Movie is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of movie as an art form, and the motion picture industry. Movies are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects.
Movies are cultural artifacts created by specific cultures, which reflect those cultures, and, in turn, affect them. Movie is considered to be an important art form, a source of popular entertainment, and a powerful method for educating — or indoctrinating — citizens. The visual elements of cinema give motion pictures a universal power of communication; some movies have become popular worldwide attractions by using dubbing or subtitles that translate the dialogue.
Traditional Movies are made up of a series of individual images called frames. When these images are shown rapidly in succession, a viewer has the illusion that motion is occurring. The viewer cannot see the flickering between frames due to an effect known as persistence of vision, whereby the eye retains a visual image for a fraction of a second after the source has been removed. Viewers perceive motion due to a psychological effect called beta movement.
The origin of the name "film" comes from the fact that photographic film (also called film stock) had historically been the primary medium for recording and displaying motion pictures. Many other terms exist for an individual motion picture, including picture, picture show, photo-play, flick, and most commonly, movie. Additional terms for the field in general include the big screen, the silver screen, the cinema, and the movies.
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Film is still a relative newcomer in the pantheon of fine arts
While motion picture films have been around for more than a century, film is still a relative newcomer in the pantheon of fine arts. In the 1950s, when television became widely available, industry analysts predicted the demise of local movie theaters. Despite competition from television's increasing technological sophistication over the 1960s and 1970s, such as the development of color television and large screens, motion picture cinemas continued. In the 1980s, when the widespread availability of inexpensive videocassette recorders enabled people to select films for home viewing, industry analysts again wrongly predicted the death of the local cinemas.
In the 1990s and 2000s the development of digital DVD players, home theater amplification systems with surround sound and subwoofers, and large LCD or plasma screens enabled people to select and view films at home with greatly improved audio and visual reproduction. These new technologies provided audio and visual that in the past only local cinemas had been able to provide: a large, clear widescreen presentation of a film with a full-range, high-quality multi-speaker sound system. Once again industry analysts predicted the demise of the local cinema. Local cinemas will be changing in the 2000s and moving towards digital screens, a new approach which will allow for easier and quicker distribution of films (via satellite or hard disks), a development which may give local theaters a reprieve from their predicted demise.
The cinema now faces a new challenge from home video by the likes of a new DVD format Blu-ray, which can provide full HD 1080p video playback at near cinema quality. Video formats are gradually catching up with the resolutions and quality that film offers, 1080p in Blu-ray offers a pixel resolution of 1920?1080 a leap from the DVD offering of 720?480 and the paltry 330?480 offered by the first home video standard VHS. The maximum resolutions that film currently offers are 2485?2970 or 1420?3390, UHD, a future digital video format, will offer a massive resolution of 7680?4320, surpassing all current film resolutions. The only viable competitor to these new innovations is IMAX which can play film content at an extreme 10000?7000 resolution.
Despite the rise of all new technologies, the development of the home video market and a surge of online piracy, 2007 was a record year in film that showed the highest ever box-office grosses. Many expected film to suffer as a result of the effects listed above but it has flourished, strengthening film studio expectations for the future.
In the 1990s and 2000s the development of digital DVD players, home theater amplification systems with surround sound and subwoofers, and large LCD or plasma screens enabled people to select and view films at home with greatly improved audio and visual reproduction. These new technologies provided audio and visual that in the past only local cinemas had been able to provide: a large, clear widescreen presentation of a film with a full-range, high-quality multi-speaker sound system. Once again industry analysts predicted the demise of the local cinema. Local cinemas will be changing in the 2000s and moving towards digital screens, a new approach which will allow for easier and quicker distribution of films (via satellite or hard disks), a development which may give local theaters a reprieve from their predicted demise.
The cinema now faces a new challenge from home video by the likes of a new DVD format Blu-ray, which can provide full HD 1080p video playback at near cinema quality. Video formats are gradually catching up with the resolutions and quality that film offers, 1080p in Blu-ray offers a pixel resolution of 1920?1080 a leap from the DVD offering of 720?480 and the paltry 330?480 offered by the first home video standard VHS. The maximum resolutions that film currently offers are 2485?2970 or 1420?3390, UHD, a future digital video format, will offer a massive resolution of 7680?4320, surpassing all current film resolutions. The only viable competitor to these new innovations is IMAX which can play film content at an extreme 10000?7000 resolution.
Despite the rise of all new technologies, the development of the home video market and a surge of online piracy, 2007 was a record year in film that showed the highest ever box-office grosses. Many expected film to suffer as a result of the effects listed above but it has flourished, strengthening film studio expectations for the future.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Film criticism is the analysis and evaluation of films
Film criticism is the analysis and evaluation of films. In general, these works can be divided into two categories: academic criticism by film scholars and journalistic film criticism that appears regularly in newspapers and other media.
Film critics working for newspapers, magazines, and broadcast media mainly review new releases. Normally they only see any given film once and have only a day or two to formulate opinions. Despite this, critics have an important impact on films, especially those of certain genres. Mass marketed action, horror, and comedy films tend not to be greatly affected by a critic's overall judgment of a film. The plot summary and description of a film that makes up the majority of any film review can still have an important impact on whether people decide to see a film. For prestige films such as most dramas, the influence of reviews is extremely important. Poor reviews will often doom a film to obscurity and financial loss.
The impact of a reviewer on a given film's box office performance is a matter of debate. Some claim that movie marketing is now so intense and well financed that reviewers cannot make an impact against it. However, the cataclysmic failure of some heavily-promoted movies which were harshly reviewed, as well as the unexpected success of critically praised independent movies indicates that extreme critical reactions can have considerable influence. Others note that positive film reviews have been shown to spark interest in little-known films. Conversely, there have been several films in which film companies have so little confidence that they refuse to give reviewers an advanced viewing to avoid widespread panning of the film. However, this usually backfires as reviewers are wise to the tactic and warn the public that the film may not be worth seeing and the films often do poorly as a result.
It is argued that journalist film critics should only be known as film reviewers, and true film critics are those who take a more academic approach to films. This line of work is more often known as film theory or film studies. These film critics attempt to come to understand how film and filming techniques work, and what effect they have on people. Rather than having their works published in newspapers or appear on television, their articles are published in scholarly journals, or sometimes in up-market magazines. They also tend to be affiliated with colleges or universities.
Film critics working for newspapers, magazines, and broadcast media mainly review new releases. Normally they only see any given film once and have only a day or two to formulate opinions. Despite this, critics have an important impact on films, especially those of certain genres. Mass marketed action, horror, and comedy films tend not to be greatly affected by a critic's overall judgment of a film. The plot summary and description of a film that makes up the majority of any film review can still have an important impact on whether people decide to see a film. For prestige films such as most dramas, the influence of reviews is extremely important. Poor reviews will often doom a film to obscurity and financial loss.
The impact of a reviewer on a given film's box office performance is a matter of debate. Some claim that movie marketing is now so intense and well financed that reviewers cannot make an impact against it. However, the cataclysmic failure of some heavily-promoted movies which were harshly reviewed, as well as the unexpected success of critically praised independent movies indicates that extreme critical reactions can have considerable influence. Others note that positive film reviews have been shown to spark interest in little-known films. Conversely, there have been several films in which film companies have so little confidence that they refuse to give reviewers an advanced viewing to avoid widespread panning of the film. However, this usually backfires as reviewers are wise to the tactic and warn the public that the film may not be worth seeing and the films often do poorly as a result.
It is argued that journalist film critics should only be known as film reviewers, and true film critics are those who take a more academic approach to films. This line of work is more often known as film theory or film studies. These film critics attempt to come to understand how film and filming techniques work, and what effect they have on people. Rather than having their works published in newspapers or appear on television, their articles are published in scholarly journals, or sometimes in up-market magazines. They also tend to be affiliated with colleges or universities.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Black Christmas movie review
This festive fright-fest was a nice surprise from what I was originally expecting. This is another horror remake (from the people behind ‘Final Destination’ – great film), but un-like so many others; it did manage to come up trumps; such as ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ This is a remake of Bob Clarke’s 1974 classic slasher movie, ‘Black Christmas’; which actually came four years before John Carpenter’s ‘Halloween’. Some fans lay claim that it was the original slasher flick.
From the outside, this looks like just another of your basic ‘there’s a psycho hacking up a bunch of pretty girls, who are running up the stairs instead of out of the door,’ and to a certain extent that’s correct, it’s the way this is conveyed which is interesting and enticing to watch.
The story: crazed killer, Billy Lenz, escapes his psychiatric ward and is determined to make it to his childhood home, where he was abused, by Christmas. Problem is, it’s years later and the home is now a Sorority house. It’s Christmas Eve and a who’s who of teen/horror girl stars are there to welcome him, including Melissa (Michelle Trachtenberg , ‘Buffy the vampire slayer’ fame), Heather (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, ‘Final Destination 3’), Dana (Lacey Chabert, ‘Mean Girls’) and Kelli (Katie Cassidy, ‘When a stranger calls’ remake.)
This movie is actually pretty good, it has a constant feeling of being watched that runs right through it and adds a sparkle to the scares, and the tension is kept high. The actresses, although spouting some awful lines at times, also say some good ones. The acting is good, and because most of the leading ladies are stars, and most of them horror stars, the audience doesn’t guess which one is going to make it to the rolling credits. The story-line builds well, and there is a mounting tension, as the killer first phones the girls, and then starts to do away with them.
A similar storyline to the original ‘Halloween’, with a killer coming home for the holidays, there are also many similar P.O.V shots of the killer, watching the girls throughout the house. The Christmas theme bleeds in nicely with the plot, and it comes across in places (especially, the flash-backs to Billy Lenz’s childhood) like something, director, Tim Burton, would dream up. The film gets darker and darker as we move through it, with some very violent scenes, and the music by Shirley Walker is great; capturing horror and Christmas all in one twisted melody. Also, the use of red and green lighting throughout (owed to Christmas) is very cool, and creates a great atmosphere.
Due to it being set in a Sorority house, and this no longer being 1974, some of the dialogue just doesn’t cut it. I can’t imagine many of these girls’ staying in the house with a crazed serial killer, just because they can’t find their ‘sorority sister,’ believable in 2007 – sad, but true. There is, unfortunately, the obligatory shower scene, but it’s used for scares, not thrills, and so works.
Right from the start you can tell, this isn’t your usual run of the mill slasher, it actually has a back story, and we do find ourselves caring for some of the characters, for example, Kelli, played by Katie Cassidy is great; plus if you hated ‘Dawn’ in ‘Buffy the vampire slayer’ – you are gonna love this movie.
From the outside, this looks like just another of your basic ‘there’s a psycho hacking up a bunch of pretty girls, who are running up the stairs instead of out of the door,’ and to a certain extent that’s correct, it’s the way this is conveyed which is interesting and enticing to watch.
The story: crazed killer, Billy Lenz, escapes his psychiatric ward and is determined to make it to his childhood home, where he was abused, by Christmas. Problem is, it’s years later and the home is now a Sorority house. It’s Christmas Eve and a who’s who of teen/horror girl stars are there to welcome him, including Melissa (Michelle Trachtenberg , ‘Buffy the vampire slayer’ fame), Heather (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, ‘Final Destination 3’), Dana (Lacey Chabert, ‘Mean Girls’) and Kelli (Katie Cassidy, ‘When a stranger calls’ remake.)
This movie is actually pretty good, it has a constant feeling of being watched that runs right through it and adds a sparkle to the scares, and the tension is kept high. The actresses, although spouting some awful lines at times, also say some good ones. The acting is good, and because most of the leading ladies are stars, and most of them horror stars, the audience doesn’t guess which one is going to make it to the rolling credits. The story-line builds well, and there is a mounting tension, as the killer first phones the girls, and then starts to do away with them.
A similar storyline to the original ‘Halloween’, with a killer coming home for the holidays, there are also many similar P.O.V shots of the killer, watching the girls throughout the house. The Christmas theme bleeds in nicely with the plot, and it comes across in places (especially, the flash-backs to Billy Lenz’s childhood) like something, director, Tim Burton, would dream up. The film gets darker and darker as we move through it, with some very violent scenes, and the music by Shirley Walker is great; capturing horror and Christmas all in one twisted melody. Also, the use of red and green lighting throughout (owed to Christmas) is very cool, and creates a great atmosphere.
Due to it being set in a Sorority house, and this no longer being 1974, some of the dialogue just doesn’t cut it. I can’t imagine many of these girls’ staying in the house with a crazed serial killer, just because they can’t find their ‘sorority sister,’ believable in 2007 – sad, but true. There is, unfortunately, the obligatory shower scene, but it’s used for scares, not thrills, and so works.
Right from the start you can tell, this isn’t your usual run of the mill slasher, it actually has a back story, and we do find ourselves caring for some of the characters, for example, Kelli, played by Katie Cassidy is great; plus if you hated ‘Dawn’ in ‘Buffy the vampire slayer’ – you are gonna love this movie.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Animation is the technique in which each frame of a film is produced individually
Animation is the technique in which each frame of a film is produced individually, whether generated as a computer graphic, or by photographing a drawn image, or by repeatedly making small changes to a model unit (see claymation and stop motion), and then photographing the result with a special animation camera. When the frames are strung together and the resulting film is viewed at a speed of 16 or more frames per second, there is an illusion of continuous movement (due to the persistence of vision). Generating such a film is very labour intensive and tedious, though the development of computer animation has greatly sped up the process.
File formats like GIF, QuickTime, Shockwave and Flash allow animation to be viewed on a computer or over the Internet.
Because animation is very time-consuming and often very expensive to produce, the majority of animation for TV and movies comes from professional animation studios. However, the field of independent animation has existed at least since the 1950s, with animation being produced by independent studios (and sometimes by a single person). Several independent animation producers have gone on to enter the professional animation industry.
Limited animation is a way of increasing production and decreasing costs of animation by using "short cuts" in the animation process. This method was pioneered by UPA and popularized by Hanna-Barbera, and adapted by other studios as cartoons moved from movie theaters to television.[3]
Although most animation studios are now using digital technologies in their productions, there is a specific style of animation that depends on film. Cameraless animation, made famous by moviemakers like Norman McLaren, Len Lye and Stan Brakhage, is painted and drawn directly onto pieces of film, and then run through a projector.
File formats like GIF, QuickTime, Shockwave and Flash allow animation to be viewed on a computer or over the Internet.
Because animation is very time-consuming and often very expensive to produce, the majority of animation for TV and movies comes from professional animation studios. However, the field of independent animation has existed at least since the 1950s, with animation being produced by independent studios (and sometimes by a single person). Several independent animation producers have gone on to enter the professional animation industry.
Limited animation is a way of increasing production and decreasing costs of animation by using "short cuts" in the animation process. This method was pioneered by UPA and popularized by Hanna-Barbera, and adapted by other studios as cartoons moved from movie theaters to television.[3]
Although most animation studios are now using digital technologies in their productions, there is a specific style of animation that depends on film. Cameraless animation, made famous by moviemakers like Norman McLaren, Len Lye and Stan Brakhage, is painted and drawn directly onto pieces of film, and then run through a projector.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Al Gore’s Inconvenient Infomercial: A Movie Review
Who is the chubby, aging baby boomer waddling through airport after empty airport, wearily tugging along his 2-piece luggage roller? Hey, it’s not Michael Moore (again). Why, for heaven’s sake, it’s none other than a bored, disgruntled Al Gore, Jr. – the Man Who Personally Believes He Coulda/Woulda/Shoulda Been King! Well, at least Saturday Night Live believed him. Instead of ruling the Western World with a Green Fist, he’s starred in a new movie persuading us to stop using up so much energy. Meanwhile, Al Gore Jr. cruises about foreign capitals in one gas-guzzling, chauffeured Mercedes after another, pondering one very deep thought after another while solemnly tapping away on his Mac Powerbook. Earth to Al Gore: Actor Steven Seagal already nailed down the slick but glazed ‘poseur look’ about nine movies ago.
Is “An Inconvenient Truth” a documentary about Global Warming, or Al Gore’s microphone-grabbing, spotlight-snatching platform to whine about, and revisit, his presidential election loss, six years ago? Is former Veep Gore really hoping to educate film audiences about the very serious dangers of carbon dioxide emissions, greenhouse gases and abrupt climate change, or conniving to create a multi-media white paper for the Democratic Party’s energy agenda? We’re not sure, actually. Perhaps, it is because Al Gore, and the film’s executive producer Davis Guggenheim, were themselves confused as to the direction in which they were heading with this narcissistic political propaganda.
C’mon, a former high-profile Vice President of the United States shuffling through airport security like the rest of us hoi polloi? If so, then why didn’t the alarm bells go off? For those who missed it, in one scene Gore wore a belt buckle the size of a small dish, when passing through the airport’s metal detector. And it didn’t screech? Right! Or how about the scene where a pompous Al Gore (sans bodyguards) was hailing a cab in Manhattan, but no one recognized him? Well, perhaps that part was realistic. Who really cares about Al? Was the former #2 man doing a for-the-people inspirational routine, along the lines of “He Walks Among Us,” so that we’d buy his punch line about self-sacrifice at the end of the movie?
The man, who at one time claimed to have invented the Internet, more carefully documented his alleged 30-year personal campaign to help bring Global Warming to a screeching halt. Amazingly, he didn’t include footnotes with his film speech. We’re sure Gore was anticipating the “I invented the Internet” jokes and dutifully prepared his track record for audiences. He shamelessly dredged up memories of his old Harvard science professor, Roger Revelle, whom he once called into congressional hearings to have the scientist warn about CO2 emissions and rising water temperatures.
How seriously can we take ‘Scientist’ Al Gore? In a Washington Post article (March 19, 2000), Al’s grades and scores were questioned, during the presidential campaign, and the assistant headmaster at Gore’s private school, St. Albans, reportedly “chuckled at (Gore’s) science results.” He had scored so poorly.
Gore’s one constant, his glibness, manifests in this quasi-documentary. Mostly it’s a political infomercial, but for whatever reason Gore was so fervently pitching and hyping Al Gore was never made clear. He hasn’t quite grasped how serious the earth’s climactic changes could impact our civilization, other than flicking through multiple photos of receding glaciers and a few other tidbits. Gore mentions we might have 100 million refugees if sea levels rise, as if those many would actually survive. In contrast, Dr. Lovelock, author of “The Revenge of Gaia,” is forecasting the demise of billions of people under the same “earth is melting” scenario. Whom do we believe? We vote Lovelock, not Gore. After all, the politician admits, in a recent Rolling Stone magazine interview, Lovelock has forgotten more science than Gore has ever learned.
Whatever gravity the poseur portrayed during his supercilious narration, and in his deep-thinking (but awkward) poses, Gore nullified these moments with clumsy flashbacks to the 2000 presidential campaign. (Well, Gore reportedly did a lot of drugs in college, so we guess he's entitled to his flashbacks.) While he claimed in his movie to have moved on, the man still sounded downright bitter during this pre-campaigning film farce. His movie oozes contempt for the man who defeated him, and offers the same ill will toward anyone distantly related – family, business or otherwise – to the man who is now President of the United States. For those who helped keep him out of the White House or dissed him? He repays his enemies in a way only a screenwriter could: Gore adds his enemies to his movie.
Gore’s rapid-fire “subliminal images” are cleverly aimed at Florida and the 2000 presidential campaign. Take that Senator Katherine Harris! Guess which state gets submerged first when the polar ice caps melt? You got it, Florida. Of all the lakes in the world which are drying up, Gore selects Lake Chad. For those who have forgotten, it was the notorious “chads,” which cost Gore the presidency. Darn it Al, will you let it go? It’s been six years, you know. You LOST the election!
Film goers should wonder why an ex-tobacco farmer, and erstwhile U.S. presidential candidate (going 0 for 2 on presidential campaigns), has only NOW come out against fossil fuels because of Global Warming. What’s his agenda? To educate the public? If that is the case, then the filmmakers should have focused on the matter at hand – the earth is getting hotter, and we need a solution. Dr. James Lovelock’s mandate is simple: Nuclear energy is the single solution. Listen up, Hillary Clinton – you might have enjoyed Al’s ramblings, and said so in your pretentious New York Press Club speech last May, but where is Gore’s actual solution to the Global Warming crisis?
The self-righteous Al Jr. offers no solution in his movie. Even when asked by an audience in China for his solution, Gore spouts non-sequiturs – political rhetoric, but no word of a solution. The movie director deftly cuts away before Al can look even sillier, while we wonder why Al offered no solution.
The film shows images of a nuclear reactor, a wind farm and running water. Was the blustering Al or his bewildered movie director hoping the audience would choose a solution for them? At least Ross Perot, in his infomercials, had some solution for the ills then facing America. Al has none. Zippo. Nada. Just join Al’s crusade and start driving a hybrid car. Or did he mean a bicycle? After all, in one scene, Al boasts about the Chinese riding their bicycles and flashes a dated photo showing this. Wake up, Al, last we heard, the Chinese were driving Beemers and Benzes, not bicycles. Bikes are reserved for environmentalist weenies who can’t find a real job.
Al seems to be pro-nuclear, but claims there are problems with proliferation and waste disposal. In an interview with Australia’s The Age newspaper, published in November 2005, Gore told the reporter he was not “reflexively against” nuclear energy. Wearing his hat as a fund manager for the Generation Fund, he told the newspaper that investing in uranium mining comes down to sustainability. In another interview with “Grist Magazine’s” David Roberts, published in May of this year, Gore responded to questioning about the nuclear energy renaissance, saying, “ I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.” How’s that for naiveté in the context of dozens of countries having already announced their plans to advance their nuclear energy programs?
Perhaps, Gore will begin touting renewables, as Hillary Clinton has done on behalf of lapdog/energy guru Amory Lovins. We asked third-term Wyoming legislator, David R. Miller, who is also president of a U.S. uranium development company, Strathmore Minerals, about the madness over renewables becoming a serious factor for baseload electricity generation. Miller told us, “We were 100 percent renewable 300 years ago, 50 percent renewable 100 years ago and 30 percent renewable 50 years ago. Now, we are less than 10 percent renewable and shrinking fast.”
About nuclear energy, Miller added, “It nearly unlimited. We are learning to use better technology to make purer energy to do more for us.” Miller’s rebuttal on Al Gore’s message was emphatic, “Those that preach about saving the earth should practice what they speak, but the loudest voices are those that consume the most.” Miller pointed out, “Only the rich and idle have time to rail against too much consumption. But they want you to stop the consuming, not them.”
One could look deeper to better understand Al Gore’s ambiguity toward any solution. For example, is Al Gore’s family still a large shareholder of Occidental Petroleum? After all, his father took a consultancy with a subsidiary of the multi-national oil firm, upon leaving the U.S. Senate in 1970. Just in time to cash in on the oil embargo of 1973, Al Gore’s dad was paid $500,000 per year for his services. Al Gore Sr. also served as a company director. Why was Al Gore’s father on such great terms with Armand Hammer, the founder of Occidental Petroleum? Hammer was a good buddy of Josef Stalin and his Kremlin successors. Hammer’s dad introduced Little Armand to Stalin, who helped him build the Hammer Empire. All this in return for one small favor: Julius Hammer founded the U.S. Communist Party.
Have the sins of the father visited the son? For the past thirty or forty years, Al Gore has allegedly received a “mining royalty” check from Occidental Petroleum for zinc ore discovered on the Gore family property. Reportedly, Al has been paid about $20,000 annually for mining rights to the property. But, that’s just chump change. Long before the Buddhist Temple fund-raising fiasco in Los Angeles, Al Gore was involved in dubious political financings.
We didn’t look that much more deeply into Al Gore. Truthfully, why bother? Gore’s remorse appears rigged; his acting is pathetic. For example, his sister died of lung cancer, before the family stopped growing tobacco. He makes a really big deal about this in his movie (despite his own alleged chain-smoking habits as a college student). But he failed to mention he continued receiving royalties from his tobacco farm for years after his sister died.
Gore also forgot his vivid 1988 presidential election campaign speeches, defending tobacco farmers in the southern United States. Imagine Mr. Clean telling tobacco farmers about how he, himself, tilled the soil with his bare hands and picked dem dar tobacco leaves wit his own fingers! Our research shows Gore continued accepting campaign donations from tobacco companies until at least 1990. Instead of being truthful with his audience, Gore mentioned in passing that the reason he ran for President in 1988 was to give Global Warming some exposure. Hypocrisy or ambivalence? You decide.
In his film, Gore claimed to have changed the way he performed his congressional duties after his six-year old son was hit by a car and nearly died. Throughout his movie, Gore uses every personal tragedy to play upon the audience’s heart strings. What does that have to do with Global Warming? Nothing, but it aids and abets an otherwise insincere politician to better sell his purported sincerity concerning abrupt climate change. The message is good; the messenger needs to take up a new hobby. Like unsuccessfully running for president again so he can finally get his just deserves: “Strike Three, you’re outa here!”
Why pay good money to get bored out of your skull with this blasé movie? Save the $7 to $10 (or more) on “Al Gore’s Inconvenient Infomercial” by reading the same stuff for no charge whatsoever (and without the deep-thinking, brooding ex-politician who spends nearly all of his 100 minutes preaching in your face). Kevin Bambrough and Eric Sprott wrote a detailed report, covering a great deal, if not more than what the Gore movie attempted to discuss.
Is “An Inconvenient Truth” a documentary about Global Warming, or Al Gore’s microphone-grabbing, spotlight-snatching platform to whine about, and revisit, his presidential election loss, six years ago? Is former Veep Gore really hoping to educate film audiences about the very serious dangers of carbon dioxide emissions, greenhouse gases and abrupt climate change, or conniving to create a multi-media white paper for the Democratic Party’s energy agenda? We’re not sure, actually. Perhaps, it is because Al Gore, and the film’s executive producer Davis Guggenheim, were themselves confused as to the direction in which they were heading with this narcissistic political propaganda.
C’mon, a former high-profile Vice President of the United States shuffling through airport security like the rest of us hoi polloi? If so, then why didn’t the alarm bells go off? For those who missed it, in one scene Gore wore a belt buckle the size of a small dish, when passing through the airport’s metal detector. And it didn’t screech? Right! Or how about the scene where a pompous Al Gore (sans bodyguards) was hailing a cab in Manhattan, but no one recognized him? Well, perhaps that part was realistic. Who really cares about Al? Was the former #2 man doing a for-the-people inspirational routine, along the lines of “He Walks Among Us,” so that we’d buy his punch line about self-sacrifice at the end of the movie?
The man, who at one time claimed to have invented the Internet, more carefully documented his alleged 30-year personal campaign to help bring Global Warming to a screeching halt. Amazingly, he didn’t include footnotes with his film speech. We’re sure Gore was anticipating the “I invented the Internet” jokes and dutifully prepared his track record for audiences. He shamelessly dredged up memories of his old Harvard science professor, Roger Revelle, whom he once called into congressional hearings to have the scientist warn about CO2 emissions and rising water temperatures.
How seriously can we take ‘Scientist’ Al Gore? In a Washington Post article (March 19, 2000), Al’s grades and scores were questioned, during the presidential campaign, and the assistant headmaster at Gore’s private school, St. Albans, reportedly “chuckled at (Gore’s) science results.” He had scored so poorly.
Gore’s one constant, his glibness, manifests in this quasi-documentary. Mostly it’s a political infomercial, but for whatever reason Gore was so fervently pitching and hyping Al Gore was never made clear. He hasn’t quite grasped how serious the earth’s climactic changes could impact our civilization, other than flicking through multiple photos of receding glaciers and a few other tidbits. Gore mentions we might have 100 million refugees if sea levels rise, as if those many would actually survive. In contrast, Dr. Lovelock, author of “The Revenge of Gaia,” is forecasting the demise of billions of people under the same “earth is melting” scenario. Whom do we believe? We vote Lovelock, not Gore. After all, the politician admits, in a recent Rolling Stone magazine interview, Lovelock has forgotten more science than Gore has ever learned.
Whatever gravity the poseur portrayed during his supercilious narration, and in his deep-thinking (but awkward) poses, Gore nullified these moments with clumsy flashbacks to the 2000 presidential campaign. (Well, Gore reportedly did a lot of drugs in college, so we guess he's entitled to his flashbacks.) While he claimed in his movie to have moved on, the man still sounded downright bitter during this pre-campaigning film farce. His movie oozes contempt for the man who defeated him, and offers the same ill will toward anyone distantly related – family, business or otherwise – to the man who is now President of the United States. For those who helped keep him out of the White House or dissed him? He repays his enemies in a way only a screenwriter could: Gore adds his enemies to his movie.
Gore’s rapid-fire “subliminal images” are cleverly aimed at Florida and the 2000 presidential campaign. Take that Senator Katherine Harris! Guess which state gets submerged first when the polar ice caps melt? You got it, Florida. Of all the lakes in the world which are drying up, Gore selects Lake Chad. For those who have forgotten, it was the notorious “chads,” which cost Gore the presidency. Darn it Al, will you let it go? It’s been six years, you know. You LOST the election!
Film goers should wonder why an ex-tobacco farmer, and erstwhile U.S. presidential candidate (going 0 for 2 on presidential campaigns), has only NOW come out against fossil fuels because of Global Warming. What’s his agenda? To educate the public? If that is the case, then the filmmakers should have focused on the matter at hand – the earth is getting hotter, and we need a solution. Dr. James Lovelock’s mandate is simple: Nuclear energy is the single solution. Listen up, Hillary Clinton – you might have enjoyed Al’s ramblings, and said so in your pretentious New York Press Club speech last May, but where is Gore’s actual solution to the Global Warming crisis?
The self-righteous Al Jr. offers no solution in his movie. Even when asked by an audience in China for his solution, Gore spouts non-sequiturs – political rhetoric, but no word of a solution. The movie director deftly cuts away before Al can look even sillier, while we wonder why Al offered no solution.
The film shows images of a nuclear reactor, a wind farm and running water. Was the blustering Al or his bewildered movie director hoping the audience would choose a solution for them? At least Ross Perot, in his infomercials, had some solution for the ills then facing America. Al has none. Zippo. Nada. Just join Al’s crusade and start driving a hybrid car. Or did he mean a bicycle? After all, in one scene, Al boasts about the Chinese riding their bicycles and flashes a dated photo showing this. Wake up, Al, last we heard, the Chinese were driving Beemers and Benzes, not bicycles. Bikes are reserved for environmentalist weenies who can’t find a real job.
Al seems to be pro-nuclear, but claims there are problems with proliferation and waste disposal. In an interview with Australia’s The Age newspaper, published in November 2005, Gore told the reporter he was not “reflexively against” nuclear energy. Wearing his hat as a fund manager for the Generation Fund, he told the newspaper that investing in uranium mining comes down to sustainability. In another interview with “Grist Magazine’s” David Roberts, published in May of this year, Gore responded to questioning about the nuclear energy renaissance, saying, “ I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.” How’s that for naiveté in the context of dozens of countries having already announced their plans to advance their nuclear energy programs?
Perhaps, Gore will begin touting renewables, as Hillary Clinton has done on behalf of lapdog/energy guru Amory Lovins. We asked third-term Wyoming legislator, David R. Miller, who is also president of a U.S. uranium development company, Strathmore Minerals, about the madness over renewables becoming a serious factor for baseload electricity generation. Miller told us, “We were 100 percent renewable 300 years ago, 50 percent renewable 100 years ago and 30 percent renewable 50 years ago. Now, we are less than 10 percent renewable and shrinking fast.”
About nuclear energy, Miller added, “It nearly unlimited. We are learning to use better technology to make purer energy to do more for us.” Miller’s rebuttal on Al Gore’s message was emphatic, “Those that preach about saving the earth should practice what they speak, but the loudest voices are those that consume the most.” Miller pointed out, “Only the rich and idle have time to rail against too much consumption. But they want you to stop the consuming, not them.”
One could look deeper to better understand Al Gore’s ambiguity toward any solution. For example, is Al Gore’s family still a large shareholder of Occidental Petroleum? After all, his father took a consultancy with a subsidiary of the multi-national oil firm, upon leaving the U.S. Senate in 1970. Just in time to cash in on the oil embargo of 1973, Al Gore’s dad was paid $500,000 per year for his services. Al Gore Sr. also served as a company director. Why was Al Gore’s father on such great terms with Armand Hammer, the founder of Occidental Petroleum? Hammer was a good buddy of Josef Stalin and his Kremlin successors. Hammer’s dad introduced Little Armand to Stalin, who helped him build the Hammer Empire. All this in return for one small favor: Julius Hammer founded the U.S. Communist Party.
Have the sins of the father visited the son? For the past thirty or forty years, Al Gore has allegedly received a “mining royalty” check from Occidental Petroleum for zinc ore discovered on the Gore family property. Reportedly, Al has been paid about $20,000 annually for mining rights to the property. But, that’s just chump change. Long before the Buddhist Temple fund-raising fiasco in Los Angeles, Al Gore was involved in dubious political financings.
We didn’t look that much more deeply into Al Gore. Truthfully, why bother? Gore’s remorse appears rigged; his acting is pathetic. For example, his sister died of lung cancer, before the family stopped growing tobacco. He makes a really big deal about this in his movie (despite his own alleged chain-smoking habits as a college student). But he failed to mention he continued receiving royalties from his tobacco farm for years after his sister died.
Gore also forgot his vivid 1988 presidential election campaign speeches, defending tobacco farmers in the southern United States. Imagine Mr. Clean telling tobacco farmers about how he, himself, tilled the soil with his bare hands and picked dem dar tobacco leaves wit his own fingers! Our research shows Gore continued accepting campaign donations from tobacco companies until at least 1990. Instead of being truthful with his audience, Gore mentioned in passing that the reason he ran for President in 1988 was to give Global Warming some exposure. Hypocrisy or ambivalence? You decide.
In his film, Gore claimed to have changed the way he performed his congressional duties after his six-year old son was hit by a car and nearly died. Throughout his movie, Gore uses every personal tragedy to play upon the audience’s heart strings. What does that have to do with Global Warming? Nothing, but it aids and abets an otherwise insincere politician to better sell his purported sincerity concerning abrupt climate change. The message is good; the messenger needs to take up a new hobby. Like unsuccessfully running for president again so he can finally get his just deserves: “Strike Three, you’re outa here!”
Why pay good money to get bored out of your skull with this blasé movie? Save the $7 to $10 (or more) on “Al Gore’s Inconvenient Infomercial” by reading the same stuff for no charge whatsoever (and without the deep-thinking, brooding ex-politician who spends nearly all of his 100 minutes preaching in your face). Kevin Bambrough and Eric Sprott wrote a detailed report, covering a great deal, if not more than what the Gore movie attempted to discuss.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Crowe and Kidman to Unite in Aussie Film
After a failed attempt at collaborating on “Eucalyptus,” Russell Crowe and Nicole Kidman are looking to team with “Moulin Rouge” director Baz Luhrmann. All three are Australian.
Crowe and Kidman have signed on to star in what is being called an epic Australian Outback film set in the years up to and including World War II. The film, codenamed “Project Oklahoma,” will begin in the 1930s and stretch to the 1942 Japanese bombing of the tropical city of Darwin.
“We’ve talked a bout it for over seven years, that we must do something together in Australia.” Luhrmann said to the Sydney Morning Herald.
Kidman said that she was looking forward to making a “uniquely Australian story” with Crowe, who she calls her “good friend.”
Luhrmann compared the film to “Gone with the Wind” and “Lawrence of Arabia.” “Collateral” screenwriter Stuart Beattie will work with Luhrmann on the script for the film.
Kidman has had a working history with Luhrmann, who directed the three minute, multimillion-dollar Chanel No. 5 commercial in which Kidman starred.
The rumored budget for the film is said to be about $40 million in Australian currency, which is equivalent to about $30 million in U.S. dollars. Filming is set to begin in August, and the film is projected to be released in 2007.
Crowe and Kidman have signed on to star in what is being called an epic Australian Outback film set in the years up to and including World War II. The film, codenamed “Project Oklahoma,” will begin in the 1930s and stretch to the 1942 Japanese bombing of the tropical city of Darwin.
“We’ve talked a bout it for over seven years, that we must do something together in Australia.” Luhrmann said to the Sydney Morning Herald.
Kidman said that she was looking forward to making a “uniquely Australian story” with Crowe, who she calls her “good friend.”
Luhrmann compared the film to “Gone with the Wind” and “Lawrence of Arabia.” “Collateral” screenwriter Stuart Beattie will work with Luhrmann on the script for the film.
Kidman has had a working history with Luhrmann, who directed the three minute, multimillion-dollar Chanel No. 5 commercial in which Kidman starred.
The rumored budget for the film is said to be about $40 million in Australian currency, which is equivalent to about $30 million in U.S. dollars. Filming is set to begin in August, and the film is projected to be released in 2007.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Bacara el Preferido del Agente 007
El Agente 007 y su audacia con el juego continúan deslumbrando año tras año a sus sensuales compañeras en escena y derrotando a sus astutos enemigos.
El Bacara: El Juego preferido del clásico James Bond: Bacará y el Agente 007
El Bacará es el clásico juego de apuestas originado en Italia en el siglo 15 y es también característico del famoso espía 007. En cada escena lo identifican una elegancia y excelencia, que junto con su impecable Martini en mano y las apuestas en otra James Bond ha mantenido una leyenda desde su origen desde los años 50 hasta el presente. Es así como el espía ingles domina la versión francesa del juego Bacará llamada Chemin de Fer con gran talento y admiración.
Bacara siempre fue popular entre la alta sociedad, especialmente en el siglo 15, cuando surgió en Italia. Bacara significa cero en italiano y a lo largo de su expansión en diferentes países nuevas reglas y variaciones fueron inventadas y adaptadas como en Estados Unidos o en Francia el Chemin de Fer, o el denominado Juego de James Bond.
El juego consiste en el "Jugador" y la "Banca" el nombre que se la a las opciones de apuestas, estos son repartidos dos o tres cartas cada uno con el objetivo simple de llegar a 9 sin pasarse de el. Mientras tanto la banca decide según las reglas del juego cuando detener la jugada y los jugadores ya han debido apostar a cual de las dos Jugador o Banca ganara la mano. Los jugadores o el jugador apuesta y el que apuesta a la mano que gano el puntaje mas correcto, gana la mano. En la adaptación americana, el juego funciona en contra a la banca, mientras que en Chemin de Fer, los jugadores compiten el uno con el otro. Uno representa al jugador y el otro a la Banca.
En compañía del Chemin de Fer los libros de Ian Fleming junto a las adaptaciones en escena de James Bond, han deslumbrado por décadas las diferentes aventuras del espía, con ayuda de su impecable poder del juego y su atractivo estilo. Hasta su último estreno en el 2006 James Bond sigue disfrutando de la lujuria de las mesas verdes de los casinos junto a su cigarro y el su sensual compañera en acción. En el anio 1964, las novelas y capítulos de James Bond, fueron escritas por Kingsley Amis, John Pearson, John Gardner, Raymond Benson, y Charlie Higson. Tambien sus actores variaron comenzando con el conocido Sean Connery, siguiendo con Geroge Lazenby, Roger Moore, Tomothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan y Daniel Craig.
Si observas, es muy interesante ver la manera en que el Agente apuesta al juego y a su vez actúa y descubre los secretos que lo rodean con la misma rapidez, seguridad y astucia. Enlas películas de James Bond el juego Chemin de Fer transcurre en elegantes salas llenas de mujeres elegantes y hombres adinerados que detrás del juego tienen otros intereses por revelar. En la realidad el enlace entre el Bacará y El Agente 007 es de un acompañante fiel de aventuras secretas y emocionantes de mas de cinco décadas que hicieron de el una leyenda inolvidable que resurge de generación en generación.
El Bacara: El Juego preferido del clásico James Bond: Bacará y el Agente 007
El Bacará es el clásico juego de apuestas originado en Italia en el siglo 15 y es también característico del famoso espía 007. En cada escena lo identifican una elegancia y excelencia, que junto con su impecable Martini en mano y las apuestas en otra James Bond ha mantenido una leyenda desde su origen desde los años 50 hasta el presente. Es así como el espía ingles domina la versión francesa del juego Bacará llamada Chemin de Fer con gran talento y admiración.
Bacara siempre fue popular entre la alta sociedad, especialmente en el siglo 15, cuando surgió en Italia. Bacara significa cero en italiano y a lo largo de su expansión en diferentes países nuevas reglas y variaciones fueron inventadas y adaptadas como en Estados Unidos o en Francia el Chemin de Fer, o el denominado Juego de James Bond.
El juego consiste en el "Jugador" y la "Banca" el nombre que se la a las opciones de apuestas, estos son repartidos dos o tres cartas cada uno con el objetivo simple de llegar a 9 sin pasarse de el. Mientras tanto la banca decide según las reglas del juego cuando detener la jugada y los jugadores ya han debido apostar a cual de las dos Jugador o Banca ganara la mano. Los jugadores o el jugador apuesta y el que apuesta a la mano que gano el puntaje mas correcto, gana la mano. En la adaptación americana, el juego funciona en contra a la banca, mientras que en Chemin de Fer, los jugadores compiten el uno con el otro. Uno representa al jugador y el otro a la Banca.
En compañía del Chemin de Fer los libros de Ian Fleming junto a las adaptaciones en escena de James Bond, han deslumbrado por décadas las diferentes aventuras del espía, con ayuda de su impecable poder del juego y su atractivo estilo. Hasta su último estreno en el 2006 James Bond sigue disfrutando de la lujuria de las mesas verdes de los casinos junto a su cigarro y el su sensual compañera en acción. En el anio 1964, las novelas y capítulos de James Bond, fueron escritas por Kingsley Amis, John Pearson, John Gardner, Raymond Benson, y Charlie Higson. Tambien sus actores variaron comenzando con el conocido Sean Connery, siguiendo con Geroge Lazenby, Roger Moore, Tomothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan y Daniel Craig.
Si observas, es muy interesante ver la manera en que el Agente apuesta al juego y a su vez actúa y descubre los secretos que lo rodean con la misma rapidez, seguridad y astucia. Enlas películas de James Bond el juego Chemin de Fer transcurre en elegantes salas llenas de mujeres elegantes y hombres adinerados que detrás del juego tienen otros intereses por revelar. En la realidad el enlace entre el Bacará y El Agente 007 es de un acompañante fiel de aventuras secretas y emocionantes de mas de cinco décadas que hicieron de el una leyenda inolvidable que resurge de generación en generación.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)