With one parting note in regards to my previous post do you think Pope John Paul the Second (JP2) will be one of the virgins Osama meets in Hell?

THE GOOD: Nine times out of ten, a CG-animated movie is more often than not great and one can only speculate that the reason for this stems from the fact that so many years of time and effort are spent making them. Pixar is the studio that makes the AA-grade CG films, but Dreamworks Animation is close behind and with “Monsters Vs Aliens”, the company has shown its ability to deliver a good quality film, even though it is not quite up to Pixar’s lofty standards. As the title would suggest, aliens come to earth to take over the planet and it is up to a group of monsters who have been locked up in the top secret military base Area 51 to take them on. The film is full of great one-liners and colourful characters, least of which being the monsters themselves. Both B.O.B. and Insectosaurus stand out as being the funniest, the former with his lack of brain and subsequent comedic banter and the latter for his sheer size masking a cute benign personality.

There are a lot of human characters in this story, led by Susan (aka Ginormica) who becomes a super-strong giant after a radioactive meteorite lands on top of her on her wedding day. The US President is particularly funny, especially when he starts playing the Beverley Hills Cop theme (or for the new generation, the Crazy Frog tune) as a means of communication with the aliens in a nice rip-off of “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind”. Where this film differentiates itself from others of its type is its execution in digital 3D which is nothing short of astounding. The pictures and effects are so clear, colourful and vibrant that you feel like you are in the movie itself and unlike IMAX, it is not overwhelming. The future of 3D is really in this type of film and hopefully this trend will continue in to the future. “Monsters Vs Aliens” is a good, fun film with some stunning visuals and colourful characters making for an enjoyable experience.

THE BAD: It may be harsh to say this film does not quite reach the heights of its genre, but with so many great CG-animated films made, this description cannot be avoided. “Monsters Vs Aliens” is good, but it does not match the quality of films like “Finding Nemo” or “Wall-E” from Pixar. The reason for this is largely due to a lack of punch and lethargy in the story telling. Despite being a short ninety minutes, the first twenty or so go by a little too slowly without much to grab your interest; most of this is spent setting up Susan’s character and while it is important to the way the rest of the film plays out, it is also a little boring. Also, given the comedic nature of the main monster characters, it is a shame that more was not done to exploit this, leaving parts of the film a bit flat in execution. As a result of these factors, the film lacks a knockout punch that would have made it memorable which is a shame because the core concept is fantastic and its rendering in 3D is marvellous.

For the original review, follow this link: http://www.allaboutmovies.net/filmreviewmonstersvsaliens.htm

Todd Murphy is a staff reviewer at the film/DVD review web site, http://www.allaboutmovies.net – for all the latest reviews on the newest releases.

Author: Todd Murphy
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
PCB stencil online quote

THE GOOD: Hollywood is on the comic book/graphic novel bandwagon, turning to a vast array of published material for new films. Much like The Spirit which came out last year, “Watchmen” occupies an uncomfortable ground between maintaining the tone of the source material and creating great cinematic entertainment. Director Zack Snyder has certainly created a feast for the visual senses, forging an alternate reality on screen where President Richard Nixon continued to serve in to the 80s after being aided by a band of superheroes to win the Vietnam War. The enigmatic and god-like Dr Manhattan (Billy Crudup) is capable of bending matter and energy to his will, serving America but becoming increasingly detached from the human race as his vast knowledge and power grows.

The other superheroes are a mixed range of good natured souls such as Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) and Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman) to the darker vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) and the immoral Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). The concepts in the film are certainly fascinating, least of which being an alternate take on history with America and Russia now on the brink of nuclear war in the 80s and the Watchmen who can potentially stop it all from happening. Cold war motifs run rampant, as do themes of annihilation and human endurance in the face of such catastrophe. The superheroes are not themselves immune from the darkness, with the smartest of them all, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) hatching a plan which may save the world but destroy the Watchmen in the process. The second half of the film is where all of this comes to a head and makes for some more intelligent viewing than what you might expect from a film like this. “Watchmen” is a unique in its creation of an alternate reality with its original visual and storytelling sensibilities.

THE BAD: Although it is not nearly as bad, “Watchmen” has much in common with last year’s The Spirit in that the conventions of the graphic novel do not seem to translate as well in to the realm of cinema. The first half of the film jumbles together a myriad of storylines to introduce all the characters, and they all appear to have different tones and styles which do not adequately advance the storyline that well. The dark, internal monologue style of the Rorschach storyline that in many ways embodies a “Sin City” style tone does not meld comfortably with the almost silly 60s comic book like quality of the Nite Owl and Silk Spectre characters. The Dr Manhattan storyline appears to spring right out of a 50s B-movie sci-fi film, and the immoral antics of the Comedian seem to negate the whole reason why these guys are heroes in the first place. Ironically, the Richard Nixon character seems the most comic book of them all with his over the top nose extension to accentuate his iconic facial outline. Zack Snyder has not really given us a way in to these characters given the first hour is so long and meandering. The second half of the film becomes more interesting, but by the end of the two hour and forty minute run time, you are left wondering whether or not forty minutes could have been cut out of the film to give it more focus.

For the original review, follow this link: http://www.allaboutmovies.net/filmreviewwatchmen.htm

Todd Murphy is a staff reviewer at the film/DVD review web site, http://www.allaboutmovies.net – for all the latest reviews on the newest releases.

Author: Todd Murphy
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Digital Camera Information

THE GOOD: A film about the President you can have a beer with seemed like a tantalising proposition when it was first floated, particularly with Oliver Stone at the helm. As embodied by a brilliantly cast Josh Brolin who nails the character well, George W. Bush in “W.” is a man who is not of bad intent; he is just prone to fail due to his low EQ rather than IQ. The man Oliver Stone chooses to show in this film is hard done by his father who feels his brother Jeb is the winner in the family. George, seeking some sort of spiritual redemption not only in the eyes of his father but in God, motivates himself to become successfully elected first as Governor and then as President, but manages to fail miserably at both due to his short temper, narrow and simplistic views of the world and a motivation to “appear” a success. Stone does his best work in portraying what we do know about the real man, being his bad boy early days, the Bushisms, his devotion to religion and his belief in being chosen by God to lead the world. If anything, this film makes you feel sorry for Bush in that he appears to be a simple character who was born in to a sophisticated world and who has just enough talent to get himself in to positions of power and privilege but manages to screw it up because he does not have the street-wise smarts inherent in his DNA to do the right thing. His rationale for invading Iraq was more about establishing a new American order in the Middle East so “no one will screw with us again” as opposed to finding those directly responsible for the crisis which unfortunately antagonised the American position in the region further. The best scene in the film is one in which Bush is having a dream in which his father is telling him in the oval office that even after all he has accomplished he has managed to become an even bigger failure, not only as a President but by tarnishing the Bush name and its 200 year history. The last shot of the film perhaps sums up Bush perfectly by Stone, in that he’s in the outfield of an empty baseball field, he moves to catch the ball but loses sight of it in all the lights shining down from him in the stadium, thus dropping the ball literally. “W.” is a lightweight portrayal, which may be appropriate given who it is about.

THE BAD: Given Oliver Stone’s previous work, “W.” is a fairly soft portrayal of such a controversial figure. You’d expect a characterization of George W. Bush to be lightweight because the man has about as much depth as a kiddie pool, but Stone has made the entire film this way which makes it a little disappointing to any one, myself included, who wanted something meatier and sinister, with more top secret president meetings and more insight in to how Bush came to make the decisions he did. In this respect, the film occupies a half-way middle ground which cannot really satisfy anyone; the liberals will think it isn’t harsh enough and conservatives will think it’s not a fair representation of a man who comes from such a prestigious family. As a result, the film could have been thirty minutes shorter and still given you the same impression of the man that Stone wishes to impart.

For the original review, follow this link: http://www.allaboutmovies.net/filmrevieww.htm

Todd Murphy is a staff reviewer at the film/DVD review web site, http://www.allaboutmovies.net – for all the latest reviews on the newest releases.

Author: Todd Murphy
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Digital Camera News

Fighting for our personal freedoms, members of the United States Armed Forces train hard, work hard and often place themselves in grave danger for the benefit of the greater good. America’s military is one of the largest around in terms of manpower, second only to China, with nearly 1, 473,900 active personnel and 1,458,500 reserve personnel. For most of the history of the armed forces, employment has been voluntary although “drafts” have been implemented in various times of war and peace. The US military is a leading force of might and strength around the world with large amounts of high-tech, powerful equipment to provide marked capabilities in defense and creating an image of power.

Wearing military uniforms is a mandatory requirement to being part of the proverbial team; the styles of uniforms vary from branch to branch and have evolved markedly over time. While official rank and number are required to wear a real military uniform, there are many options in navy, marine, air force and army costumes for even the most ardent of military fans. Wearers of military costumes will command lots of attention dressed up in the replica gear and garments of their idolized men and women in uniform. Some military costumes look realistic down to the last brass button while others are strictly for fun, like the super sexy women’s costumes from the various armed force branches.

Rightfully portrayed as heroes, it’s no wonder that fictional military characters abound in popular culture. From the blazing guns and muscles of big screen, little screen and comic book GI Joe to the Air Force Academy “Top Gun” played by actor Tom Cruise, there are many popular pretend armed forces costumes and costume ideas to choose from. Of course, every army costume, navy costume, marine costume, and air force costume needs costume accessories such as pretend grenades, aviator glasses, army boots, toy machine guns and more!

Author: Todd Denning
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Beading Necklace

The film starts with the ending; we see Charlie being awarded the “Honoured Colleague” from the defence force. We’re told his achievement has outstripped any that have come before it, allowing him to be the first civilian to ever achieve this award. Yet, in his eyes, Charlie seems distant and sad; as if he’s grateful for the award but aware that this isn’t the end of the story. It’s a tribute to Tom Hanks’ acting ability that he conveys so much in this sequence, suggesting that although this is the end of the film, we know that there’s more going on than meets the eye; it’s not until the end that we realise why he looks like that. It’s an unusual way to start the film but it’s brilliant as we get the feeling that the victory may be bittersweet for Wilson and we want to know why.

We then move backwards to 1980 and we’re introduced to Charlie while he’s having a party with friends in Vegas. Befitting Charlie’s playboy lifestyle, he’s naked in a spa with two strippers, a playboy cover girl and a male friend who wants Charlie’s help to get a Dallas-style TV series off the ground. This little escapade, as with many others, at first comes back to bite Charlie when questions of scandal and impropriety are raised back in Washington. But later on, it becomes the perfect cover for his instigation of a covert war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; with the media so busy looking around in his personal life, they don’t take him seriously enough to investigate his more weighty actions with the CIA and other nations in the Middle East. After being convinced by wealthy socialite Joanne Herring (a perfectly cast Julia Roberts) to visit the President of Pakistan, Charlie trundles off not taking it seriously, until the President makes it quite clear that they are dealing with a grave situation in Afghanistan and the United States is treating it like a joke but not providing enough funding in the war budget. At the insistence of the President, Charlie visits the refugee camps in Pakistan and is horrified but what he sees. He visits the US consulate in Pakistan to find out what the people need to help them fight the Soviets and gets a rather uninterested response from the CIA representative there. Charlie flies back to Washington to demand a meeting with the Director of the CIA, but instead meets Gust Avrakatos (Hoffman), an expert in Afghanistan who wants to kill communists but has been frustrated by not being given the support. It’s music to his ears when Charlie tells him he wants to give him whatever he needs to make this happen, and together with Herring, the three mastermind a covert war which grows larger and larger with each passing year until it climaxes with the Soviet withdrawal in Afghanistan, and then subsequently the fall of the Soviet Empire.

The warning, and topical theme that comes from this movie is right at the end. Charlie, and the US, are successful in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan without drawing attention to themselves. However, Gust warns Charlie that if they leave without educating the Afghans that it will become a breeding ground for terrorists and descend the country in to civil war, again. In a crucial scene, Charlie requests only a million dollars to set up a school in Afghanistan to educate the locals, but he’s met with a negative response: “Who gives cares about a school in Afghanistan?” It is this short-sightedness that has had ramifications for the world in subsequent decades, and Gust’s warning has become reality. Charlie sums up America’s actions quite succinctly: “We go in, we give people hope, we succeed in driving away the enemies, and then we leave. But you know what? That ball keeps bouncing.” This is the film’s main message and its a very strong one; had the US heeded the warning signs then and not been so short-sighted, the world might be in a different place right now. Then, when we get to the climax which is a replay of the opening scene, we finally understand the look on Charlie’s face when he’s accepting the award. He knows they have to do more, and getting an award seems trivial by comparison.

The manner in which this story is told is much more positive and noble than what I was expecting; Charlie is actually doing this for a just cause. This motivation pulls you as an audience member straight in to his plight because you’re keen to see exactly how he uses his wit and charm to manipulate people in to giving him what he needs to get this war off the ground. By far the best sequences in the movie are between Hanks and Hoffman as their characters discuss strategy. Charlie is the man with the money who wants to help, but he has no idea. Gust is the man with the ability, but needs the support. Together, they’re a perfect match. And even though Charlie is funding Gust’s enterprise, Gust is not afraid to stand up to Charlie to get what he wants, even if that means being crass and insulting to Middle Eastern world leaders, to fellow colleagues or even to Charlie himself if Gust feel he needs to make a point. As a result, you’re watching real people deal with an insane situation which makes it all the more believable.

Tom Hanks is brilliant in this role; it might not be his best work but it’s something of a surprise. We haven’t seen him play this ethically-challenged playboy character before, but he does it with such charm and gusto that you wonder why he never did it before. Philip Seymour Hoffman steals the show as Gust Avrakatos. Starting with his stellar opening scene where he tells his boss to go f$%# himself for not giving him a posting he wanted, Hoffman delivers all of his dialogue in such an intelligent, fast and deadpan manner that he’s totally engaging from start to finish. Julia Roberts does very well as the beautiful, intelligent and tough Houston socialite Joanne Herring who is the one who gets the ball rolling with Charlie. It’s more of a supporting role as both Hanks and Hoffman take up most of the screen time but she makes her presence felt nonetheless.

“Charlie Wilson’s War” is an intelligent piece of work that also manages to entertain. It might actually prompt you to find out more about this true story, but at the very least, it’ll give you something to talk about.

Author: Alex Demattia
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Gadget reviews

Dennis Quaid plays climatologist Jack Hall who at the outset of the film is warning the scientific community that global warming is real and will start to have an effect within the next century if something is not done by the current generation to combat it. Unsurprisingly, he has not given much credence but soon his expertise are called upon when several places around the world begin to experience the wildest weather they have ever experienced which ultimately culminates in a massive superstorm which changes the face of the planet forever. The plot is quite simple which is what it needed to be; this is a film about the consequences of inaction and how quickly things can turn badly. On this point alone, this film rates quite highly because this is an important message that needs to get out there and what better than in a big, mainstream Hollywood movie?

Quaid does well in his role, providing the science and the heart which are central to the success of the film. Most of the other actors fair well with their parts, particularly Ian Holm as Jack’s counterpart who is monitoring conditions in Scotland. Some actors don’t fair well however; Jake Gyllenhaal is a little wooden, and his school friends don’t really extend beyond 2-dimensional caricatures. But perhaps the worst of all is the US President, who only ever seems to say, “So what do we do now?” On the plus side though, the Vice-President is an interesting character and has more than a passing resemblance to real-life Vice-President at the time, Dick Cheney.

It wouldn’t be a Roland Emmerich film without sequences of money shots. “The Day After Tomorrow” has some very spectacular imagery, ranging from tornadoes in downtown Los Angeles, massive tidal wives engulfing the Statue of Liberty and flooding New York, and images from space of the superstorm changing the face of the Earth. Perhaps the most spectacular shot is the opening two minute sequence which is completely CG and is an uncut helicopter shot flying over the ice in Antarctica – the shot is absolutely photo-realistic and a joy to behold. All of these shots are amazing to watch and are epic in stature but it is a shame that they are quite often intercut with some ridiculous scenes; one that comes to mind as being the worst is the scene where hordes of extras are sprinting down New York streets in an attempt to outrun the tidal wave. Of course, some manage to out-run it! It cheapens the realism otherwise on display. Another silly shot is a reporter on the street in LA getting whacked by a flying building wall which is being carried by the force of the tornadoes. The execution of that scene was particularly tacky. The film could have done without sequences like these as the message at the heart of this film is quite serious.

“The Day After Tomorrow” is a visually spectacular film with a strong message about global warming that environmentalists will love, but it is let down only by some silly sequences and some stilted, boring dialogue.

Author: Alex Demattia
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
PCB stencil online quote

The film opens with a prologue detailing the history of Kennedy’s presidency and the background forces at work when he came to power. As narrated by Martin Sheen, the prologue offers a backstory which sets up the idea that Kennedy was on a collision course with the Establishment, a power-hungry military industrial complex wanting to further his agenda and profits with its war policies. We then see the aftermath of the assassination as people learn of this extraordinary event on news-casts. What’s great about this sequence is that it appears to capture the heart-stopping moment when you realised what just happened; that it’s almost unbelievable. The story then picks up three years later and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, after a fateful chat with a Senator on a flight to Washington, decides to re-open the case into Kennedy’s assassination, and in doing so, literally enters Wonderland where ‘white is black and black is white’. The film provides sequence after sequence of analyses and evidence that are so compelling that you would never want to look at the official version of history again. If nothing else, two points made the ‘Oswald’ theory impossible; first, it was physically impossible to do the shooting job Oswald did in the six seconds he had to do it, and second, one bullet could never turn left and right, pause in mid-air and do other miraculous things to hit two people seven times. The latter, the ‘magic-bullet theory’, is the foundation of the case in official history and when you start taking that apart, their whole case falls apart which is why this film makes for such compelling viewing.

Kevin Costner is spot on in this film as Jim Garrison; you can tell that whenever he passionately cares about whatever material he’s working on it shows in his performance. Some have criticised his oft-wooden acting style and that may be fair in other films but he’s very good in “JFK”. Through him we can get a sense of the anger the public would feel over the idea that their government took power away from them that day by replacing their leader with one who would work with the Establishment. Costner is supported by a great supporting cast of stars, including Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, Joe Pesci, Sissy Spacek, Gary Oldman and a host of others. Pesci in particular is quite effective as the neurotic David Ferrie who gives the great line, “the f**king shooters don’t even know!”. But perhaps the most riveting is Donald Sutherland’s character “X” who spends twenty minutes in the film giving Garrison an overview of his work in the military and how the assassination was most likely executed from the perspective of his inside knowledge.

The technical aspects to this film are worth mentioning as well – for its time this film is quite fast-paced, with a lot of quick intercutting between different film stocks to give a more documentary/investigative account of the story. On this alone the film deserves credit as its intercutting of staged and real footage is remarkable. In particular, the sequence where Garrison goes through the Zapruder film (the only visual evidence of the assassination) frame by frame to show how the actual bullets hit the targets are completely inconsistent with the official version of history. John Williams’ score also deserves mention; he’s spot on again in this film, expertly highlighting the moods of both tragedy and conspiracy.

An excellent film that will keep you riveted to your seat watching right until the very end.

Author: Alex Demattia
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Creditcard Currency Conversion Fee

Cast: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Om Puri, Emily Blunt.

Runtime: 97mins

Firstly, its not a political drama. Its much more of a lighter side to politics where issues are dealt with more better by adding a mix of humour and alcohol.

Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a typical,well-liked US congressman, with a reputation for chasing skirts and high flying lifestyle. But this all starts to change when he became a friend of the president of Pakistan and subsequently pays a visit to Afghanistan, which is under attack from the Soviet army. Seeing the suffering of innocent women and children, his conscience began to prick him and telling him hes a nice warm-hearted person. He then goes on to arrange secret covert weapons sent to Afganistan to help them fight the Russian oppressors. The movie then follows him showing how he set it up and what all he had to do to get the money and the weapons necessary. He is contacted by Gus (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) who is one of the 3 agents appointed by the US government to solve the Afghan problems. The budget for the operation was set at a very low $5million at which price no weapons could be purchased,so Charlie inorder to raise it to a higher value had to convince people.

Tom Hanks as Charlie was so perfect, the way he manipulates people and gets the things done. He also needed help from Joanne (Julia Roberts) who would do anything to get herself in the afghan issue for a religious cause. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, as we all know can act. But he did in this movie is something even more than that. He has given life to his character. At some points in the film you can see Tom Hanks and Phillip Seymour Hoffman kind of going head to head. The most natural performance seen for a character with a pot bellied agent. No wonder he was nominated for the Golden Globes and will get the Oscar nod as well.Good performances by Any Adams (Enchanted, Catch me if you can) and and a small cameo by Emily Blunt.

The Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin is very apt and to the point. No waste of time blabbering unwanted dialogues, instead focuses on giving more effective ones. Mike Nichols has taken a different subject and tried to venture out as usual. From the Director who gave us films like Primary Colors and Closer, I wouldn’t call it a failure at all. Its an eye-opener in more ways that none.

Charlie Wilson’s War is a satirical take on politics and with some good performances is surely a must watch.

Author: Prem Shashi
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Get my ex back

However Max is promoted to a field agent when the bad guys find out all of the names and locations of the current agents and start to kill them, with the help of agent 99 (Hathaway) and agent 23 (The Rock/Dwayne Johnson) smart is sent to take down the bad guys.

Get Smart has taken a realistic approach to a movie and sometimes feels as if you could be watching a bond movie due to feeling that some of the gadgets are right up Q’s street. However some of the scenes are not to realistic such as hanging on to a wire while flying in mid air but this does add some more laughs to the movie. Steve Carell is very likable in this movie like we have all come to expect and shares some great onscreen chemistry with co star Hathaway.

I enjoyed this movie due to many of the above points, from the great characters to the very nice looking eye candy that is Hathaway. Get Smart works simply because it does its own thing unlike many of the ‘comedies’ released in the last couple of years such as ‘disaster movie, date movie, meet the Spartans and many more unfunny movies’.

Author: Ricky Michael
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Solar panel DIY