claustrophobia to play with which does not have any real relevance to anything. With the exception of Ian McKellen, all the cast come across as poor caricatures that are in some cases quite laughable. Then there is the illogical nature of the piece. For example, when Sophie (a mis-cast Audrey Tatou) shows up to help Langdon, they successfully manage to trick the police in to leaving the Louvre Gallery in order to escape. This gives them time to examine the crime scene and the puzzles left behind from the opening scene of the film. Perhaps someone can explain to me how a professional police force would leave a crime scene totally unattended while they blindly chase a red-herring? But it is convenient for Langdon and Sophie to examine the Da Vinci puzzle left by the dead man. The film is full of these contrivances, with the biggest of all coming at the end when Langdon figures out that Sophie is in fact the last living descendant of Jesus Christ; an instant joke to be sure. Maybe they were making a comedy?

Author: Todd Murphy
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Creditcard Currency Conversion Fee

Taghreed Elsanhouri’s first feature length documentary, All About Darfur, serves as an intimate portrait of ordinary Sudanese people whose lives have been affected by the decades long civil war and the current crisis in the Darfur region of the country. Rather than repeat the same harrowing images of humanitarian catastrophe as shown in the western media, Elsanhouri’s film brings a close focus on the opinion and experience of the individual, and on the conflicting views of Sudan’s splintered culture.

Nor does All About Darfur seek to offer up solutions or provide answers to what is variably seen as a political, cultural or religious problem. Instead, it gives the audience a raw view of current Sudanese attitudes towards the situation in Darfur, where millions of people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands killed as a result of three years of fighting between rebels and pro-government forces.

Elsanhouri, who was born in Sudan and later came to the UK as a child, goes to Sudan as an outsider, to find out for herself what has happened to the country in which she spent an “idyllic childhood”. She is clear about her purpose for making the film: “I’m a filmmaker not a policymaker, for me this film was a personal journey. What I’ve done is share that journey with you.”

Throughout the film it is noticeable that the director has sought not to stamp her own opinions or perspective onto the documentary, but to instead present the raw footage she has captured and “to show that there is complexity there, and no single cause for the situation in Darfur.”

The structure of the film is quite simplistic and follows a pattern of linking blocks of interviews with between-location footage and discussion between the director and her Sudanese cameraman/government minder.

All About Darfur’s strength is the level of intimacy between the camera and the interviewees, and the candidness with which they talk. The majority of these interviews take place outside the Darfur region and reveal the experiences and conflicting opinions of ordinary Sudanese people, academics and officials, touching on many relevant topics including the complexity of race and religion in Sudan, politics, and the possibility of UN intervention.

The interviews inside the Abu Shoak refugee camp in Darfur are in stark contrast to those outside the region. While those witnessing the crisis from the outside speak passionately about causes and solutions, of politics and race, there is a sense of normality. The tone inside the camp is rather different, and the displaced people there speak instead of fear and desperation, of beatings and atrocities.

The director herself stresses that the film is not in any way meant to be a comprehensive exploration of the crisis in Darfur, but instead should be seen as “one short journey” through a nation divided. And this journey succeeds in illuminating elements of the Sudanese national character rarely seen in the international news media.

Author: Chris Glithero
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Digital Camera News