Today, we open our eyes and cannot avoid these people. Of course, in a developed society entertainers are necessary. We laugh and sometimes cry at a quality performance. Our memories are seared with images, movies and songs which have touched us, frightened us and stimulated us. They dramatize the political, the romantic, the good and bad. We see in them the potential for perfection of man or woman as an expression of utopian ideals of love and success.

Yet, have we gone too far? How much influence should they have over us? Our choice of clothes, jewelry and hairstyle, our languages and ideas are often areas that we look toward celebrities to define. If you deny this then you are exceptional; the rest of us are invariably, more susceptible. Our culture has become saturated with celebrity influence. We watch their every move including who they are with and what they do. We absorb their politics and gobble up their quotes. We think about what it may be like to be that beautiful, rich and powerful.

Fame is an aphrodisiac or so it seems to the unrecognized. Today we have TomKat(Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes). Yesterday it was Bennifer(Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez).  Public Interest in these people is frighteningly obsessive in nature. After all, their claim to fame is usually based on pretense or non reality. They are the constant pretenders, illusionists with screens as their canvas.

The entertainment value of a celebrity stretches beyond the screen or stage and they are wholly aware it. We are witness to carefully arranged relationships, sudden sightings in sports arenas and controversial quotes days before a new movie or show opens. They appear on your screen suddenly seemingly not to promote themselves but rather attempting to come across as natural, likable, smart and funny. Sometimes we get a glimpse into what certain celebrities are really like. Unfortunately, it is usually when they do something wrong. Drugs, infidelity and physical assaults are a few areas where celebrities have slipped in their public presentation. Mug shots and unflattering photos of famous people are the currency of entertainment news outlets. Being a celebrity has its drawback in this regard as they are monitored as closely as governmental heads of the biggest nations on earth. Alas, the power of celebrity is here with us to stay. Or is it? Can we teach our children who the chancellor of Germany is before we explain the history of Madonna? If we can’t, America will become a nation of uninformed celebrity worshippers numb to the more important realities of the world.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse 2010 movie story

Where the Wild Things Are movie story, star cast, review and preview

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse 2010 movie star cast
* Kristen Stewart as Bella Swan
* Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen
* Peter Facinelli as Carlisle Cullen
* Elizabeth Reaser as Esme Cullen
* Ashley Greene as Alice Cullen
* Kellan Lutz as Emmett Cullen
* Nikki Reed as Rosalie Hale

Iron Man 2 2010 movie Review, Story, Star Cast, Release Date

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse 2010 movie release date in USA
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse 2010 movie will release in June 30 of 2010 year in USA and all over World cinema Halls.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse 2010 movie star cast, story, release date, review

This new Sherlock Holmes is very much the intelligent master of deduction that he has always been but now he is also a straight up action hero, who does as much thinking with his fists as with his brilliant mind.  It’s kind of like Sherlock Holmes mixed with Lethal Weapon with a dash of Indiana Jones thrown in for good measure.  The fact is the film is more concerned with being a buddy movie than creating a satisfying mystery that the audience can participate in.

As always, Holmes is partnered with the more sophisticated Dr. Watson (Jude Law) but this time around they act more like Felix and Oscar from The Odd Couple or Riggs and Murtaugh from the Lethal Weapon series, constantly nit picking at one another while also having major bromantic feelings for one another.  The pair have plenty of ongoing jokes between them, but as an audience member it’s a bit boring because you don’t know exactly what they are referring to.  As enjoyable as Downey and Law are to watch together, it’s also a bit tedious due to the fact that we never really get a sense of how their relationship started to begin with and that just may be Sherlock Holmes biggest flaw.  I understand that the character is famous and has been around forever, but there is no origin story.  If you are going to launch a film franchise, it would be nice to see how the characters start out.  Perhaps the first installment of the series should’ve centered on the first case that Holmes and Watson worked on together.  This film feels like you are watching Sherlock Holmes 3:  The Case of the Resurrecting Man without ever having seen parts 1 and 2.

The central mystery as it were involves the villainess Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) a murderer who is caught by Holmes in the very beginning of the film and sentenced to death.  Shortly after, Blackwood apparently comes back to life, kills a few more people and the plot snowballs into him wanting to gain control over the whole world through the use of black magic or some such nonsense.  When Holmes explains it all at the end, it makes sense, but at that point you won’t care.  The fun of watching a great detective is to be able to play along with them, but there is no way to do that here.  The only reason there is any mystery attached to this film at all is because the character is famous for solving them. I can’t help but feel that director Guy Ritchie was more interested in making a period piece version of   Lethal Weapon than crafting an engaging plot.

There are some great things about the movie however.  The action scenes are exciting and cleverly staged with an Indiana Jones flavor to them.  One fight in particular between Holmes and a giant of a man is very reminiscent of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy is fighting the big bald German mechanic.  One of my very favorite ideas the film employs is that Holmes is as thought out with his punches as he is with his deductions.  During a fistfight, Holmes thinks out the series of punches he’s going to use on his opponent before actually throwing one.  The film is electrifying when Holmes is fighting or sorting out clues, but everything else in between is rather bland and ineffective.

The best thing about this film is the inspired casting of Downey as Holmes and the effortless chemistry he shares with Law.  I was excited to see Downey’s portrayal of Holmes and was not disappointed in the slightest.  He is endlessly watchable, balancing precariously on the thin line between genius and insanity.  Downey has a supercharged intensity about him every time he is figuring out the nearly indecipherable clues in front of him.  Unfortunately his thought out deductions aren’t used enough and the film relies more on the physicality of the character, which Downey also excels at.  Jude Law is also very good as Watson but because the film never explains how he and Holmes became such good friends, he is nothing more than a sidekick, lacking any major stirrings of character development.

To sum it up, Sherlock Holmes is the cinematic equivalent of eating cotton candy.  Sure it tastes great going down, but there’s no way you are going to be full when you are done eating it.

]]> http://www.proginteractive.com/movie-review-sherlock-holmes/feed/ 0 http://www.proginteractive.com/vantage-point-movie-review/ http://www.proginteractive.com/vantage-point-movie-review/#comments Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:04:40 +0000 http://www.proginteractive.com/?p=41 My wife and I started last nights date with a wonderful dinner at our favorite restaurant, we took in a movie, and finished the evening with a little shopping. A movie can make or break a great evening and in this particular case it was a nice addition to the evening.

Vantage Point starring Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, and Forest Whitaker was a refreshing new take on the often overused subject of a presidential assassination. The movie started out like most with an assassination of the U.S. President, and a couple of explosions by foreign terrorists. The view of the incident began through they eyes of a news crew lead by Sigourney Weaver. However, after the assassination scene rewound about five times, each time replaying the scene through the eyes of a different character, we and everyone else in the theater were threatening to leave. I must say though that once the movie continued through the eyes of main character Thomas Barnes – Dennis Quaid, and after the final rewind, we were left with a pleasing mix of several views that all blended and came together nicely to produce a clear picture of what had happened and how it happened. The only thing in question was why it happened which I guess we can live without.

Final assessment….If you go to see this movie remember to be patient, don’t get frustrated or discouraged after what seems like a billion reviews of the same scene. It offers a lot of good action, chase scenes, and just a little suspense. Just remember that it all finally comes together nicely and you’ll be glad you stayed for the end product.

Like Sex and the City, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 works better if you know the characters already through their previous appearances, because you’re already emotionally invested in them. I hadn’t read the young-adult novels by Ann Brashares, but my sister, who is a big fan, filled me in and we determined that this movie is based mostly on the fourth book in the series, with a few changes, so even if you’ve read the books you get some surprises. Don’t think that you are at a loss if you have not read any of the novels, as you are still able to get a good understanding of each character, and the story lines are easy to follow.

The chief problem is the four-part storyline, which, like the first film, finds the main characters separated for the summer and keeping in touch by sending back and forth the “magical pants” remember bifurcated nether garments? that fits all four of them. Be prepared to follow this movie along the four different storylines. This time it’s the summer after freshman year of college for the girls, and while Carmen (America Ferrera) plans to spend the break at home with her pals, the others have bigger plans. Tibby (Amber Tamblyn) sticks around NYU to work at a video store and work on her screenplay, Bridget (Blake Lively) treks off to an archaeological dig in Turkey, and Lena (Alexis Bledel) takes a figure drawing class in Rhode Island.

A pair of secondhand jeans inset with rhinestones plays a major role in “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2.” Anyone who saw the first movie or read the novels that inspired the films will be familiar with these well-worn bottoms. They serve as a bond among four girlfriends. Each can magically squeeze into them, although the pals are different sizes and shapes.

Their lives, already starting to pull apart in the first “Pants,” rip apart further in this thoroughly engaging sequel, which has some gems of wisdom to impart but does so gently. With one year of college now over, the girls are on the cusp of becoming full blown grown ups. Holding on to the past is difficult when the future keeps intruding. To remind themselves of what they had together as best friends, they mail the gritty jeans to one another at various summer ports of call.

During their summers, the four women deal with issues of trust, love, guilt, and value. Partially due to their separate adventures, and partially due to their increased independence and individuality, the girls primarily go through their journeys of discovery on their own, and develop their own independence. At times, the increased separation between them is obviously apparent. At others, it becomes an opening for a strong cast of supporting characters/mentors to shine. But at the end of the day, the girls prove that while there are certain things they must discover on their own, they will always be there for each other and to provide that kind of guidance and support that a tight bond can only do.

Most impressing was that these women seemed to come away from their challenges stronger, wiser, and, for the most part, in places better than where they were before. At the end, you get the sense that they actually are in healthy relationships, that they have learned from their mistakes, and that love and friendship have in fact triumphed over selfishness and isolation.

And while there’s an element of fantasy to much of the movie, serious issues, including teen pregnancy and mental illness, lurk beneath the cinematic sheen.

Like its predecessor, “Sisterhood 2″ is based on two radical ideas: namely, that young women’s stories are about more than the pursuit of men, and that happiness isn’t something that you are given, or is something that is external. It is inside you, and you need to find it for yourself.

This is a great teen movie, or even a great mother daughter movie to wind up the Summer with. With a strong cast and engaging story line, “Sisterhood 2″ is a wonderful second spin around the block.

The Godfather – Part 1 (1972)

Director: Francis Ford Coppola Writers: Mario Puzo (novel)
Release Date: 24 March 1972 (USA) Genre: Drama | Thriller

Actors:

Marlon Brando …as Don Vito Corleone

Al Pacino …as Michael Corleone

James Caan …as Santino ‘Sonny’ Corleone

Richard S. Castellano …as Peter Clemenza,

Robert Duvall …as Tom Hagen

This supposed to be the best movie made ever and after watching the movie I won’t disagree. I wanted to see this movie for so long as every time any gangster movie releases, people say it has been inspired by “Godfather”. But somehow or other I couldn’t watch it till today. What trigger me to go fetch this DVD from library is hindi movie “Sarkar” which is brilliantly enacted by Amitabh Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan. And it is said that “Sarkar” is heavily inspired by “Godfather”. So I thought if inspired movie is so good then the original has to be outstanding and I can say after watching this movie it is outstanding and brilliant movie made ever.

What makes this movie the best is brilliant script, brilliant direction and above all perfect casting. Each and every actor outperformed his role. I was watching this movie after 36 years after it released. But it still feels so fresh and contemporary. After watching this movie I realized that almost every gangster movie I watched has been inspired by “Godfather” some way or the other. So it can be said as a bible for gangster movie.

I don’t whats up with these gangster movies which we love, we know whatever they are doing is illegal, wrong not ethical but we still get involved in these movies. And above all we start liking these characters. I think what we like is the Power or Control these people posses there arrogance is attractive for people. Everyone of us secretly has a desire to posses a power to control whole world. That’s what this movie shows the main character Don Vito Carleone posses the power and contacts. There are people to catch every word out of his mouth. He controls people around him like puppet. And that’s why movie poster has puppet strings.

This movie is a story of a Don for whom most important things are control and his family. It is a story of falling of Don Vito Carleon and emerging of his son as Don which he never expected or wanted to be in his business. The movie is about his rivalry with other families (read gang). He don’t take money for favors he does for people he want there loyalty for him. It is a story of a Don who even though mafia king works on ethics, his refusal to get involve in drugs even though it involve big money or dire consequences otherwise. He chose other option and so if other family wants to do the drugs Don Carleone has to die. And that’s what other family tries, they attack him. And this trying time Don’e youngest son has to get involve in the family business to save his father although he was reluctant to get involve earlier.

Every scene and all the actor is brilliant in this movie but highlights of it is acting of Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. Then there is scene in which right hand of Don carleon is strangled is outstanding. And with so lively expressions. And there are some dialogues which can not be forgotten ever, like “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse” and “It’s not personal. This is business”.

All I can say in the end is Don’t miss this movie. I am going to fetch the DVD of other two parts as soon as possible. As for Rating for this movie it gets 10/10.

What they don’t think about are all the factors which can lead a critic or reviewer to value a certain aspect of one movie over that of another, or the fact that there could be any number of things going on to influence the critic’s opinion of the piece.

In an ideal world, a professional critic is someone who can separate their own personal prejudices and tastes from the inherent value of a film, and evaluate a cinematic work on its own merits and based on its own intentions. This is one of the things that separates professional movie reviews from amateur hobbyists, who ply their opinions both on- and off-line and are often not able to make judgments of a) what the film they’ve watched is trying to communicate and b) whether it was successful based on that initial desire to communicate an idea.

Where professional critics can contribute in a highly valuable way is through their knowledge of and dedication to cinema. A professional reviewer with experience over a number of years has a wide breadth of knowledge about film directors, the actors who perform in the film in question, the producers, and other technical contributors, based on their work over a number of years. They also, one would hope, have a wider perspective on the history of cinema and how any one particular work fits into the wider range of cinema production output over the history of the medium. Even so, their opinion can be influenced by any number of things, and those reading professional movie reviews should realize that the review is simply a tool with which they can evaluate what their own reaction to the piece is likely to be. Using this information, one can decide whether a film is worth the cost of the ticket for them or their cinema group.

Hobbyist reviews on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and other internet websites have gained popularity over the years because they aggregate the reactions – not the professional reviews – of a wide number of people. Where a professional critic’s review is just the reaction of one person, these aggregating sites offer the perspective of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of average viewers who can provide a look at their gut reaction to the content of a film and pass that on to other viewers. This is useful for picking a movie based on mainstream tastes, however, one should realize when accessing these sites that you are not likely to see or have explained the position of a film within the canon of movie production history, nor are the capsule reviews from those who have seen the film necessarily educated or placed within the context of what the film is trying to achieve. They are opinions, and may differ from yours.

]]> http://www.proginteractive.com/movie-reviews-just-one-persons-opinion/feed/ 0 http://www.proginteractive.com/how-the-industry-trends-affect-movie-reviews/ http://www.proginteractive.com/how-the-industry-trends-affect-movie-reviews/#comments Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:31:02 +0000 http://www.proginteractive.com/?p=29 The films that are being released this year are a sign of the upcoming trends in Hollywood, especially as those trends relate to what what movie reviews will tell us.

Major trends include sequals, flicks that keep that great flick’s story going. So you can prepare for even more follow ups in the remainder of 2009. Films released in recent years will not be the only ones that will become sequals. This includes films that originally were released before or in the 1990s.

You may also want to look out for films called non-sequels, which appear close to a real follow up ( e.g. The film Wolverine, earlier declared a non-sequel, now bears the title X-Men Origins : Wolverine. )

2009 will be one more good year for bringing well-liked cartoons, comics, and literary works to life. With the success of films like three hundred and SinCity, Hollywood isn’t going to let the chance to make one or two more graphic-novel based films get away.

Next …comics and graphic novels are hot this year. Note the guards film ; long touted as the greatest graphic novel in history. Comic-based films are in. And keep an eye out for the return of some favorite cartoons, including the latterly released G.I. Joe.

As the TV industry adds new features like streaming web pictures and 3-D capabilities, manufacturers are fighting a sadder trend. DisplaySearch, forecasts world sales of LCD TVs will fall 16 p.c to $64 bn. during the year 2009, the first sales decline since the year two thousand.

In the future, many top of the line as well as value-priced TVs will connect to the internet, a trend which started about a year gone with limited functions, such as reports stories and weather reports. Now, back-end systems and partnerships will provide streaming films.

Features for top tier television models also include : improved handling of fast paced scenes and a reduction in power useage. Sony, LG, Toshiba company. And Samsung Electronics company. Will introduce TVs that can grab Flickr photos, YouTube videos and stories stories through a broadband connection.

Television manufacturers have raised the standard to 240 frames per second, but not by computing more new frames. Instead, the backlight will switch off and on very fast, fooling the eye so that it perceives a smoother movement. Energy Star requirements set by the U.S. The EPA has a goal to recognize the most energy-efficient twenty-five percent of a product class.

The 1st green peroduct line of LCD televisions are the 00 Eco Bravia models that use forty p.c less power than before, exceeding the most recent requirements.

Last, most analysts agree 3-D viewing is a new big wave coming to the consumer electronics industry. Watching films on the Net is becomming mainstream, and will only boost the reviewer’s ability to do a fast flick review.

]]> http://www.proginteractive.com/how-the-industry-trends-affect-movie-reviews/feed/ 0 http://www.proginteractive.com/the-deliberate-stranger-movie-review/ http://www.proginteractive.com/the-deliberate-stranger-movie-review/#comments Fri, 15 May 2009 20:28:50 +0000 http://www.proginteractive.com/?p=33 Deliberate Stranger

Movie Details :

Starring :

Mark Harmon as Ted Bundy

Frederic Forrest as Detective Bob Keppel

Ben Master as Detective Mike Fisher

Runtime – 185 mins

Movie Review

The Deliberate Stranger is one of the earlier movies dipicting the life and crimes of one of America’s most notorious serial killers, Ted Bundy. The movie is based on the book of the same name written by friend and colleague of Bundy’s, Richard Larson.

Larson’s perspective on the Ted Bundy story leaves out a lot of what made Bundy the monster that he was ie. his mental state and focuses more on the events, time lines and of course the outward persona of Bundy. Not suprising since Larson was one of Bundy’s supporters when he was accused of the brutal murders of all those women, it is easy to see why Larson drew attention to Bundy’s apparent all-American boy image in this movie.

This is where Mark Harmon comes in to the picture. The decision to cast the cute, wholesome looking Harmon in the starring role was an inspired choice. Harmon gives a convincing performance and is credible as the charming confident Ted and also as the psychotic killer Ted.

As mentioned before this movie does not get into the mindset of Bundy, nor is it graphic in nature when dipicting the murders, for this reason Harmon is the ideal choice of actor for the part as we see only what those around Ted at the time saw, a charming, handsome, polite man who would be the last person you would believe to be a killer.

The role of Bundy’s mousey girlfriend Cas Richter is played by Gylnnis O’ Connor. The relationship between the two is portrayed with real emotion, you can understand the reasons Cas stays with Ted despite her suspicions of him as she seems to think herself lucky to be in a relationship with a man who apparently has it all.

Bundy’s victims are played by attractive model/actresses such as Terry Farrell who plays the role of Katie Hargreaves.

An interesting aspect of this movie is the fact that it is tells the stories of Bundy, the detectives tring to catch him, his girlfriend Cas, and the families of the victims.

This is a great movie and is worth a watch if you have not seen it or another watch if you saw it when it came out in 1986.

Hotel Rwanda Movie Review

On the other hand, much of the material I did not associate with the film verged on the prurient or scatological. Much of what rose above this level eventually depressed, because it addressed like an obsession the detail, the consequences and the pathology of AIDS. The doubly unfortunate truth about the last two sentences is that the book probably, in its excesses, under-states the reality.

An enduring memory is a character, a visitor to Rwanda, seeing what he takes to be a cultivated hillside and then praising effusively the presence of agriculture in the centre of town A moment later he is introduced to reality by his host who confirmed that the excavation was a cemetery to cultivate the profusions of corpses produced by AIDS. The scenes of genocide that follow can only match the horror of what went before.

At the core of the book is the relationship between Valcourt and Best Hotel Finder Click here Gentille. He is Canadian, a journalist film-maker, who seems at home in Rwanda’s tribulations. Gentile is a woman of virtue, a virtue she plies with ease. She looks like a Tutsi, but is a Hutu.

In some ways their relationship mirrors the colonial heritage that at least exacerbated, if perhaps not actually caused the potential for ethnic conflict that eventually ignited so disastrously. But A Sunday At The Pool In Kigali points to social divisions in an apparently valueless community that sees other people, both collectively and individually, merely as the exploitable given form. There’s not a lot of joy here, even in the book’s copious sex that seems, anaesthetised, to dominate much of the text.

But overall there is little to uplift in the book. Almost no-one offers love or compassion. An almost unrelenting torrent of cynicism, abuse, persecution and social degeneration floods from every page. It is a portrait of an almost uncompromisingly ugly and abhorrent experience. The book is thus an often one-paced, one-dimensional read. The problem, unfortunately, is that it might be accurate.