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.

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.

Auf Wiedersehen, Pet Locations

When the show hit our screens in the early 1980's, it was the time before the internet, so finding out information like where the show was filmed was not easy. In modern times, you simply have to type in what you are looking for, and within seconds you have your answer.

Filming for the first 2 series of the show was mostly done in the UK, with London, Newcastle and Nottingham being used for outdoor locations. In series 1, many locations around London doubled on screen for areas of Newcastle, with only keen eyed viewers in 1983 knowing the difference.

In 1986, the show returned to our screens for a second series, and locations such as Newcastle, Wolverhampton and Spain being used on screen. Nottinghamshire was used for almost all of the UK filming, with the exception of a few scenes being filmed in Newcastle. Wolverhampton on screen was actually Beeston, Nottinghamshire and even an indoor scene in a Spanish pub was actually filmed also on location in Beeston.

It does take a very keen eyed viewer to notice that it is not where it says it is on screen, but many die hard fans of the show, will know exact spots where the cast such as Jimmy Nail and Kevin Whately stood and said there lines.

In 2002, the show was revived by the BBC, and places such as Middlesbrough were used. Newcastle was used also this time, and the show spread it's wings wide and filming was also done on location in Page, Arizona, USA.

2004, saw the 4th and also last 2 episodes of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet being shown on UK screens. This time the location on screen was Cuba, but as they could not acquire a license to film their, the Dominican Republic was used instead. At the end of 2004 2 episodes were shown over the Christmas period, and this brought an end to almost 25 years of the show being on our screens. Thailand was used on screen for these 2 final episodes, featuring 5 of the original cast. Sadly in 1986, Gary Holton died whilst filming the second series of the show, and then in 2004 Pat Roach died of cancer, and did not appear in the final episodes.

If you are going to travel around the UK or even the world looking for Auf Wiedersehen, Pet locations, then please remember that many of these places are private property. I have always been welcomed to the places I have visited, and most love the fast that their property or land was used on such an iconic tv show. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Wes Anderson's Throwback 'Moonrise Kingdom' Brings Innocent Quirkiness to the Forefront

We've all been there. We've all felt detached at some point, with the need to make some sort of genuine connection. Whether it be as a child, feeling left out of the more popular kids' game of tag or as an on-the-go adult with very little personal time, let alone time to find some smidgeon of companionship with a partner. How about being a child, with multiple siblings, feeling total estrangement from your parents - who are both there, but really aren't? These are all themes explored by indie filmmaker Wes Anderson's latest little film; the quirky, cute and sometimes hilarious Moonrise Kingdom.

Despite being the supreme film buff that I am, it pains me to let you (indie film purists) know that I would be leading you astray, via a bold faced lie, if I sat here and claimed I feel Wes Anderson to be the GOD of all things cinematic. That's simply not true, in my very humble opinion of course. As sarcastic and dry as I can be, nor am I a big fan of his style of humor. However, I completely get it - and on occasion - he'll catch me off guard, having written lines (when delivered properly, by the right actor) that will come off in absolute gut-busting fashion. See Gene Hackman and Danny Glover's kitchen exchange in The Royal Tenenbaums for proof. Moonrise Kingdom is no exception to this rule. Anderson's uncomfortably longer-than-usual takes, awkward scene transitions and character interactions leave you feeling like you're seeing too much past what was originally intended. Like watching a neighbor walk through their front door, only to peek through the side window (not that we've ever done anything that sick...what are we, voyeurs?)...moving on.

In Moonrise Kingdom, we follow a 1965 New England Boy Scout Troup, headed by Scout Master Ward (played brilliantly simple by Edward Norton) as he sets out with his group of gangly boys to find young scout Sam (the talented Jared Gilman) who has apparently given up and gone AWOL, having fallen in love with little, eerily dark Suzy (Kara Hayward), with whom he feels a genuine enough connection to flee. Needless to say, on a small (but larger than you might think) island, two missing 11 year olds can be cause for panic, despite Sam's "commendable" scouting abilities. Ward and his khaki scouts, flanked by Suzy's worn down, together-for-the-kids, attorney parents (Bill Murray and Francis McDormand), Bruce Willis' subtly hilarious Captain Sharp and Tilda Swinton as Social Services, who is disturbingly hellbent on retrieving abandoned children, turn the small town upside down looking for the runaways.

At each and every turn, we find someone trying to make a connection with someone else. Either that, or fleeing any situation where a connection hasn't been or can't quite be made, in utter desperation. There is simply no denying Anderson has a phenomenal eye, using unconventional methods of cutting - as opposed to the 180 degree line when shooting two people in conversation - he'll shoot a medium angle of both subjects perpendicular to the action or cut back and forth, straight on, between the subjects and their interaction. It's completely awkward, but really allows the viewer to access the full emotional range given by the actors, who are all wonderful here. Particularly Gilmore and Hayward, who anchor the film in innocence.

Seeing the sense of urgency, created out of the burning desire to be wanted, reminds us of just how fast kids of today are growing up and becoming "old souls" too far ahead of their time. Let's face it, half of the technological breaches of the world, post 2000 have been accomplished by prepubescents who haven't stopped wetting the bed or watching Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. While most parents past 35 still don't know what "LOL" means. Kingdom also happens to come off as a call to parents to be more parental, taking more of an interest in their children and their need for that support structure, lest they run off and attempt to elope at the ripe age of 12...living in a tent on the rocky surface of some small, coastal New England town.

Despite stretches of some slow pacing (par for the course in Anderson's films), with a couple of pretty hilarious cameos from indie faves Harvey Keitel and Jason Schwartzman, as well as a great musical selection, Moonrise Kingdom is innocent fun with a good moral message for everyone. Having the film based in simpler time, where the very same issues being dealt with by people today don't really differ all that much, speaks to Anderson's brilliance as a filmmaker. The juxtaposition offers just enough contrast to make you really pay attention to the things that need tending to in your own life. While not quite as funny as some of his previous offerings, this is another solid character study, masked in a quirky innocence.

3/5 Taped Glasses. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Phyllis and Harold (2008)

In our youth-obsessed culture, something awful happens to people of a certain age. We take away their humanity. Once white hair and wrinkles achieve a certain critical mass, we tend to think of the individual as a mute, taxidermied version of a once vital family member who gets only minimal attention. And when a couple makes it to this stage, they're looked upon as cute and cuddly - we assume happiness and harmony.

Not so with Phyllis and Harold, a captivating documentary by Cindy Kleine. It's an unflinching portrait of her parents' marriage of nearly 60 years that was anything but a storybook romance - and couldn't be told until after the death of her father.

It opens slyly with a scene of Phyllis and Harold Kleine in the kitchen, going about their day-to-day routine. They bicker. They tease. They're cute. And then, there's a cut to Kleine, who addresses the camera and tells us that for as long as she can remember she's been trying to figure out who these people are and why they were together. The answers unfold as a kind of 20th century suburban tragedy.

Harold emerges as a kind of World War II era everyman - a dentist version of the guys on Mad Men - confident and primed for success in the upper end of the post-war middle class, determined to provide his wife and two daughters with all the material comfort he can afford. He exhaustively documented his family's life, taking photographs and home movies of daily events and the globetrotting vacations he lavished on his wife. His version of their life together is a happy one.

Phyllis has a different take altogether. From her first words, Phyllis paints a picture of regret, of having settled. It's a naked confession that blows the movie wide open and turns it into something completely other than what I expected. The source of regret is an affair with a married man that began before she married Harold, but carried on into their first years as husband and wife.

Kleine interviews her parents separately, and what is striking is how alike they view the facts of their marriage, but how differently the meaning. Their interviews are intercut to a chilling effect - underscoring how people so close for so long can yet be miles apart.

Phyllis ended the affair after five years, unwilling to walk out and unable to live with the stress of a double-life. "I didn't see how you could build a building on such a hurtful relationship - all the hurt we would inflict," she said. The man "disappeared to California. But I never stopped thinking about him."

Harold, oblivious to the affair, focused on his career and a string of real estate investments, while Phyllis decorated the house and focused on their social life. Their housekeeper took care of the girls and was a source of comfort in the midst of their parents' constant battles. The Kleines come across as a family in a David Sedaris story. Phyllis systematically turned her daughters against her father through the use of secrets - withholding information from Harold that would anger or hurt him - so that, despite her emotional distance, the three were unified by a common enemy.

I would have liked to have heard more about Harold - gotten his side of the story - but I understand why Kleine gave a pat explanation for him and pushed him to the background. Secrets. That, and her mother's interviews are mesmerizing. There's a confessional quality to them that borders on the voyeuristic to watch - her emotions ranging from shame and regret to pure joy as she reflects on her true love. It's a rare glimpse into an aspect of marriage that's almost never explored this honestly.

Harold never learned of his wife's secret. He died during the making of the documentary, alleviating his youngest daughter of the burden of what to do with such hurtful material. And with him out of the way, the daughters help orchestrate a reunion with the man who siphoned off so much of their mother's attention over the years. It made me want to know more about Harold - what he did to make it so easy for his daughters to discount the betrayal and facilitate their mother's wishes.

It's easy to judge, but I'm betting we all walk around with secrets, shame, and guilt that we never confess. Cindy Kleine has given us a document of one woman's unrepentant confession, and though it may be painful to watch, it's impossible to turn away.

youtube.com/watch?v=TvmFG8JEWqU&feature=related. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Home Vs Commercial Use Inflatable Movie Screens, Difference In Quality

Since the invention of the first inflatable movie screen by AIRSCREEN of Germany in 1994, many different styles of blowup movie screens have come on the market. While all of the same purpose which is to be a portable means for showing movies outdoors, there are some notable differences in a home use and commercial use outdoor screen system.

HOME USE INFLATABLE MOVIE SCREENS
Home use inflatable screens are usually small in size and are meant for a group showing of 10-15 people which is ideal for a backyard movie night. The quality of materials used on a home use screen is similar to that of a blow up snowman decorations sold in big box stores. To keep the cost down for the personal use market, the manufactures use light-weight thin materials. Light-weight materials also allow for the projection screen to easy to manage and store in small places. Equipped with thin tether ropes, small push stakes, and a fan, the blow screen system is easy to install in minutes in a grassy area of a home yard.

Since the home use portable projection screens have small fans (not blowers) with lightweight materials, the screen frame is not able to stay firm which will case the white projection surface to wrinkle which will affect the picture quality. Starting at a price point of $199, home use inflatable movie screens are affordable for the do-it-your homeowner who desires to host a backyard movie themselves.

COMMERCIAL USE
Consumers looking to buy a screen for home use may find that some manufactures are offering larger sized "commercial screens." Don't be fooled by these larger screens that the manufactures are trying to advertise as commercial. These screens are a lot lower quality than normal commercial screens made of cheaper, thinner materials that may start to have leaks after a short period of time. Typically manufactures selling these screen also sell products such as holiday decorations, and don't have the experience creating a stable, quality commercial movie screen.

One way to tell a true commercial screen is to look for a screen that is made of a heavier weight material such as reinforced PVC. The stronger material with welded or double stitched seams will result in a stronger frame which will be aesthetically wrinkle free as well as be able to withstand wind because of its more solid, stiffer structure. The thicker material and stronger seams also increase the longevity of use of the screen where as after a few uses with a home quality screen you will start to notice leaks which will progressively get worse with every use.

Another area that a commercial screen focuses on is safety. The larger the screen surface, the more impact wind can have on the screen. Similar to a giant sail on a boat, the screen will want to take flight with a strong enough gust of wind. To keep the screen from flying away and potentially injuring the crowd, you will find a minimum of six tether straps with 24? or longer tent stakes on a high quality commercial screen system.

Third a true commercial grade inflatable outdoor movie screen should have a theatrical grade or highly reflective screen surface similar to an indoor movie theater screen. A theatrical grade screen when paired with the correct projection system will produce a vibrant, crisp and colorful picture.

There are many clear, noticeable differences between the quality of a home screen system versus a high quality commercial grade screen system. Although home screens can be alright for using once or twice in a backyard, a commercial screen system will offer an outdoor cinema experience that just can't be matched by a home screen system. From a elegant, highly reflective screen surface, to a safety system that can withhold moderate to strong winds, hiring a professional outdoor movie company will be the correct decision for an unforgettable outdoor movie experience. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Home Vs Commercial Use Inflatable Movie Screens, Difference In Quality

Since the invention of the first inflatable movie screen by AIRSCREEN of Germany in 1994, many different styles of blowup movie screens have come on the market. While all of the same purpose which is to be a portable means for showing movies outdoors, there are some notable differences in a home use and commercial use outdoor screen system.

HOME USE INFLATABLE MOVIE SCREENS
Home use inflatable screens are usually small in size and are meant for a group showing of 10-15 people which is ideal for a backyard movie night. The quality of materials used on a home use screen is similar to that of a blow up snowman decorations sold in big box stores. To keep the cost down for the personal use market, the manufactures use light-weight thin materials. Light-weight materials also allow for the projection screen to easy to manage and store in small places. Equipped with thin tether ropes, small push stakes, and a fan, the blow screen system is easy to install in minutes in a grassy area of a home yard.

Since the home use portable projection screens have small fans (not blowers) with lightweight materials, the screen frame is not able to stay firm which will case the white projection surface to wrinkle which will affect the picture quality. Starting at a price point of $199, home use inflatable movie screens are affordable for the do-it-your homeowner who desires to host a backyard movie themselves.

COMMERCIAL USE
Consumers looking to buy a screen for home use may find that some manufactures are offering larger sized "commercial screens." Don't be fooled by these larger screens that the manufactures are trying to advertise as commercial. These screens are a lot lower quality than normal commercial screens made of cheaper, thinner materials that may start to have leaks after a short period of time. Typically manufactures selling these screen also sell products such as holiday decorations, and don't have the experience creating a stable, quality commercial movie screen.

One way to tell a true commercial screen is to look for a screen that is made of a heavier weight material such as reinforced PVC. The stronger material with welded or double stitched seams will result in a stronger frame which will be aesthetically wrinkle free as well as be able to withstand wind because of its more solid, stiffer structure. The thicker material and stronger seams also increase the longevity of use of the screen where as after a few uses with a home quality screen you will start to notice leaks which will progressively get worse with every use.

Another area that a commercial screen focuses on is safety. The larger the screen surface, the more impact wind can have on the screen. Similar to a giant sail on a boat, the screen will want to take flight with a strong enough gust of wind. To keep the screen from flying away and potentially injuring the crowd, you will find a minimum of six tether straps with 24? or longer tent stakes on a high quality commercial screen system.

Third a true commercial grade inflatable outdoor movie screen should have a theatrical grade or highly reflective screen surface similar to an indoor movie theater screen. A theatrical grade screen when paired with the correct projection system will produce a vibrant, crisp and colorful picture.

There are many clear, noticeable differences between the quality of a home screen system versus a high quality commercial grade screen system. Although home screens can be alright for using once or twice in a backyard, a commercial screen system will offer an outdoor cinema experience that just can't be matched by a home screen system. From a elegant, highly reflective screen surface, to a safety system that can withhold moderate to strong winds, hiring a professional outdoor movie company will be the correct decision for an unforgettable outdoor movie experience. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Auf Wiedersehen, Pet Locations

When the show hit our screens in the early 1980's, it was the time before the internet, so finding out information like where the show was filmed was not easy. In modern times, you simply have to type in what you are looking for, and within seconds you have your answer.

Filming for the first 2 series of the show was mostly done in the UK, with London, Newcastle and Nottingham being used for outdoor locations. In series 1, many locations around London doubled on screen for areas of Newcastle, with only keen eyed viewers in 1983 knowing the difference.

In 1986, the show returned to our screens for a second series, and locations such as Newcastle, Wolverhampton and Spain being used on screen. Nottinghamshire was used for almost all of the UK filming, with the exception of a few scenes being filmed in Newcastle. Wolverhampton on screen was actually Beeston, Nottinghamshire and even an indoor scene in a Spanish pub was actually filmed also on location in Beeston.

It does take a very keen eyed viewer to notice that it is not where it says it is on screen, but many die hard fans of the show, will know exact spots where the cast such as Jimmy Nail and Kevin Whately stood and said there lines.

In 2002, the show was revived by the BBC, and places such as Middlesbrough were used. Newcastle was used also this time, and the show spread it's wings wide and filming was also done on location in Page, Arizona, USA.

2004, saw the 4th and also last 2 episodes of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet being shown on UK screens. This time the location on screen was Cuba, but as they could not acquire a license to film their, the Dominican Republic was used instead. At the end of 2004 2 episodes were shown over the Christmas period, and this brought an end to almost 25 years of the show being on our screens. Thailand was used on screen for these 2 final episodes, featuring 5 of the original cast. Sadly in 1986, Gary Holton died whilst filming the second series of the show, and then in 2004 Pat Roach died of cancer, and did not appear in the final episodes.

If you are going to travel around the UK or even the world looking for Auf Wiedersehen, Pet locations, then please remember that many of these places are private property. I have always been welcomed to the places I have visited, and most love the fast that their property or land was used on such an iconic tv show. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Wes Anderson's Throwback 'Moonrise Kingdom' Brings Innocent Quirkiness to the Forefront

We've all been there. We've all felt detached at some point, with the need to make some sort of genuine connection. Whether it be as a child, feeling left out of the more popular kids' game of tag or as an on-the-go adult with very little personal time, let alone time to find some smidgeon of companionship with a partner. How about being a child, with multiple siblings, feeling total estrangement from your parents - who are both there, but really aren't? These are all themes explored by indie filmmaker Wes Anderson's latest little film; the quirky, cute and sometimes hilarious Moonrise Kingdom.

Despite being the supreme film buff that I am, it pains me to let you (indie film purists) know that I would be leading you astray, via a bold faced lie, if I sat here and claimed I feel Wes Anderson to be the GOD of all things cinematic. That's simply not true, in my very humble opinion of course. As sarcastic and dry as I can be, nor am I a big fan of his style of humor. However, I completely get it - and on occasion - he'll catch me off guard, having written lines (when delivered properly, by the right actor) that will come off in absolute gut-busting fashion. See Gene Hackman and Danny Glover's kitchen exchange in The Royal Tenenbaums for proof. Moonrise Kingdom is no exception to this rule. Anderson's uncomfortably longer-than-usual takes, awkward scene transitions and character interactions leave you feeling like you're seeing too much past what was originally intended. Like watching a neighbor walk through their front door, only to peek through the side window (not that we've ever done anything that sick...what are we, voyeurs?)...moving on.

In Moonrise Kingdom, we follow a 1965 New England Boy Scout Troup, headed by Scout Master Ward (played brilliantly simple by Edward Norton) as he sets out with his group of gangly boys to find young scout Sam (the talented Jared Gilman) who has apparently given up and gone AWOL, having fallen in love with little, eerily dark Suzy (Kara Hayward), with whom he feels a genuine enough connection to flee. Needless to say, on a small (but larger than you might think) island, two missing 11 year olds can be cause for panic, despite Sam's "commendable" scouting abilities. Ward and his khaki scouts, flanked by Suzy's worn down, together-for-the-kids, attorney parents (Bill Murray and Francis McDormand), Bruce Willis' subtly hilarious Captain Sharp and Tilda Swinton as Social Services, who is disturbingly hellbent on retrieving abandoned children, turn the small town upside down looking for the runaways.

At each and every turn, we find someone trying to make a connection with someone else. Either that, or fleeing any situation where a connection hasn't been or can't quite be made, in utter desperation. There is simply no denying Anderson has a phenomenal eye, using unconventional methods of cutting - as opposed to the 180 degree line when shooting two people in conversation - he'll shoot a medium angle of both subjects perpendicular to the action or cut back and forth, straight on, between the subjects and their interaction. It's completely awkward, but really allows the viewer to access the full emotional range given by the actors, who are all wonderful here. Particularly Gilmore and Hayward, who anchor the film in innocence.

Seeing the sense of urgency, created out of the burning desire to be wanted, reminds us of just how fast kids of today are growing up and becoming "old souls" too far ahead of their time. Let's face it, half of the technological breaches of the world, post 2000 have been accomplished by prepubescents who haven't stopped wetting the bed or watching Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. While most parents past 35 still don't know what "LOL" means. Kingdom also happens to come off as a call to parents to be more parental, taking more of an interest in their children and their need for that support structure, lest they run off and attempt to elope at the ripe age of 12...living in a tent on the rocky surface of some small, coastal New England town.

Despite stretches of some slow pacing (par for the course in Anderson's films), with a couple of pretty hilarious cameos from indie faves Harvey Keitel and Jason Schwartzman, as well as a great musical selection, Moonrise Kingdom is innocent fun with a good moral message for everyone. Having the film based in simpler time, where the very same issues being dealt with by people today don't really differ all that much, speaks to Anderson's brilliance as a filmmaker. The juxtaposition offers just enough contrast to make you really pay attention to the things that need tending to in your own life. While not quite as funny as some of his previous offerings, this is another solid character study, masked in a quirky innocence.

3/5 Taped Glasses. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Phyllis and Harold (2008)

In our youth-obsessed culture, something awful happens to people of a certain age. We take away their humanity. Once white hair and wrinkles achieve a certain critical mass, we tend to think of the individual as a mute, taxidermied version of a once vital family member who gets only minimal attention. And when a couple makes it to this stage, they're looked upon as cute and cuddly - we assume happiness and harmony.

Not so with Phyllis and Harold, a captivating documentary by Cindy Kleine. It's an unflinching portrait of her parents' marriage of nearly 60 years that was anything but a storybook romance - and couldn't be told until after the death of her father.

It opens slyly with a scene of Phyllis and Harold Kleine in the kitchen, going about their day-to-day routine. They bicker. They tease. They're cute. And then, there's a cut to Kleine, who addresses the camera and tells us that for as long as she can remember she's been trying to figure out who these people are and why they were together. The answers unfold as a kind of 20th century suburban tragedy.

Harold emerges as a kind of World War II era everyman - a dentist version of the guys on Mad Men - confident and primed for success in the upper end of the post-war middle class, determined to provide his wife and two daughters with all the material comfort he can afford. He exhaustively documented his family's life, taking photographs and home movies of daily events and the globetrotting vacations he lavished on his wife. His version of their life together is a happy one.

Phyllis has a different take altogether. From her first words, Phyllis paints a picture of regret, of having settled. It's a naked confession that blows the movie wide open and turns it into something completely other than what I expected. The source of regret is an affair with a married man that began before she married Harold, but carried on into their first years as husband and wife.

Kleine interviews her parents separately, and what is striking is how alike they view the facts of their marriage, but how differently the meaning. Their interviews are intercut to a chilling effect - underscoring how people so close for so long can yet be miles apart.

Phyllis ended the affair after five years, unwilling to walk out and unable to live with the stress of a double-life. "I didn't see how you could build a building on such a hurtful relationship - all the hurt we would inflict," she said. The man "disappeared to California. But I never stopped thinking about him."

Harold, oblivious to the affair, focused on his career and a string of real estate investments, while Phyllis decorated the house and focused on their social life. Their housekeeper took care of the girls and was a source of comfort in the midst of their parents' constant battles. The Kleines come across as a family in a David Sedaris story. Phyllis systematically turned her daughters against her father through the use of secrets - withholding information from Harold that would anger or hurt him - so that, despite her emotional distance, the three were unified by a common enemy.

I would have liked to have heard more about Harold - gotten his side of the story - but I understand why Kleine gave a pat explanation for him and pushed him to the background. Secrets. That, and her mother's interviews are mesmerizing. There's a confessional quality to them that borders on the voyeuristic to watch - her emotions ranging from shame and regret to pure joy as she reflects on her true love. It's a rare glimpse into an aspect of marriage that's almost never explored this honestly.

Harold never learned of his wife's secret. He died during the making of the documentary, alleviating his youngest daughter of the burden of what to do with such hurtful material. And with him out of the way, the daughters help orchestrate a reunion with the man who siphoned off so much of their mother's attention over the years. It made me want to know more about Harold - what he did to make it so easy for his daughters to discount the betrayal and facilitate their mother's wishes.

It's easy to judge, but I'm betting we all walk around with secrets, shame, and guilt that we never confess. Cindy Kleine has given us a document of one woman's unrepentant confession, and though it may be painful to watch, it's impossible to turn away.

youtube.com/watch?v=TvmFG8JEWqU&feature=related. 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.

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.