How Accurate Was the Movie The Social Network?

Altering the Facts Makes for Great Drama but Poor History:
A Review of Aaron Sorkin's movie "The Social Network"

Aaron Sorkin earned a stellar reputation as the producer of "West Wing," an idealistic TV show about a smart and sophisticated American president with good ethics and equally good policies. Having high expectations for a Sorkin production, I was disappointed in his current release, "The Social Network."

"The Social Network" is the story of Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder of Facebook, which has 800 million users worldwide and is currently estimated to be worth $25 billion. That's no small feat for a 26-year-old entrepreneur. How did he do it?

Zuckerberg, played beautifully by Jesse Eisenberg, is a 19-year-old student at Harvard as the movie opens. He is having drinks with his girlfriend, and manages to insult her and offend the audience within less than five minutes of crisp, sardonic dialogue. Sorkin establishes immediately that Zuckerberg is arrogant, insufferable and Mensa material, and we cheer when his girlfriend, Erica, breaks up with him. A frustrated and intoxicated Zuckerberg returns to his dorm, thinking that he will create a social media site where Harvard men can rate female students in terms of their attractiveness. He calls the site "FaceMash."

It's a powerful scene, arguing that the birth of Facebook was motivated by teen angst and revenge. The only problem is that it never occurred. Zuckerberg didn't even know a woman named Erica, although he did drunkenly blog about a Harvard coed named Jessica Alona, but he denies that he ever went out with her or that she was the driving force behind Facebook. In fact, Mark had the same girlfriend for the last eight years and she is now his wife.

After the so-called romantic breakup, Mark conferred with his friend Eduardo Saverin (well played by Andrew Garfield), seeking a logarithm that would enable him to hack into various "face books" that were already in existence in individual Harvard dorms. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg was approached by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, twins who asked if Mark would program a dating website for students that would be based on exclusivity; only Harvard students need apply. The site would be called the HarvardConnection (later renamed ConnectU). Zuckerberg was given the private server location and password for the unfinished HarvardConnection site and the code, with the understanding that he would finish the necessary programming.

He agreed verbally to this arrangement, exchanged 52 e-mails with the brothers and had several in-person meetings, but never delivered the work that he'd promised. Instead, he provided a long list of excuses as to why he couldn't meet with the twins. Then one day, to their shock and dismay, they discovered that Mark had been secretly working with Eduardo and Mark's roommate, Dustin Moskovitz, to launch what was then called "The Facebook."

The twins sued Zuckerberg for stealing their idea and alleged that he used part of their programming code. They were awarded $65 million in damages; however, since then, the Winklevoss brothers claimed that Facebook stock was undervalued at the time and they're really entitled to $466 million. The litigation continues.

Zuckerberg led the twins to believe that he was actively working with them when in fact he was working behind their back to establish something similar, but not identical, to their site. The twins wanted to devise a dating site for Harvard students and to expand this across the country. Zuckerberg's site had little to do with dating. It was a place where people could make friends, network, find a date, or simply chat with their nephews, colleagues or children away at school. Moreover, Zuckerberg's original hot-or-not, drunken FaceMash included both men and women. Sorkin omitted this important detail because he wants us to believe that Mark Z. was angry enough at the imaginary Erica that he would have created a website just for men to humiliate and insult women, and have fun doing so. But the site was never that way. Women could also rate men. And there was no Erica. Ergo, Sorkin's hypothesis for Mark Zuckerberg's basis for forming Facebook was false.

As "The Facebook" was catching on like wildfire, another young genius became involved. Sean Parker was one of the instigators of the now defunct Napster, an application that allowed people to download music for free. This infuriated and worried many musicians; ironically, Justin Timberlake played Sean Parker in the film - I hope he took some pleasure in that role since he must've lost a lot of money to Napster! Unlike Zuckerberg who was basically a studious guy with an obsession for programming, Parker was already leading the glamorous life in Los Angeles. He was a party boy who thought big and made Eduardo look small in Mark's eyes. Mark had to decide between the two of them. Would he pursue Parker's vision of Facebook, funded through venture capitalists, or would he stick with his best friend and company CFO Eduardo and their smalltime advertisers, even though Eduardo had refused to move out to California when Mark wanted to advance the business there?

Ethically-challenged Zuckerberg opted for the latter and left his best friend in the dust by writing Saverin out of future Facebook contracts once they reached the 1 million user mark; his share went from 34% of the company to.03%. Saverin was enraged; he sued in April of 2005 and won back a 5% share of Facebook, worth 1.3 billion, as well as an undisclosed amount of money. Parker had a 7% share in Facebook which was revoked when he was busted for cocaine use. Zuckerberg maintains a 24% share although Sorkin leads us to believe he still owns 51%.

Sorkin relied entirely on interviews with Eduardo Saverin to make this production, which was based on the book The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich. Not surprisingly, Mark Zuckerberg refused to be interviewed. Consequently, the movie can't help but be biased in Saverin's favor.

Since the courts had already established that Zuckerberg was guilty of intellectual property theft, there was no need for Sorkin to embellish. "The Social Network" would have benefited by sticking more closely to the facts, which were dramatic enough.

The movie poses hard ethical questions. It makes us ask ourselves if we are complicit. Do you have a Facebook account? Are you helping to keep the accidental billionaires rich? If you wouldn't wear a T-shirt that says, "Free Bernie Madoff," why would you support Zuckerberg?

Finally, the movie acts as a Rorschach test - in exit polls, people under 40 viewed Zuckerberg as a visionary genius with drive, purpose and ambition: a young man who saw a golden opportunity and took advantage of it. Those over 40 saw him as cold, morally bankrupt and cutthroat. In that respect, "The Social Network" succeeds as a provocative film and it is excellent entertainment. But I fear that many people will mistake this fascinating half-truth for a documentary, and that it most definitely is not. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

The Finest Hours Of Alfred Hitchcock, As Decreed By Us

Unfortunately for our leading meanie, his crimes come back to bite him when a victim's murder is blamed on her boyfriend - who proves his innocence the 'attempted murder' way. Don't try this at home, folks; two wrongs don't make a right.

Then there's Rope, cinematic proof that mates who think they're clever than you are like, really annoying. In this case, two men murder their pal just to prove their intellectual superiority - that's taking it a bit far if you ask us, but hey it's not our plot. Even worse, they then have a party for all their other mates with the dead guy stuffed in a chest.

Luckily, Jimmy Stewart is on hand to figure it all out using a couple of hats and a touch of movie magic. Ah! One of the first proper psychological thrillers and still one of the best.

Imagine something really, really scary. Like the most terrifying thing EVER. Chances are it's not a bunch of birds flapping around your head and threatening to poke your eyes out, but that just means you haven't yet seen The Birds. Hitchcock's avian mafiosos can blow up petrol stations, peck their way into houses and are the sole reason why we'll never set foot in a phone box again. Shudder.

1946's Shadow of a Doubt was Hitch's personal favourite of all his films, and it's really not hard to see why. The central performance by Joseph Cotton is uber-creepy, and this was the first film to set terror in the heart of a quaint suburban neighbourhood. Halloween, Scream and all the rest of them have a lot to thank this one for. And isn't 'Merry Widow Murderer' a cheerful term for serial killer?

Two men meet on a train. They're strangers, but you probably got that from the title of the movie being Strangers on a Train. Anyway, they agree to each kill a member of the opposite guy's family (because apparently they're annoying and that's the first thing you think of on meeting a stranger.) Cue murderousness, double crossing and a trip to the theme park you'll never forget.

Now we come to the masterwork. Vertigo, another Jimmy Stewart flick, is one of our favourite movies in the history of ever. Stewart is everyman no more - here he's cold, obsessed and kinda neurotic. We like it.

Plot-wise it's not that new: private detectives, body doubles, hoaxes and a man who wants his wife dead are all par for the course. But it's also one of Hitch's most personal movies - apparently the idea of remaking a woman in the image of one lost is related to Hitchcock's obsession with casting blondes who looked like Grace Kelly, who retired from acting in 1956 to become a princess. Isn't that sweet!

Oh yeah, and he made some movie called Psycho too. It's pretty good, you should probably go check it out. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

The Rise To Fame of Classic Zombie Movies

When it comes to classic zombie movies, everyone has their own favorites, and most can still remember the first time they sat in front of the television, watching a black and white portrayal of the undead slowly, but determinedly, chasing down their bumbling prey. Classic zombie movies are still a favorite amongst diehard fans, because they lend an element of gritty morbidity that pop culture based movies seem to lack these days; while this shouldn't take away from the latest releases within this genre, it definitely adds to the authority of the films that preceded them.

The reason why classic zombie movies seem to come with the tag line this is what actual zombies are supposed to look like, is because the archetype for these creatures stemmed from the Voodoo religion, which is, in essence, Haitian. When William S. Seabrook returned from his voyage to Haiti and published his travelogue, The magic island, westerners found themselves enthralled with the concept of a creature that rises from the grave due to the powers of a sorcerer called a Brokor. This fascination led to some of the best classic films on the subject, and all within a matter of a few decades.

Bela Lugosi's 'White Zombie' is perhaps one of the most famous classic films on this subject. It follows the story of a prosperous businessman by the name of Murder Legendre, based in Haiti, who has the power to transform men into zombies. When a man falls in love with a woman who is to marry someone else, he approaches the voodoo master for assistance, who then turns his beloved into a zombie. The movie itself is said to closely follow the writings of Seabrook, even going as far as mentioning the potion that was supposed to turn corpses into the undead slaves of the voodoo priest.

George Romero's 'The Night of the Living Dead' was another classic which altered the face of this genre, and remakes of this film continue to be released up until today. The film was released in 1968 and its reception was marked by shock and outrage, although when this subsided, it quickly became one of the penultimate favorite films on the subject. One of the reasons for its initial negative reception was the fact that it was gory, contained nudity, and the protagonist of the film was ultimately killed in the end. Basically, this film was unlike any other that had been released in the past, and it remains one of the most popular films based on the undead to date.

'The Night of the Living Dead' did not only alter the horror genre; it also added to the lore and myth surrounding these supernatural creatures. In the past, zombies were the creation of dark voodoo priests, but in this feature, they could transfer their supernatural abilities to others through a bite. The film also references methods on how to kill these creatures - shoot them through the head- which has become the first method of defense against the undead in countless films and games to date.

While classic zombie movies might have changed slightly during the first few decades when they began making their debuts on big screens all over the world, one thing remains certain; they inspired a fascination with these creatures that continues to thrive today. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

The Evolution Will Be Televised: 60 Years Later And We're Still Watching TV

It's impossible to explain to our children just how much the world has truly changed since you or I were kids. They experience movies and radio with only the most peripheral of differences than we did - most of which involve cosmetic improvements and frequency of access. Television, however, has made phenomenal leaps and bounds. It's as if we were driving horse and buggies while they've been handed flying cars.

During its prime, the television - feared by many as the device that would put an end to the need for radio - was a financial investment tantamount to buying a house, a vehicle, or kitchen appliance. It wasn't just an LCD or plasma screen propped up on a bookshelf like a photograph in a frame. It was a massive piece of furniture. Called a television 'set', it contained elements borrowed from radio systems for audio, a small electric motor, a spinning disc, a group of glass tubes to convert power, a gelatin-based vacuum tube to project an image, and a wooden cabinet to house it in. Over time record players and actual radios were added to the cabinet which constituted the first self-contained entertainment 'unit'.

It was Lo-Fi mono audio, the pictures were in black and white, and you required an antenna to 'catch' broadcast signals from the local network carriers - up to 12 of them (the #1 on the television's manual 'dial' was for emergency broadcasts only). There was no remote control. That dial had to be cranked by hand and a list of TV shows was printed in a book you bought at the supermarket every week called a 'TV Guide'. The networks would start broadcasting at 6 AM and 'sign-off' at midnight following the evening news. They'd go dark after the performance of a canned version of the national anthem before being replaced by a test pattern - featuring the feathered head of a politically incorrect drawing of a Native North American. Though television now can still be a major financial consideration, it's because the TV is the size of a sheet of GypRoc and is mounted on your wall like artwork. It's a precision device projecting thousands of pixels per square inch in 4,000,000 colours with up to 7.1 surround sound audio and high definition visuals streamed into your house through a cable no thicker than a piece of licorice. No more antennas. No more manual dialing through 500 channels instead of 12. Television networks rarely ever go off the air - it cost them too much money to be dark from midnight to 6AM. Television is now 24 hours/365 days of the year. And, yet, there's less on TV now than when I was growing up. Certainly less quality entertainment at any rate.

Because there was less airtime - most certainly for children who attended school - we were limited to an hour or so before heading out in the morning and after school was broken up between home-work, playing outside until dinner, and playing outside until dark. We really only watched TV for less than three hours on a weekday. When you include the time spent doing same on weekends between the times Mom and Dad had other plans for us cleaning our rooms, playing board games, shopping, visiting family, we may have only caught TV a few more hours Saturday or Sunday. And according to the good folks at 'Morals R Us' these hours were eating our brains.

They may have been right. When I add up the hours of television available to me they seem disproportionate to the unending number of things I remember watching. School days started with a kids' variety program called 'Rocket Ship 7' hosted by Dave Thomas out of WKBW-TV in Buffalo (interesting trivia note: he is the father of 'Angel'/'Bones' TV actor David Boreanaz). Like similar shows being broadcast in that era on stations all across North America, the show featured skits, birthday greetings, puppets, a talking robot, and the latest, cheaply licensed kids fair. We watched the Christian-based 'Davy & Goliath' and 'Gumby' stop motion animation shows, Looney Tunes, Merry Melodies, 'Popeye', 'The World of Oz' and occasionally 'The Three Stooges' and 'Little Rascals' shorts.

When we came home for lunch it was a revolving world on either CHCH (out of Hamilton) or CTV (out of Toronto). I recall catching 'The Flintstones', 'Rocket Robin Hood' and any number of Canadian made game shows starring host Jim Perry - most notably 'Eye Bet' and 'Definition' - as well as a Canadian children's variety show called 'The Uncle Bobby Show' featuring a cardigan wearing old Brit. After school there was a juggling act of homework, outdoor activities or watching another children's variety show called 'Commander Tom' which was the afternoon version of 'Rocket Ship 7' featuring most of the same shows though they also included longer programming with 'The Addams Family', 'The Munsters' and 'Batman'.

Saturdays were a barnstorm of Hanna-Barbara cartoons and live-action children's shows like 'Scooby-Doo', 'Hilarious House of Frightenstein', 'H.R. Puffenstuff', 'Liddyville', 'Get Smart', 'The Hudson Brothers' Razzle Dazzle Show', 'The Powder Puff Derby', 'The Monkees', 'Gidget', 'The Brady Bunch', 'Gilligan's Island', 'The Wacky Races', and more Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies than we could ingest.

Evenings brought us sitcoms and dramas: 'Party Game', 'Mary Tyler Moore', 'The Carol Burnett Show', 'The Trouble With Tracy', 'Starsky & Hutch', 'Love Boat', 'Sanford & Sons', 'All In The Family', 'Love American Style', 'The Dick Van Dyke Show', 'Bewitched', 'The Dean Martin Roast', 'Streets of San Francisco', and, of course the national standard - 'Hockey Night In Canada' on Saturday nights. Sunday was a bit of a drag with mornings filled with religious programming but we usually caught the weekly 'Movie For A Sunday Afternoon', 'The Wonderful World of Disney', and 'Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom'.

Today, TV's need to fill 24 hours worth of programming - paid or created - means an assembly line of reality based shows, repeats of expensive dramas and syndicated shows from our near past (rather than our distant past... something we have to pay extra for on another set of cable channels). I love having more choices now, but I hunger for the shows that defined my childhood - even if some of them were cheesy as hell and barely hold up to repeat viewings.

But I don't yearn for them - only the way they made me feel. I still watch television as a respite from writing and dealing with the maddening battle to make a living as a hungry parasite on the back of the entertainment juggernaut. There are still good shows out there depending on your tastes. My current favourites are a mixed bag of sci-fi, sitcoms and reality shows:

1) Mike & Molly
Premise: Two middle class working stiffs - a school teacher played by Melissa McCarthy ('Bridesmaids') and a Chicago patrol cop played by stand-up comedian Billy Gardell - find each other at an over-eaters anonymous meeting where they soon realize they're too set in their ways to ever stop eating and decide to make the best of it together.

McCarthy and Gardell have great chemistry together as his oafish character completely misunderstands every situation which leads to some socially awkward encounters. It's 'King of Queens' without the angst. There's also a little bit of Honeymooners magic in this one as Gardell and his cop sidekick Carl, played by Reno Wilson, spend their time plotting one ridiculous idea after the other in an effort to get Wilson's character a date - without him screwing it up because he's a self-centred, loudmouthed Mama's boy that lives with his grandmother. This past season Mike & Molly were planning a wedding while Carl falls in love with an opthomologist played by Holly Robinson Peete (ex-21 Jump Street). The supporting cast of regulars is outstanding - especially Molly's over-sexed, widowed, party-packing mother played by Swoosie Kurtz, the local Rastafarian restaurant owner that Mike & Carl take advantage of every episode played by Nyambi Nyambi, and Mike's bigoted, self-loathing divorced mother played by the brilliant Rondi Reed (the therapist on 'Roseanne'). Light-hearted and giggle funny all around.

2) Two And A Half-Men 2.0
Premise: Ashton Kutcher's billionaire software developing Playboy philanthropist takes over Charlie Sheen's former haunt as the headmaster of a beach-front hedonism house still occupied by the free-loading Alan Harper played by the ubiquitous Jon Cryer and his idiot savant son Jake played by Angus T. Jones.

This reboot of the series - about to roll into its 10th season - should have died on the operating table when Chuck Lorre excised the tumour that was Charlie Sheen and had his character killed in the show. But something magical has happened. This is a quieter and gentler "Two And A Half Men". Where Cryer and Sheen had worked in tandem to pump up each week's level of debauchery, humiliation and gross outs, Kutcher plays it straight as a level headed businessman trying to navigate his way around a new relationship with a divorcee while his ex-wife attempts to both destroy his billion dollar company and his manhood. Cryer's character, meanwhile, spends every waking hour trying to stay relevant enough that Kutcher doesn't boot him out of the house and onto the street. There's enough of the old show still in check as Cryer continues to winnow on about being regular, masturbating, and dealing with his mother - still played with Cruella DeVille aplomb by Holland Taylor - who has just entered into a new senior citizen phase of her life as the lesbian lover of Georgia Engel (of 'Mary Tyler Moore' fame). No more prostitutes and parties for this show. Just First World problems for the crew from here on in.

3) Continuum
Premise: North America has become incorporated as big business takes over the running of government. In 2076 a civilian terrorist organization begins assassinating key players in this new world order. After being caught and sentenced to an execution, they manage a remarkable escape - 60 years into the past. Their plan is to begin dismantling the future by preventing it in the past. Alas, a fly in their ointment is a bulldog by-the-book cop played by Rachel Nichols ('Star Trek' the reboot; 'Amityville Horror' the reboot) who gets dragged into the time machine against her will and must now track down the terrorists and bring them to justice.

This is 'The Sarah Connor Chronicles' gone sideways. Nichols' character, Keira, is a fish deeply out of water and her only allies in this Brave Old World are another detective - played by the brooding hunk Victor Webster - and a 17 year old kid (played by teen sensation Erik Knudson) who built the network infrastructure and technology that would one day run the world from which Keira has just been torn from. She has lost her family and still has to find the strength to bring these criminals to their knees. But things are not as black and white as they seem. We're two episodes in and tension is mounting as the lines are becoming blurry as to whether Keira's fighting on the right side or the wrong side of the terrorist cause. Only time will tell. Bonus points for the show being set and identified as Vancouver in the show; a time traveling cop show that's not set in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. Yay! The city's locale also takes great advantage of casting availability as many former 'Stargate' alumni co-star including Lexa Doig and Tony Amandola (appearing at the Polaris convention in Toronto this summer) plus former X-Files 'Cancer Man' William B. Davis as the 'future' version of Erik Knudson's Alec Sadler.

4) Last Man Standing
Premise: "Home Improvement" gets a 21st Century facelift as Tim Allen moves from Wisconsin to Colorado, runs a sporting goods store instead of a TV show, and has to raise three daughters instead of three sons.

Not much new territory for Allen as he continues his reign as the king of backyard, hot-rod loving cavemen. However, the ensemble cast makes the difference here with Nancy Travis ("So I Married An Axe Murderer") playing Allen's better half and the three daughters giving him obvious amounts of comedic grief. He tones down the stupid-husband premise (though he does crush a boat with a Sherman Tank in one episode) and becomes straight-man for the funny subplots with his family and co-workers. The show did an unprecedented 24 episodes in its first season and has been renewed for a second season. He's doing something right here, kids.

5) Two Broke Girls
Premise: A low-income waitress named Max (played by Kat Dennings) living in Brooklyn, New York befriends a fallen heiress named Caroline (played by Beth Behrs) whose father has lost the family fortune after his failed Bernie Madoff-like Ponzi scheme lands him in jail - and her with nothing but the clothes on her back and her favourite horse to show for it. The two become roommates and co-workers at a local restaurant but they dream of rising above their own poverty by starting a cupcake making business (you can't make this stuff up!)

Believe it or not this is a clever and witty 'buddy' show from the mind of failed comedienne Whitney Cummings (don't believe me? Just watch her own self-titled sitcom). The show is driven by the two lead actresses who act as a female version of The Odd Couple. Dennings' Max plays up the self-loathing, down-on-her luck underclass 'broad' while Behr's Caroline plays less Paris Hilton and more Reese Witherspoon's character in Legally Blonde. Max firmly believes her station in life will always be a lowly waitress while Caroline, who has tasted success, believes her business smarts and Max's cupcake making prowess will lead them out of the shadows of squalor. They attempt to co-exist in their obviously different approaches to life and hijinx ensue. The supporting cast is truly negligible as these young ladies steal every scene - except when the horse is on screen. Best line of the show so far from Max: "Hey, Equestrian Barbie... your horse has done the impossible. It smells worse than Brooklyn".

6) Saving Hope
Premise: An upwardly mobile surgeon - played by Michael Shanks (Stargate; and husband of Lexa Doig seen in 'Continuum') - and his soon-to-be surgeon wife played by Erica Durance (Smallville) find themselves caught in a life or death struggle as Shanks' Charlie Harris suffers a brain trauma in a car accident. As he sinks into a coma he finds himself having an out of body experience observing the hospital patrons as a third party. Shanks narrates the show as he watches the daily drama in the hospital and must also watch Durance's Alex Reid respond and cope with the possibility of losing her life partner while still having to keep her shit together so she can do her job. The staff, including an ex-boyfriend, rally around her. This might turn out to be the most awkward love triangle since "Ghost". It'll be interesting to see how this show can maintain premise's momentum before having to either kill Dr. Harris or revive him so that he can do the ghost whisperer thing from there on.

Returning shows:

7) Big Bang Theory - a group of nerdy friends, and a hot non-geek next door neighbour try to navigate the world of social interaction. Still one of the most intelligent sitcoms on TV. Bravo to Chuck Lorre for stunt casting his old 'Roseanne' acting buddies AND shoe-horning geek celebrities into the weekly plots. With Wil Wheaton (Star Trek: Next Generation) as a semi-regular there are plot possibilities galore [how about having him take Penny on a date... leaving Leonard in a jealous funk? Thereby putting Sheldon's new found friendship with Wheaton at jeopardy]. Adding the ladies to the plot has also been a welcome relief as there are only so many 'Babylon 5' jokes one can take (or even understand). But, Chuck... you gotta address the broken elevator in the apartment building. Why not make the celebrity guests pose as an elevator repairman every now and then? It worked for 'Frasier's weekly talk show callers...

8) Pawn Stars - Rick Harrison, Corey, the Old Man and Chumlee The Idiot run a Vegas pawn shop. You could not script a better 'reality show' than this redneck three ring circus set on the Vegas strip; People selling useless shit for cash and a dysfunctional family trying to deal with their own fame. It's television gold and makes the Antiques Roadshow... well... British and boring. Don't miss the spin-off show 'American Restoration' featuring one of the Pawn Star regulars. It's less of a soap opera, but the pop culture antiques that are rebuilt and brought back to life is the payoff at the end of every show.

9) Auction Hunters - forget Storage Wars, Storage Hunters, Pawnathon, American Pickers or Canadian Pickers. Those are all small potatoes. It's any wonder the people on them are even in business given how excited they get over finding things that only yield $100 or $200 margins after sale. The Auction Hunters duo has no time for penny ante crap. They're going to storage auctions and buying big ticket items: boats, tanks, cars, weapons, you name it. The best was the shark cage they found - which, upon demonstrating it to a potential buyer - plunged to the bottom of the ocean when it hit the water. A $15,000 deal turned into $500 worth of scrap metal. Their hauls usually net them tens of thousands in profits and sometimes they LOSE thousands. That's some reality show 'drama' I can get behind.

10) Hollywood Treasures - here's the ultimate in geek porn. Collectibles movie fan and self-made millionaire Joe Maddelena takes us on a pop culture safari every week in search of people who want to sell off their movie and television memorabillia usually in the form of props, costumes, vehicles and in the most recent episode: the entire District 12 village used in 'Hunger Games'. Joe and his team track down the most iconic of these objects, authenticate them then either buy them directly off the owners at bargain basement prices in cash or convince the owners to place them in auctions from which Maddelena's company get a percentage of the profit.

Episodes have featured the original Panavision camera George Lucas used to film the original Star Wars ($550,000), the cane that Jim Carrey used in 'Batman & Robin' ($12,500) and the Judy Garland ruby slippers used in The Wizard of Oz for close-ups ($2,000,000). Maddelena also hustled the on-screen stunt version of Bumble Bee, the Camero from 'Transformers' from a junkyard for $20,000 and turned it over to a collector for $40,000 cash. Check this out when it's on - not just eye candy, but some pretty cool behind-the-scenes trivia about the objects and their origins as well.

Though I miss the simplicity of TV from yesteryear, I do not miss the reruns - even if shows did have longer seasonal runs (usually 21 to 24 shows on average). To that end, modern TV viewing allows us the chance to PVR and watch at our leisure and many cable networks are finally learning that firing up new brands during the summer is proving to be a smart idea. I'll report back soon with more new series highlights as the summer TV season gears up. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Snow White and the Huntsman Movie Review

If you're unfamiliar with my movie reviews, here's the way it works: I go check out the latest movie everyone is talking about, drink an astonishing amount of diet soda, and then report back to you, looking for as many things to make fun of as this space allows, while trying to strike a balance with the positive highlights. Welcome. Let's get started.

THE GOOD: What we have here is an attempt at taking the most mild-mannered and somewhat pathetic princess in history, and giving her a backbone. This is not your childhood fairy tale version, with whistling dwarves and a helpless girl in a dress, running around with her hand over her mouth, always looking surprised. It's a much darker and creepier scene playing out, which frankly adds to the appeal in my opinion.

Left motherless as a small child, Snow White (played by Kristin Stewart) has to adjust to life with her stepmother Raveena (Charlize Theron) who is the epitome of the word, "self absorbed". When it becomes clear that Mommy Dearest has nothing good in store for her, Snow White escapes into the forest where she encounters all sorts of creepy things brought on by hallucinogenic spores, and where she also first meets the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth), who is somewhat a nice hallucination of sorts himself. Sent to kill her, the Huntsman is faced with the decision of serving the wicked Queen, or helping Snow White escape. And as the bad boy he is, you can imagine what he chooses to do.

There were a lot of positive's in this film for me - the visual effects were stunning, and Charlize Theron is so terrifying as the Queen that I found myself considering ways to make myself less attractive so I wouldn't risk encountering her soul sucking vanity. I even have to admit that Kristin Stewart, who I am not particularly impressed with as an actress, was perfect for the role - not only because it required very little facial expression, but because THIS Snow White isn't exactly "girly" - and let's face it, Ms. Stewart has never been known for acting ladylike. And to round things out, Chris Hemsworth with a Scottish accent is the stuff dreams are made of. Thank you.

THE BAD: I mentioned previously that there were no whistling dwarves in this version, but rest assured that dwarves ARE present and accounted for - they just aren't particularly cute and snuggly little buggers. I didn't mind the fact that they were all a little rough looking, but I found myself completely unable to understand what they were saying from time to time. I'm still not sure if it was the British accents or if they were all, in fact, a bunch of mumblers.

THE UGLY: There was certainly no shortage of icky things to see in this movie: Stabbings, internal organ removals, and the Queen eating the still warm heart of a dead animal to name a few. Still, when you are faced with the glaring possibility that the Queen and her weirdo brother seem to have some sort of incestuous thing going on, all else pales in comparison. I don't have a brother, but if I did, I'd like to think that he wouldn't feel the need to watch me take a bath, nor would I feel inclined to chat it up with him as I step into a giant pool of milk. But that's just how I roll.

Bottom line, if you like your fairy tales on the darker side, with the fair maiden being less "helpless" and more "ragged mess", then this is the version for you.

The Trophy Wife gives this movie 4 trophies.

Snow White and the Huntsman has a running time of 127 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and brief sensuality. (No F words used) Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Silent Era's Bad Girls

Anita Page

Nineteen twenty-eight, Ann played by Anita Page. She chased men for their money and drank as much as she wanted too. In "Our Dancing Daughters" she starred along with Joan Crawford as Diana and Ben played by Johnny Mack Brown. At a time when, flamboyance was honored and women onscreen did what they pleased.

The movie also dealt with the conflict between the two women and Ben. As much as Diana loved him, she put him off with her inhibited dancing and flirting with other men. It was Ann that came to his side while Diana suffered watching the two of them together.

The movie offered the audiences then, an opening scene where a woman danced in her shimmy in front of a mirror. Also, it showed a passionate love scene at a beach. After all; it was the Jazz Age and the bad girls in movies. They enjoyed every minute of their freedom.

The movie had an interesting mix of background sound effects and recorded singing for a few of the scenes. It was still considered a silent film because the actors spoke no dialogue. A few years later, a production code limited the explicitness shown onscreen.

Gloria Swanson

Nineteen twenty-eight, Gloria Swanson starred in "Sadie Thompson." It was a compelling drama and for her a signature role. Lionel Barrymore played a reformer bent on teaching the islanders to repent their ways. It was Sadie that became his focus. In fact, he used whatever means he could to get her sent back to San Francisco.

The movie captured the idea of sin versus redemption, guilt or innocence, the temptation of lust and sincere heartfelt love. Also, the question of Sadie's past that haunted her future. But it was to Sadie's advantage that forced her to go along with the idea to repent.

She quit wearing heavy make-up, rid herself of her flashy clothes and jewelry. It was the plain Sadie that caused the reformer sleepless nights. The movie's end saw Sadie back to her old ways. However, she got what she wanted all along.

Even with the content and the threat of censorship, the silent movie was well received and Gloria Swanson became "Sadie" the bad girl making her a huge box-office star.

Greta Garbo

Nineteen twenty-eight, Greta Garbo starred in "A Woman Of Affairs." Indeed, she was. The story started out with three friends, Diana Merrick played by Garbo, Neville Holderness played by John Gilbert and David Furness played by Johnny Mack Brown. Her brother, Jeffery Merrick was played by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.

When Neville's father sent him to Egypt in order to make money, Diana was distraught. She married David. When in Paris, he plunged out of their hotel window The question became how would such a happy man do such a thing? With her brother turning against her and also much of society, Diana spent her time getting involved in affairs with other men.

After seven years away, Diana returned to London. However, Neville married a woman named Constance. The story revolved around being so much in love while married to someone else. It was also doing the right thing for decency. At what price, they paid with their lives.

The movie was a hit only because of Garbo's portrayal of Diana. It was not so much about being bad as it was about being so much in love and what it drove her character to do. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Is It Any Wonder That Movie Piracy Sites Are Thriving?

It was a rainy day today, so my wife and I decided that we should go and see a movie. We called up Grandma and asked if she would be willing to look after the kids for a few hours, and she was happy to spend some extra time with the little ones. So, after finally agreeing to go and see the new Men In Black 3 movie, we got into the car and headed to our local Cineplex theatre. When we arrived, we walked up to the ticket machine, requested 2 general admission tickets and then proceeded to pay. For the two tickets at this particular Cineplex, the grand total was $21.00, which seemed pretty reasonable. Next, we proceeded over to the concession stands to consider our options for a snack. We didn't want to get too elaborate, so we settled on a large popcorn, 2 regular sized drinks and a small bag of candy.

Fortunately, my wife has a 'SCENE' card (a promotional card that rewards purchases with points and lowers the cost of some goods when presented at time of purchase). However, even with the card, the snacks cost us another $21.00!! Now, we're not talking about pizza and fries, or hot dogs and energy drinks here....we're talking about one of the cheapest snacks known to mankind....due to the sheer abundance of raw materials available on this continent, popcorn costs mere pennies to produce, but apparently commands a GIANT price tag to consume when purchased at a movie theatre! As well, those large cups of soda are quite expensive as well (after they fill your cup with Ice, there might be the equivalent of one standard can of soda in that cup). The way I figure it, we probably got the equivalent of 1/4 a cup of popped corn kernels, 2 cans of pop and a bag of candy that could be purchased at a local grocery store for about $2. Based on some quick research that I have done, a pound of popcorn kernels is equal to about 4 cups of kernels, and a 1/4 cup of kernels will yield approximately 8 cups of popped popcorn.

So 4 cups of kernels will yield about 128 cups of popped popcorn! Oh and wait!, it's important to note that a pound of popcorn kernels costs about $2.00, so as you can see, you can produce approximately 128 cups of popcorn for about $2.00! Keeping these figures in mind, it cost the movie theatre approximately 13 cents for our large bag of popcorn, another couple of bucks for our soft drinks (calculated at a retail cost of $1 per can of soda), and about $2 or $3 for the bag of candy...for a grand total of about $5! In turn, they charged us $21.00 for those snacks!! That represents a mark-up of over 400%! As a result of this, it cost my wife and I just over $40.00 to see a movie today...and that was at a Cineplex where the price of the general admission tickets are much lower than those found at the same theatres in larger cities, where it's not uncommon to find admission prices ranging from $12 to $18 per person!

With pricing like this, it is little wonder why piracy has become such a large issue in today's society. After all, imagine if instead of Men In Black 3, my wife and I had decided to take our kids to the movies with us and take in a children's movie. Even with the cheaper kids ticket and concession costs factored in, the costs associated with such an endeavor would balloon to somewhere between $70 - $90! In the current economy, families are looking for affordable entertainment, and I do not believe that our local movie theatres are doing a very good job of providing that. Instead, families are more likely to download a newly released movie, pop up some popcorn on the stove and crack open some beverages found in the fridge... then curl up on the sofas and lazy boy chairs and have a family movie night. The costs associated with the stay at home movie night are likely under $10 bucks, and you don't have to worry about the obnoxious teenagers 3 rows behind tossing popcorn at you, while texting and speaking on their cellphones!

In the past 5 years alone I have witnessed the costs at the concession stands rise nearly 40%! I understand that some food industries have had to suffer through shortages due to issues related to weather and environment, but corn has remained very affordable throughout those 5 years. The costs associated with soda and candy has gone up slightly, but certainly not enough to justify a 40% hike at the movie concessions. So, is this just a matter of corporate and shareholder greed? Is the never ending appetite for ever increasing profits starting to get to a point that average families now face exorbitant costs just to take their loved ones to a show? Is it any surprise that movie theatres have to plaster large signs at the doors declaring "No Outside Food or Drink Beyond This Point"?

Obviously they are trying to protect their very large profit margins and thus their investors returns.....not to mention the fat salaries and bonuses awarded to their top executives! In 2010, the CEO of Cineplex received over $4.5 Million in total compensation - most of which was received in additional incentives beyond his base salary based on performance and profit targets! His base salary was just $803 Thousand dollars.....but he earned over 5 times this amount once all of the additional bonuses and incentives were paid....and you can bet your bottom dollar that those rising ticket prices and exorbitant concession prices factored largely into his compensation package....but hey, who can live on a paltry base salary of $803,000/year anyways right?

Here is an idea for Cineplex that would result in continued growth of profits and thus, investor delight. Why don't you drop your prices 40%, encouraging more families and individuals to visit your theatres and grow your business through expanded ticket and concession sales! As a result, you could positively affect the employment figures and employ more people to serve the influx of customers who can now afford to come to the movies, and more people could enjoy the magic of watching movies on the big screen, rather than downloading those movies to hard drives at home that are hooked up to their large screen televisions. I think you will find that people are more willing to pay a fair price for the entertainment you are providing, than stay at home and watch their free downloads because they cannot afford to pay your unfair and outlandishly exorbitant fees.

Furthermore, the movie industry going after the websites that provide free downloads of your movies will never yield any great blows to the infinite community of piracy sites that exist out there in the wild of the world wide web....but charging people affordable prices to visit your theatres will slowly start to win back customers who are tired of being overcharged to watch movies that rarely live up to their trailers! While the cost of your tickets and concessions have been steadily going up, the cost of large screen televisions and the technology used for downloading content has been steadily going down. If that trend continues, theatre companies like Cineplex will continue to see their viewership decline (Between the years 2000 - 2010, cinema attendance has dropped by over 22%, while during the same period, ticket prices have increased over 15%!), and large electronic retailers like Best Buy, Future Shop and Amazon will continue to benefit from the increased demand for new big screen TV's!

The bigger concern for companies like Cineplex should be...how long can they continue raising prices to offset the decline in ticket sales before they begin seeing massive drops in cinema attendance! Only time will tell, but if I were the CEO of Cineplex, I would be very concerned with the long term prospects of my job. Of course, the question remains whether the current CEO has enough foresight and courage to challenge the traditional business model that has over the past 10 years continued to show steady declines in attendance! Personally, I hope the industry turns itself around, and many more generations of people can continue to experience the magic of the big screen at an affordable price. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

3D Geek V 3D Consumer, A New Look at the Passive Vs Active 3D TV Debate

Once 3D was a novelty act in cinemas. Now it's a rapidly developing technology that helps movie directors and progressive TV channels find new and better ways to help you feel part of the action.

Early 3D technology made it possible for manufacturers such as Samsung, Sony and Panasonic to introduce 3D TV sets into homes. They applied the early-adopter rule of money being no object and technical specification being everything. So they developed the geektastic active 3D technology systems that require shutter glasses with powered lenses and transmitter mechanisms to sync the tech-heavy 3D glasses to the display unit.

Active-shutter glasses are actually small LCD screens that alternately dim the left and right lenses at speeds faster than the human eye can detect. They use an infrared signal emitter in the TV to ensure each pair of synched 3D glasses dims each of its lenses at the appropriate moment. Each eye's glass contains a layer, which flickers between dark or transparent when voltage is applied. The timing signal allows the glasses to synchronize together with the refresh rate of anything between 100Hz and 240Hz.

Active-shutter 3D glasses, thanks to the technology involved are relatively expensive. So much so that manufacturers don't often include them with active 3D TV sets - you have to buy them at a substantial additional cost. Besides the cost of the glasses - anything from £50 - £150 per pair, you also have to stump up for the batteries they need to keep them running. It's these batteries that also give active 3D glasses a bit of a weight problem that can cause discomfort during full-length feature films. An issue that becomes even more problematical if you already wear prescription glasses.

The final difficulty with active 3D glasses is that no two systems use the same signal emitter set-up: you can only use them on your own system and will have to wait for the development of universal active 3D glasses to head round to your pals to watch the football in 3D.

Fortunately a solution, in the form of passive 3D systems, arrived on the fast developing 3D TV scene.

As other TV manufacturers such as LG, Philips, Toshiba, Vizio, Cello, Manta, Bush and Finlux began to develop 3D TV systems aimed at mainstream consumers, they opted for passive 3D glasses technology. Making passive 3D glasses is no more complicate than making a pair of standard sunglasses. Only the specially designed polarized lenses are different.

When you watch a 3D film and the cinema or on a passive 3D TV, the polarised lenses in the passive 3D glasses simply block different kinds of light from each eye to create that immersive illusion of depth inside the mind of the viewer. The circular polarised lenses are set at angles that match a combined image on the screen. The glasses simply decode the images with any need for those flickering shutters that can cause headaches on active 3D glasses. What's more, you don't ever have to replace any batteries or miss out on the football in 3D because they are flat. So why doesn't everybody see passive 3D glasses as sounds like the perfect 3D solution?

The makers and enthusiastic fans of active 3D systems often refer to the fact that technically passive 3D glasses do not provide a true HD experience on 3D TVs. With passive 3D, the viewer sees 540 lines of resolution to each eye, or half 1080p (provided the source is 1080p). So, theoretically the picture will have less depth and quality than one of 1080p - the norm for active 3D systems. However, active 3D supporters claim that this difference is only noticeable a couple feet from the TV. As nobody buys a large screen TV to use as a laptop the issue seems to be nothing more than manufacturer spin.

To prove the point, LG has recently won ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority that allows them to state that the passive 3D glasses experience is a full HD experience. Perhaps that is why Panasonic and Sony have both recently began making passive 3D systems?

The real difference lies not in whether active 3D glasses are too heavy, cause dizziness and headaches, or passive 3D glasses offer a less immersive experience cheap as chips experience: real difference lies in the eye and the mind of the beholder.

Each of us experiences 3D in a way that is unique to our own viewing physiology. Our eyes, our experiences and our preferences, shape the way we see things. The fact is, we simply do not see exactly the same things as people sitting right next to us. Moreover, 3D is a depth-perception illusion created in our mind's unique eye. While technical facts and research can advance all manner of claims, it is only you who can decide what rocks your 3D world.

At a geek v consumer level, each of us is either the kind of avid technology buff that wanted to be the first to experience 3D TV in the home or someone who was always going to wait until the technology developed to a point where updating the old TV with a state of the art but relatively inexpensive passive 3D TV seems like a no brainer. Especially when you consider that you are likely to be watching a mixture of 2D (60%) and 3D (40%) programs on your 3D TV.

Even if you adopt a try before you buy approach, evaluating passive or active 3D TVs is fraught with difficulties. For one thing, it is impossible to experience what it is like to live with heavy active 3D glasses unless you spend hours in the showroom watching a film. Equally, the quality of passive 3D glasses is enough to make anyone think twice about making an impulse purchase.

May we suggest a solution?

Perhaps before you risk investing in a prohibitively expensive active 3D system because of the perceived picture quality or dismiss the very idea of a passive 3d system because of the poor quality passive 3D glasses, you should take the opportunity to experience the outstanding passive 3D experience delivered by Designer 3D glasses by Oskav.

All our wayfarer-style glasses are made to the same exacting standards as designer sunglasses. Our lenses are made to a particular specification that ensures a high definition 3D experience and lasting durability. Our collection of designer finishes is simply without equal in passive 3D glasses. So what have you go to loose? From just £19.99 you could get the LG, Philips, Toshiba or Panasonic passive 3D TV test drive of a lifetime and in the process get a pair of designer 3D glasses that also allow you to go to see any 3D film in style. Put the 3D geek v 3D consumer debate behind you in a pair of designer 3D glasses by Oskav. Buy designer 3D glasses by Oskav online at oskav.com. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.