Movie Review: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012)

An unending, melancholy tone permeates the entire film, once again demonstrating Steve Carell's knack for that typical, sad, lonely character he always assumes (when he's not the cocky, ignorant, inconsiderate "Michael Scott" persona). But unlike Dan in Real Life or Little Miss Sunshine, there are few ups and downs - the role isn't nearly dynamic enough for audiences to invest in the somber development that keeps his plight from being emotionally involving. Similarly, Keira Knightley goes through the motions of being an unlikely companion without a convincing connection that could warrant their cross-country pilgrimage to find meaning in a world coming undone.

Dodge Petersen (Steve Carell) still goes to work each day at Metropolitan Consolidated Life Insurance, even though a 70-mile-wide asteroid named "Matilda" has just annihilated space shuttle Deliverance, the last remaining hope for saving Earth from certain doom. The countdown has begun: 21 days before the world ends. Many resort to abandoning hope, participating in carefree orgies of food and sex, or spending their final hours with family and friends. Penny (Keira Knightley) has missed her last opportunity to fly home and so laments outside Dodge's window. The two strike up a friendship and decide to embark on an odyssey to reunite Dodge with his high school sweetheart - a reconciliation botched by Penny retaining a misdelivered letter for Dodge. They're also accompanied by a randomly deserted dog dubbed "Sorry" - a witty moniker never fully utilized.

It's sometimes touching and undeniably soothing to see the obvious counterparts come to a romantic fruition, even if the casting choices don't appear completely compatible. Perhaps it's the age difference, or the contrasting personalities, or witnessing brief, unfulfilling assemblies of Penny's past admirers that seem probable yet discordant. Or maybe it's Dodge's admirable yet clashing sacrifices for love that suggest contrivance and an expected resolution. Regardless, a deeper association with the lead duo is elusive, what with the pervasive reminiscing, brooding, and irrational behaviors that are never delirious enough to be funny. Serenity arises, but not as repeatedly as bewilderment from the scenario.

This setting, with citizens either rioting, killing, offing themselves, contradictorily mowing the lawn as if to forget, or stocking bomb shelters for apocalyptic survival, is both the most unique element and the film's undoing. Ceding appeasement for an eye-opening twist essentially ruins the normal romantic comedy hiding beneath the frantic premise. And it's toned down to a degree, materializing less anarchy and chaos than might be expected (infidelity, rape and theft become a casual joke) if the situation were real - yet the shock of suicide and death still work their way into the picture. Enlightenment, a day at the beach, and reconnecting with loved ones can't mask the nerve-wracking, spontaneous nature of encountering bizarre strangers and frequenting eerily abandoned houses. At times it's more disturbing than humorous or romantic. Why should this bleak device interfere so tragically with a simple tale of recognizing the importance of truly worthwhile relationships?

- The Massie Twins (GoneWithTheTwins.com) Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

3 Latest Movies Filmed on Location in South Africa

South Africa has been a prime location for film productions for years now, but it is still a novelty to find an international movie or major TV series actually set on the streets of Cape Town or Johannesburg. So it was with great excitement that South African movie goers greeted the release of Safe House earlier this year, and that is not the only movie to be filmed on location in Cape Town recently.

Safe House - This blockbuster box office hit stars Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds and was filmed on location in and around Cape Town. The story of a young CIA agent on the run as he tries to look after a fugitive in a safe house gives lots of scope to the Mother City as a setting. Capetonians get extra thrills from location spotting of their familiar streets and mountain, but from the fact that it scored a huge $40.2 m in its first weekend after release it went down a storm everywhere else in the world too.

Chronicle - Here Cape Town is doubling for Seattle, as three teenagers with supernatural powers find their lives spiralling out of control. The sci-fi thriller is filmed as if it were found-footage put together from video recordings. As well as being filmed on location in the streets of Cape Town, the production used sets constructed on a film studio stage at Cape Town Film Studios. Left hand drive cars were shipped in especially for the production and ingenious special effects produced to show the effects of the heroes' telekinetic powers crushing a car.

Dark Tide is another 2012 release filmed on location in and around Cape Town. This harnesses the power and drama of the ocean as Halle Berry stars as a diving instructor who returns to work in deep waters after an almost fatal encounter with a shark. The crew shot on a small boat with real great white sharks in False Bay. The studio filming in an underwater tank was completed at Pinewood Studios in the UK. The film was released in March 2012 and didn't get very good critical reviews, either for the plot or for the acting, but everyone agrees that the scenery is stunning, as you would expect for any movie filmed with the Cape Peninsula as a backdrop.

And something else to watch out for, though not yet released, is the third TV series of military drama Strike Back, which was filmed in various locations in South Africa earlier this year. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

What Other Good Film Rental Websites Are There Like LOVEFiLM?

Part of the Amazon Group, LOVEFiLM appears to own the European stream and DVD rental market nowadays. Word on the street is that it has now over two million subscribers, renting over four million DVDs per month! Not to mention it's online streaming option "LOVEFiLM Instant!"

There are many different options to become a member of LOVEFiLM. First of all you can opt to just rent actual DVDs by post (no streaming). Secondly there is a sole online streaming option. Finally you can combine the two with several price options to suit even the most obsessed film fanatic (see resources below for info and free trials on LOVEFiLM and Netflix). So I wondered, what other websites are available that do a similar job to this one? Are there any that actually do a better job? Let's take a look at the alternatives.

Blink Box

I first took a look at the UK based Tesco owned company, Blink Box. I first of all noticed what could be a distinct advantage over LOVEFiLM, you don't need to pay a monthly subscription fee! When using Blink Box, you "pay per title" so you only have to fork out when you actually feel like watching something. This would definitely appeal to a casual film watcher. It also has a wealth of titles available, it seems maybe even more than LOVEFiLM in the online streaming department (boasts over ten thousand available). Some films are even free to watch, and prices to rent seem fairly reasonable. So far so good for my search! Blink box seems to offer a good alternative to people who wouldn't want to fork out every month just for a few movies. Let's move on and have a look at another website then.

Netflix

Netflix is another website that has similarities with LOVEFiLM. However the pricing model is a lot similar offering one flat subscription rate (£5.99 a month, one month free trial). It was founded in the US and has a massive amount of customers over there, boasting around $1.5 billion revenue in 2011. It is also currently smashing it in the European market and boasts to have over 100,000 titles on offer to watch online, from films to television series. In my opinion, for the shear number of titles available, Netflix beat LOVEFiLM hands down in terms of value for money.

So it seems there is more out there than just LOVEFiLM! For free trials in both Netflix and LOVEFiLM and to compare prices etc. Check out my resources! Cheers. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

American Idol: The Spotlight on the Judges

It was just over a decade ago where we saw the landscape of television change due to the success of the hit tv show, American Idol. The show managed to produce a fair share of talents in every season that kept viewers wanting to see more. Aside from the talent that was showcased, the viewing public also got exposed to three different personalities standing as a judge for the show. Randy Jackson, a well-known producer in the music business, Paula Abdul, a popular singer/dancer and probably the most memorable of them all, Simon Cowell, a music producer from the UK who handled the careers of several musicians and was known for his straightforward opinions which means contestants usually receive harsh criticisms from him without feeling remorse.

The relationship between the judges also became one of the reasons why people tuned in to the show. Paula and Simon's nonstop bickering turned out to be a form of entertainment for most people. However, that trio was not meant to last long as the judges had a change of line-up in the latter years of the show. We've seen the judging panel grow to four when comedian Ellen DeGeneres joined the panel. Some have criticized her for not having enough experience as a judge and for not having enough music credentials. She later left the show after one season. We also saw Kara DioGuardi, a music producer and song writer, join the show. The major turning point of the show would have to be the time when Simon decided to leave the show. Many thought that the show will not continue without his presence but the concern that was in everybody's heads was the question of who was going to replace him. Several names popped up until we saw the entire shake-up in the judging panel.

They were cutting the judges back down to three like how it used to be with Randy Jackson being the only original judge to be retained. It was later announced that he was going to be joined by famous rock star and lead singer of the band, Aerosmith, Steven Tyler and popular singer/dancer/actress Jennifer Lopez. There were mixed reactions regarding the new panel of judges but in the end, the three of them did their best to have some chemistry between each other, much to the delight of the fans. But while some were pleased with the decision, some thought that the three of them were too nice to the contestants and they fail to give enough constructive criticisms like Simon Cowell used to do.

It has now been a problem for talent competitions to be criticized for their selection of judges and not just contestants. Some criticizes them for getting judges only for high ratings instead of producing a good talent molded by a credible set of judges. For a show like American Idol, they have endured these criticisms for more than a decade and it doesn't seem to affect them as they have clearly gained a loyal fan base whoever they put on the judging panel. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Prometheus Review, Symbols and Themes

Prometheus, directed and produced by Ridley Scott, had quite a bit of hype, especially from me. It was great, and had a few plot holes in the second half that didn't quite ruin it, but were unpleasant. Many viewers will not "get it" if they have not seen and remember the original Alien movie. It's not just another shoot-em-up sci-fi movie, it's a pretty big deal for fans of the series. If you plan on seeing Prometheus and don't remember the 1979 Alien film or haven't seen it, I think it's essential that you watch Alien first.

The characters were good. Not phenomenal, but good. And the acting was excellent, for the most part. I felt sorry for the archaeologist, Elizabeth Shaw, and I just wanted to give her a hug the whole second half of the movie. The android, David, was also a memorable character. Elements of Blade Runner were present in this character, specifically the idea of the "tears in the rain" monologue. In fact, the actor for the android avoided watching the original Alien movies, and instead got the inspiration for his character from Blade Runner.

The two screen writers, John Spaihts and Damon Lindelof (co-creator of Lost), did a decent job. Spaihts is somewhat new to the writing scene, but has experience writing sci-fi. He wrote the original script, but then Lindelof rewrote it, probably fixing some things while creating more plot holes. I think it was the script that took away the most from the film. I don't know which writer is more responsible. But I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say Lindelof, considering he's been writing about being stranded on a tropical island for years, and then suddenly jumps into the sci-fi genre. Seriously, someone who once wrote for a MTV show called Undressed--clearly a sign of writing just for money--has no business messing with the Alien universe. I just had to let that out.

The cinematography was amazing. Just as expected from a Ridley Scott movie. The intro shots were especially good, and the imagery provided in the opening scene let me know that Scott had not forgotten that important part of Alien. Most of Scott's movies are deep and full of thematic elements. He did not disappoint with this one.

SPOILERS BELOW

The movie opens with a humanoid, pale alien standing on top of a waterfall on Earth, probably tens of thousands of years ago. He drinks a black liquid (which seems to be alive) and we witness rapid changes in his DNA, as the strands are twisted apart. His skin starts to deteriorate and he falls into the waterfall, with his limbs falling apart. He dies and supposedly plants his DNA in Earth, so it can have life. I think the purpose of this scene is to show that the humanoid aliens are responsible for life on Earth.

The first half of the movie is the best. I appreciate buildup. The two main scientists are trying to discover these "Engineers" on an alien planet, indicated by star maps found across Earth. The Engineers are assumed to be the creators of human life; the humanoid at the beginning scene was an Engineer. I find it funny that Meredith, the Weyland Corporation employee, is so controlling of their expedition. It's allegorical to PhD researchers who have to deal with being controlled all the time.

Throughout the first half especially, it was surprisingly philosophical and spiritual. I know that Ridley Scott wanted to take it this way; he believes that most science fiction films don't cover these topics, when they should. During their transit to the alien planet, which takes two years in cryosleep, David (the android) observes Shaw's (the female archaeologist) dreams. In the dream she is a little girl with her dad on what seems to be a digging expedition. A cross necklace appears over the image in the dream a few times; this symbol becomes important later on. She and her dad discuss what happens after death, and her dad says it's something like paradise. She asks why he says so, and he replies "because that's what I choose to believe."

David, being an android who is troubled by his existence, is the main cause of all the trouble that ensues. At one point he asks Charlie Holloway (Shaw's love interest) why they created him. Holloway replies "because we could." David goes on to ask if Holloway would be satisfied if he asked his creator that question, and got the same answer. There are many points like this in the movie, which help propagate the existential dilemma that exists in the human mind. The whole philosophical part of the movie is based around the "greatest question," regarding who/what created us and why, who created the creator and why, and so on. I think the important conclusion in the movie to this question, is that there is no answer, and never will be. It's about living with existence and enjoying it best you can.

It's not exactly known why David infects Holloway with the black fluid. It's either due to his immense curiosity or receiving orders from Peter Weyland, who is secretly hiding on the ship. After Holloway is infected by taking the drink offered to him by David, he visits Shaw in her room. She's found that the Engineer's DNA is a match to human DNA. Holloway says they've found their creators, and tells her she can take her father's cross off now. She refuses to, saying that they don't know who created their creators.

We learn that Shaw is unable to bear children, and she's quite upset about it. The two proceed to sleep together that night. And it's easy to see it coming that whatever was in Holloway's system would be in her system now. On their next expedition outside, Holloway becomes too sick and ends up volunteering to be immolated, to avoid spreading the infection. The event was traumatic for Shaw, but Holloway's death didn't have much of an impact on the plot.

After Holloway's death, David is checking Shaw for infections in the medical bay. David insists that she takes off her cross necklace for the body scan. She complies and David takes the cross. She learns that she is three months pregnant. It's also revealed that it is "not a traditional fetus." Almost immediately after learning this, she says "I want it out" and screams "get it out of me."Â Just ten hours ago, she was desperate to have a child, and now she wants an abortion. She doesn't know whether or not it's dangerous, but she assumes it is. David reflects on the circumstances and says "it must feel like your God abandoned you." The symbolism here is obvious.

The next scene is one of the most disturbing I've seen in a movie, not just because of the graphic aspect, but the emotion as well. Shaw escapes from the medical bay and finds the emergency surgery pod, in hopes to remove the developing fetus. She finds out that the pod is meant for male patients only, after requesting a caesarean section. I find it odd that it would be calibrated for male patients only. There's a symbolic importance in this, I haven't quite figured it out yet. She proceeds to have a "foreign body" removal surgery instead, and injects herself with painkillers and enters the pod. The painkillers are not enough for anesthesia, and the process is painful. Her lower stomach is slit open and a mechanical arm reaches in and pulls out the alien fetus, which begins squirming violently, trying to get back inside her stomach.

She's now trapped inside the surgery pod with the partially developed alien baby being held above her, as her stomach is stitched back up. She manages to get out of the pod and contain the alien inside. Since it was moving around in her stomach, it was probably gestated enough to survive on its own outside. I think Ridley Scott was referring to this scene and a few others when he was asked about the rating and said "the question is, do you go for the PG-13, or do you go for what it should be, which is R? Financially it makes quite a difference... essentially it's kinda R... it's not just about blood, it's about ideas that are very stressful."

What happened next really threw me off. She re-enters the medical bay and it is revealed that Peter Weyland, the founder of the Weyland company, is alive and aboard the ship. The main reason this threw me off is because the mood set from the last scene was completely lost and forgotten. There is no mention ever made by anyone of the alien fetus that was inside Shaw. But her pain is still clearly presented.

So Peter Weyland is much too old to be alive (obviously being kept alive by technology--transhumanism) and wishes to ask the Engineers to extend his life. His character is someone who has not accepted death, and is desperately clinging to life. In order for him to walk into the buried ship with the Engineers, he must have mechanical assistance from a suit he wears. He doesn't even get to ask his question to the awakened Engineer before being pummeled to death by it. I guess he got his answer.

The Engineer that was awakened doesn't appear that intelligent, even though they are presented as super-intelligent beings. He refuses trying to communicate with the humans and just resorts to killing them. He then readies the ship in order to go to Earth and spread the black liquid among the population, which appears to be a biological weapon at this point, which mutates humans into overpowered monsters. This is the part of the plot that's annoying, it feels like it was just kind of thrown in there.

The captain back on the human ship decides to sacrifice himself to bring down the ship by suicide bombing it, to prevent Earth from being destroyed. The two other crew members on the bridge agree to sacrifice themselves as well. They had previously made a bet, and one agrees to pay up "on the other side." The cinematography at work here is clearly stating the importance of their belief in the afterlife. They raise their hands, as if riding a roller coaster, before they collide with the alien ship. It's noticeable that the daughter of Peter Weyland is also desperately clinging to life. We see her struggling to make it to an escape pod and put on a space suit in time. She makes it out, but is still crushed by the crashing alien ship, revealing that her struggle was meaningless.

Shaw manages to survive the crash and makes it back to the surgery pod room where the alien that she carried is contained. It has grown to be huge and resembles an octopus (which was actually Dan O'Bannon's original idea of the facehugger). David, who has been decapitated but is still functioning, radios her and warns her of the Engineer who is approaching the ship. I'm not sure why the Engineer found it necessary to try and kill her. Maybe he was just angry after his ship crashed, or trying to eliminate all the humans that were left. When the Engineer enters, she opens the containment area and the octopus alien is released. I'm going to call it the Master Facehugger, since it's basically a very large facehugger and starts the whole process of the queen alien, except it resembles a sea monster more than a crab or a spider. So the Master Facehugger grabs hold of the Engineer while Shaw escapes, and latches onto him to begin the process of alien gestation.

After Shaw finds David, she asks him where her cross necklace is. It seems that after finding David and putting the necklace on, she has regained her strength to keep going. Just before this, she was lying on the ground, telling David "I can't do this anymore." After that, she puts David's head in a duffel bag and gets out of the ship (this generated many laughs in the theatre). Most of the ending dialogue between Shaw and David was weak and not well thought out.

Death acceptance and death denial are huge thematic elements. During the dream early in the film, Shaw as a little girl saw a man being carried in a funeral and asked her dad why he died. Her dad says, "sooner or later, everyone dies." It sometimes seems, that part of the crew is clinging to their current life, and the other part may be clinging to the afterlife. It proposes the question--what does it mean to accept death? It's symbolic to the never-ending struggle to find peace with existence.

The theme regarding motherhood and abortion is also important. A friend of mine pointed out an interesting fact in the Aliens film. When Ripley finds the queen alien, it's kind of a horrifying scene, and she has all of her eggs around her and is violent, in a less-than-happy situation. That particular movie was released during a time when feminism was starting to become successful. The Alien franchise has always carried a subliminal message.

For those who don't believe Alien movies have an underlying message, read what the screenwriter for the 1979 movie, Dan O'Bannon, said: "One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.'"

So, in reality, there's much more going on in movies than most people are aware of. Only certain people will see it, and some will interpret it differently. That's alright, that's what art is meant for.

Another thing worth mentioning are the snake-like monsters they found. Before those appeared, an earthworm was shown in the soil around the area. So after the black liquid was released, the earthworm must have been infected and morphed into the monster.

Also, the ending sequence of the Xenomorph (black colored alien) leaves more questions. It would seem that it is the queen alien, and it proceeds to lay eggs in the crashed ship, which they find in the original movie. If it's not the queen alien, then there's still the possibility of using the other live Engineers that are sleeping for gestation. Either way, it makes enough sense to proceed to the original movie. Although, the Space Jockey scene is not exactly explained. Note: these were my original thoughts on the Xenomorph at the end, right after viewing. It's been confirmed that they are actually on a different planetoid.

There has been some speculation that the pale-skinned humanoid aliens are not the Engineers. I'd consider this a definite possibility, which opens up another great batch of questions. Looks like we'll have to wait for a sequel to Prometheus to know for sure.

Overall, it's a very thought provoking and stunning film. The visual effects and sound were incredible, and the use of CGI didn't take anything away from the movie. In the end, however, the original 1979 Alien will always be the most memorable one.

youtube.com/watch?v=iIJeQNyZ6VE. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

We All Know That The Sun Rises, But What Else Rises?

We all know the sun rises, but what else rises? What else rises? The "Dark Knight Rises" will be released on July 20, 2012! Now I am 99.99% positive that I can refrain form asking this next question, but for fairness sake, I will ask it anyways. Are you excited? Ahhhhhhh, I am so excited! I can barely hold it in! But, there may be some people out there who do not share my passion and anticipation. That is why I am writing this blog; Well really I am writing this blog for a two-fold reason. 1. To critique "Dark Knight" and share my opinion on "Dark Knight Rises" and 2. To hear your opinion about whether or not you think "Dark knight Rises will be a success.

So let me begin with my critique on "Dark Knight" (MINIMAL SPOILER ALERT HERE) I absolutely loved it, from the intelligent script, to the genius of a director, and to the elegant cast of actors. If you read my earlier blog on the movie "Inception", you will all ready be aware of my love for director Christopher Nolan. He is a genius when it comes to directing because he know how to relate to his audience. Nolan is aware of what his viewers want to see and how to convey that in his pieces of work. And the actors? Simply put, how can one go wrong with names such as Christian Bale and Heath Ledger. Bale is known for his role in the first two Batman movies and of course, will be performing the role in the new and upcoming "Dark knight Rises." But another movie he played an excellent role in was the movie "Prestige"(also directed by Christopher Nolan) But, that is a whole different story and will without a doubt be fully critiqued in one of my future blogs. And Heath Ledger....If you have not seen "Dark Knight", Ledger is enough reason to go see it. I am a huge fan of Christian Bale and his ability to relate to his character's emotion and feelings, but I have to honestly say that Heath Ledger is the aspect that changes this movie from amazing to outstandingly amazing. Ledger hit the nail perfectly as he played the role of the Joker. There was no convincing needing to take place in my mind. He played the role perfectly. If you are fan of this movie I am sure you will remember this quote of his which sends chills down my spine...

"The Joker: Come here. Hey! Look at me. So I had a wife. She was beautiful, like you. Who tells me I worry too much. Who tells me I ought to smile more. Who gambles and gets in deep with the sharks. One day, they carve her face. And we have no money for surgeries. She can't take it. I just want to see her smile again. I just want her to know that I don't care about the scars. So... I stick a razor in my mouth and do this...
[the Joker mimics slicing his mouth open with his tongue]
The Joker:...to myself. And you know what? She can't stand the sight of me! She leaves. Now I see the funny side. Now I'm always smiling!"

What a great moment in this film among several others. Before I ask some questions about the upcoming "Dark Knight Rises", I just wanted to share a short summary of "Dark Knight" for those of you that for some strange reason, have not been able to see it yet. "Dark Knight" portrays Batman as he teams up with Harvey Dent to bring down the opposing vigilante mob and bring peace to the disparaging city of Gotham, but in attempting to accomplish this, let the cat out of the cage so-to-speak. Joker, with his hell-bent passion to turn Gotham against itself, does everything in his power to stop Batman and bring his heroic qualities down to his level.

So questions for "Dark Knight Rises." 1. Do you think this movie will be the last movie in the Batman series? 2. Are you upset that the Joker will not be in it? 3. Do you think it has potential to be the movie out of the series? 4. Will this movie be a success? Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

What Other Good Film Rental Websites Are There Like Netflix?

If you're a movie lover and use the internet often, you will probably have heard of the online stream rental website, Netflix.com. This is a website that, for a monthly subscription fee of £5.99, allows you to access a library of around 100,000 movies and TV shows to watch whenever you like! There is big business in this market and there are several companies fighting for the consumer attention, so in this article I will have a look at the other companies fighting for a share of your attention.

Love Film
Lovefilm.com is a site with a similar business model to Netflix. Owned by the huge retail giant Amazon.com, it already has established itself as one of the main players in the online stream/rental business.

One of the packages it offers, Lovefilm Instant, is essentially the same package as Netflix, however it is just £4.99 a month! The range of titles available with Instant are less than you get with Netflix though, and reviews for that particular package are pretty poor compared to Netflix.

There is one major difference between Lovefilm and Netflix, and that is the number of packages available. Where Netflix offers one flat rate £5.99 a month all access package, Lovefilm has lots of different options, and prices to go with them. For example you can rent DVD's to your home address for a monthly fee, or stream online for a monthly fee, or combine the two (more expensive). Check my resource box at the bottom for more information on the pricing of the different packages available, plus how to get free trials with both Netflix and Lovefilm.

The one main similarity with both companies is that both offer a one month free trial of their services. This gives the consumer a chance to work out if the service is worth the fees, a very good idea. REMEMBER! If you take up a free trail with either service you must take care to cancel the service before the month is up if you do not want to pay subscription! It only takes either a phone call or a couple of clicks with each service!

Blink Box
Blink box is an emerging company in the market and is growing in popularity in recent times. This is because it has a different take on the market to the other two companies, in that it does not charge monthly subscription fees! This works to the advantage of the occasional film watcher, as you only pay for a film when you want to watch one! Also Blink Box currently has a deal with Dominos Pizza (2012) where on a Monday you can watch a movie from 99p and get 40% off certain orders at Dominos Pizza! For more information and pricing check my resource box at the bottom.

I hope this article has helped in showing the different options available to using Netflix.com. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Bill Cunningham New York

The best documentaries are the ones that leave you feeling like you've had a religious experience - that you've either just encountered a holy person or experienced a conversion to some new cause or idea that had been previously unexplored. The best documentaries transcend the subject matter and touch another place altogether - that spiritual place. And so it is with Bill Cunningham New York, a delightful documentary directed by Richard Press about the octogenarian New York Times photojournalist who comes across as a monastic figure whose sanctuary is couture.

Prior to seeing the picture, I didn't know Bill Cunningham's work, but being a longtime reader of the New York Times, I was aware of his street photos, which have been a regular feature in the Style section for over thirty years, and the tension between ubiquity (he's a respected sage in the fashion industry) and anonymity (he's a discreet man who shuns the spotlight and money in order to enjoy guiltless freedom in what he does) is at the core of the movie and the man.

Cunningham was born and raised in Boston, and retains the distinctive accent where Central Park becomes Central Pahk. After dropping out of Harvard, he moved to New York, where an uncle who worked for Bonwit Teller, the high-end department store, took him in and got him a job as a stock boy. Cunningham's interest in fashion worried his family, who no-doubt feared that he was gay. Finally, tiring of his family's pressure to get a "straight" job, Cunningham moved out of his uncle's place in 1949 and found an empty space on East 52nd street where he set up a hat shop and designed under the name William J.

After a hitch in the army, Cunningham came back to New York where he began his career in journalism. He got on with Women's Wear Daily, and was given carte blanche to write about whatever interested him. When WWD wouldn't publish a piece he'd written about Courreges, the French designer, he quit.

In the 60's, Cunningham worked for the Chicago Tribune in their New York office. In 1966, he met a photographer named David Montgomery. When Cunningham expressed an interest in taking pictures, Montgomery gave him an Olympus Pen-D half frame camera and told him to use it like a notebook. Thus equipped, he entered a new phase of his career.

Cunningham took Montgomery's advice to heart, and it was during this time, as he was getting acquainted with the camera, that he had an epiphany. He wrote about this moment in a 2002 piece for the Times - "I realized that you didn't know anything unless you photographed the shows and the street, to see how people interpreted what designers hoped they would buy. I realized that the street was the missing ingredient." That realization, that the street was where fashion was worked out, led to an obsession with the streets of Manhattan, which became a kind of laboratory for Cunningham, who documented the daily fashion experiments, looking for patterns.

In the 70's, Cunningham started taking photographs for the Times, but it wasn't until 1978 - after a chance encounter with Greta Garbo and a nutria coat she was wearing - that he landed his current gig, covering the streets and the galas and the shows - the Bill Cunningham holy trinity of fashion.

Bill Cunningham New York is a mixture of talking head interviews, decades old archival footage of Cunningham, and present day coverage of the man on his daily rounds. Amazingly, Cunningham - nearly 80 at the filming of the picture - still gets around Manhattan on his trademark bicycle, moving from street corner to street corner to capture a few frames of some article of clothing or an accessory that catches his eye.

The man who emerges from all of this attention is a purist completely uninterested in industry politics, self-promotion, or celebrity. For him, it's all about the clothes...of others. Cunningham lives a Spartan existence. His apartment is a tiny studio at Carnegie Hall that has no kitchen or bathroom (he showers and takes care of other business in a common bathroom in the hallway). He sleeps on a makeshift cot. The rest of the living space is occupied not with furniture and art, but filing cabinets filled with prints and negatives - his experiments.

Cunningham dresses conservatively, and could easily be mistaken for a retired professor or accountant but for his trademark blue smock. Some years ago, he stumbled across the smock - designed for institutional use - in a department store section devoted to uniforms. It's a light jacket that Cunningham favors for its many pockets (to hold film and other paraphernalia) and rugged construction (his camera, which dangles from his neck like a giant medallion, is hell on coats). It looks like something Chairman Mao might have favored.

Cunningham has stripped his life down to the essentials so that he can devote as much of himself as possible to the documentation of what people are wearing. He's that rare person who, early on, discovered his calling, and has let nothing distract him from it. Seeing him at Carnegie Hall Towers, once can't help but view him as a kind of secular monk and Carnegie Hall as his monastery. Cunningham and his elderly neighbors, nearly forgotten artists from the mid-twentieth century, are as delightfully anachronistic as an encounter with a Franciscan monk or the Amish.

The difference with Cunningham is that, though he may not be of the world, he's definitely in the world. We see him in the offices of the Times, playfully bantering with co-workers. We see him in Paris at a major show, where a young gate-keeper keeps in out on the sidewalk until an older co-worker pushes her aside, declaring Cunningham to be "the most important man on earth." We see him on the street, dialed in like method actor or ballplayer, looking for that thing.

Bill Cunningham New York has blown the cover of its subject, but his loss of anonymity is our great gain. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

It's a Knockout

Its's a Knockout TV Series

The iconic television series It's a Knockout had an illustrious innings. Beginning in the UK in 1966, it transmitted its last show in 2001. In one special programme, it even had members of the British royal family, Princes Andrew and Edward, Princess Anne and Fergie, as team leaders.

Despite its British team character and typically Anglo-saxon slapstick humour, the series was the brainchild of French Premier Charles de Gaulle, who mooted the European version of the series, Jeux San Frontieres, as a way of uniting European nations in friendship and fun. It even provided the inspiration for Peter Gabriel's song Games without Frontiers, a eulogy to the TV phenomenon.

In the UK, the show hosted 3 teams each week, for example Bristol, Bath and Minehead, all hotly competing for the much sought after 'Tip Top Town Trophy'. The programme billed itself as 'an inter-town contest of skill and strength' and the population of Britain collectively tuned in to watch. In its heyday, in the 70s and 80s, the show boasted audiences of up to 16 million.

As the theme tune 'Bean bag' by Herb Alpert and Tijuanna Brass started playing, people knew that they were in for madness, mayhem and a right good laugh. The teams competed against each other in obstacle races and silly versions of games lifted from the Olympics, school sports days and the producer's fertile imagination.

The competitors always had to wear costumes and these were usually enormous. The huge feet and giant bodies and heads made the racers cumbersome and clumsy and hilariously liable to fall over.

There were relay races, massive rubber inflatables and vast quantities of foam and water, for slipping, sliding and generally getting dunked in. Part of the show's appeal was its jolly, colourful, slapstick and custard pie nature, but perhaps the main factor in its success was the eccentric presenter Stuart Hall, whose infectious laugh sent audiences, and himself, into peals of uncontrollable laughter. If teams did well, they could compete for Great Britain in Jeux Sans Frontieres.

With a bigger budget, and an even bigger audience, the show featured ever more outlandish costumes and fancier props. One game featured giant Frankenstein chasing a flower-planting damsel in a mini-dress and the immortal line "just a friendly tap and he's fractured her skull, but never mind". With penguin suits, revolving platforms, plenty of competitors getting utterly soaked and a punchline of "here come the Belgians", it was a runaway Saturday night success.

For the Brits, as with all great British endeavours, it was the taking part that counted. Love it or loathe it, it was ground breaking TV and it epitomised the best of British spirit in a nutshell. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Tips for Online Video Production That People Will Get Talking

With the explosion of web video these days, you might also be thinking to upload your own content. We consider online videos as a different way to be entertained and get news. With the growing bandwidth, easy access to the means of production, and cheap storage, almost anyone can upload his/her video. However, be aware that with the enormous amount of videos that have been uploaded on the internet, there are millions of them which fail to capture their intended audience. In this article, we will tackle a number of tips in order to come up with a well-produced, entertaining and informative video. If you want a video which people will get people talking to, then, this article is for you.

Take the Time to Think about What You Want in Your Video

Before anything else, it might probably best if you outline what will happen in your video. Try to come up with an original concept in order for your content to stand out. This is the good thing about the internet. Here, you can express your imagination and you are your own creative force. Thus, sit down and come up with compelling characters as well as interesting situations for your video.

Recognizing the Medium of Your Video

As you write and prepare for your video production, be aware that the target length is five minutes or less. With that time period, you have to establish your beginning, middle and end of your video. Try to make your video as engaging as possible. Keep in mind as well that most people watch web videos alone and they often share this through social media. Thus, know the habits change between lone and group audiences.

Considering the Production Values

Meanwhile, there are a few basic things that should be considered when producing a web video. These might include simple things like getting the proper lighting and ensuring that all the dialogue can be heard. It is also important to make sure that the room tone matches. That means that everything should sound basically the same when you're cutting from one shot to another within one setting. If you already have a great script and good acting talent, you have to think of the decent production values as well. These things will set your video apart from thousands of your competitors.

So, those are just some of the simple tips that can help your original video off the ground. Hopefully, it will go out to the masses as well. On the other hand, you can also hire the services of a particular video production company to help your idea becomes a reality. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Small Towns Without Movie Theaters Show Movies Outdoors

Outdoor movie events bring the movie theater experience outside to create a fun and unique cinema experience. Modern equipment allow outdoor movie viewers to enjoy the same high quality experience enjoyed by traditional movie house patrons. For towns without movie theaters, outdoor movies are a great alternative.

Currently, there are small towns all over the country without cinema complexes. By 2013, more small movie-picture theaters could be closing their doors when the movie industry switches to all-digital technology. Films will no longer be released in traditional 35 millimeter film prints, and theaters without the technology to show digital films will be forced to shut down. The cost of converting to digital in a movie house is around $65,000, leaving this conversion out of reach for many small, older movie theaters.

There are already many towns without a motion picture theater, and this change will lead to more. Residents of towns like this are left with the options of missing out on these movies or traveling to a town with a movie theater. Portable inflatable cinema technology gives these communities another option: outdoor cinema.

Inflatable movie screens are available in a variety of sizes to fit into many different locations, and accommodate small or large crowds. High quality theatrical screens and HD projectors, along with clear sound, bring the movie theater experience to any location. An outdoor movie can be held almost anywhere; holding it at a historic site or downtown can enhance the experience and make it more special for the community.

Going out to see a new movie with friends or family is a completely different experience than watching it at home. Small towns without theaters and those that stand to lose a theater with the digital conversion will be missing out. Outdoor cinema technology can provide a replacement that sometimes proves to be even better than a traditional movie theater.

Movies under the stars provide entertainment and can bring a community together. Event organizers can take their pick of locations, maybe a popular community park, or another location that is special to the community. An outdoor cinema also allows community members to come together and watch a movie all at the same time, rather than being limited by the size of a movie theater. Outdoor movies are being shown in communities all over, to provide a unique cinema experience. For towns without traditional movie theaters, outdoor cinema is even more special. In these towns, outdoor movies replace the movie theater experience by providing another cinema option. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

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.