"On The Road" - An Accurate Portrayal of Jack Kerouac's Cult Classic Novel

The idea of transforming Jack Kerouac's cult classic novel, "On the Road," into a movie is as old as the novel itself. Despite attempts by Jack Kerouac decades ago, the idea has not gained traction until recently. Even Francis Ford Coppola, having acquired the rights in 1979, was unable to bring the project to fruition. The movie "On the Road" was finally made as the result of the combined efforts of Walter Salles of "The Motorcycle Diaries" fame and five film production companies from four different countries.

The movie narrates Jack Kerouac's cross-country journey through America in the late 1940s through the voice of the lead character, his alter-ego Sal Paradise (Sam Riley). A writer struggling to discover his niche, Sal Paradise meets his biggest inspiration, Dean Moriarty (Garrettt Hedlund), through his writer friend Carlo Max (Tom Sturridge). Dean's character is based on Jack Kerouac's real-life interactions with Nick Cassady. Dean can only be described as the perfect hobo. In a country obsessed with conformism, he is the free-spirited rebel who inspires Sal to find out what he truly desires to do in life.

Dean's first appearance in the movie involves answering the door butt naked. The audience is introduced to his sixteen-year-old wife Marylou (Kristen Stewart) in the same scene. She too is, unsurprisingly, naked. This comes as a bit of shock for those who are used to seeing Kristen as the virginal girl in the "Twilight" series. Marylou's fiery and free-spirited character comes as an even bigger surprise for those who imagined Kristen would never escape Bella's repressed and reticent characterization in the "Twilight" series.

What follows is a picturesque and handsomely shot journey all over America with lots of smoking, drinking, partying, sex, drugs, introspection, and discussions. A large number of family members, friends, and new acquaintances come and go, and each new character helps Sal understand himself, his friends, and his life better.

The director deserves credit for skilfully bringing in characters like Jane (Amy Adams), Ed Dunkel (Danny Morgan), Terry (Alice Braga), Galatea Dunkel (Elisabeth Moss), Camille (Kirsten Dunst), and Old Bull Lee (Viggo Mortensen) without leaving the audience confused. The characters' exit may seem abrupt but it only serves to heighten the focus on the trio of Sal, Dean, and Marylou.

Director Walter Salles prepared the cast for the movie by conducting a three-week boot camp in Montreal on the Beat Generation. The cast enjoyed access to literature related to the Beat Generation, Kerouac's biographer Gerald Nicosia, and interviews with persons who served as inspiration for the characters in the novel.

The director also provided Kristen with access to a 1978 audio interview with Lu Anne Henderson, Nick Cassady's wife and inspiration for Marylou's character in the book. This seems to have helped her get under the character's skin effectively. She also enjoyed long discussions with Henderson's daughter, helping her understand Lu Anne's personality. Kristen's multiple scenes involving physical intimacy with Sal and Dean, including a now-famous scene in a moving car, although slightly surprising, do not seem gratuitous. Overall, Kristen does an admirable job of portraying feisty Marylou as a person who is a few decades ahead of her time.

The movie does not meander too far from the book, and this creates a feeling that the director is unnecessarily emphasizing a single message instead of moving on. However, those who have read the book will agree that the entire novel is, more or less, about the angst of youngsters of the Beat Generation trying to find their life destinies.

By the end of the movie, one cannot but help notice how the three characters have been etched neatly. Sal is the confused one; Dean is the one who thinks he knows what he wants; while Marylou is the one who understands how the search for one's destiny is an endless exercise.

As the movie progresses, Sal becomes more and more assured of himself and finds himself slowly moving independently of his hero, Dean, who continues to live his life king-sized without any desire to change. Sal discovers his wild side and ends up outgrowing that phase to lead a normal life, something Marylou predicted.

Kristen joined the cast of "On the Road" without any screen testing. Apparently, Walter Salles was impressed by her performance in "Into The Wild" and chose her without any misgivings. The movie's cast, Kristen included, produced strong performances that justify the director's faith and laborious preparations, including a road trip that retraced Jack Kerouac's original journey. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Movie Stars' Continuous Migration to TV

In 1988, when Dustin Hoffman won his second Oscar for his brilliant portrayal of an autistic savant in "Rain Man," few would have predicted that he would be starring in a television show later in his career. Big-name actors would never consider playing TV roles-ever. Yet, the list of top movie stars making their way to the small screen continues to grow each year. So what has caused this migratory pattern?

With the help of performers like Hoffman, television is no longer the stepchild for actors. It is attracting top talent because it has caught up with silver-screen movies in three broad categories-jobs, spending, and creativity. From all indications, TV intends to step up its competition for the stars.

The Unemployment Rate

Like all industries, filmmaking continues to seek more return on investment. Nowadays, there is less incentive for producers to undertake a film that showcases acting aptitude. The list of top box-office hits is filled with movies that rely on computer-generated effects to draw large audiences. In fact, we often lose sight of a movie star against a backdrop of alien invasions or catastrophic explosions. These movies are expensive to make and frequently divert money from other projects. In the end, the availability of big-screen acting jobs has diminished.

Movie blockbusters like "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" have deemphasized the need for top-drawer talent. The movie received three Oscar nominations for visual effects and sound, but none for acting. Although Shia LaBeouf did a credible job as lead character in the film, it's difficult to envision any actor winning an Academy Award playing that part. No matter how well it could have been written, the role would never supersede the action. For an accomplished actor like Hoffman, it's not a part that would demonstrate his far-reaching ability.

Television, on the other hand, has grown from three channels in the 1950s to hundreds of channels that need new shows to entice viewers. The cable and satellite TV concept has made it possible for commercial-supported and subscription channels to offer increased opportunities. It's true that reality TV has reduced the demand for actors. Nonetheless, premium content providers like HBO and Showtime have led the pack by developing challenging roles that appeal to the stars.

The Expenditures

Large movie-studio films used to command the roster of A-list actors. Making a fortune from one film was possible if you had name recognition. Television actors, by comparison, made paltry sums and probably had to work harder for their money.

But as television grew, so did its spending on film actors. Some felt it was just an experiment that would fail. Nevertheless, Charlie Sheen, who transitioned from Hollywood movies to the TV series "Two and a Half Men," earned millions of dollars per episode. Few movie stars made as much during the same time period.

Salaries, however, aren't the only issue. Television spending on all aspects of production has increased, which has pushed the quality of what it now offers. TV wasn't known for its lavish spending in 1988. Situation comedies like "The Cosby Show" and "Roseanne" were shot on limited sets, and many dramas like "L.A. Law" and "Matlock" didn't feature an abundance of outdoor scenes. The argument that TV was too small for pricey visuals could be made then. Large-screen TVs forced changes in that thinking, however. Viewers wanted better visual effects than what the original "Battlestar Galactica" series could provide in 1978. The updated version, which drew Academy Award nominee Edward James Olmos to the series lead in 2004, filled the bill.

The Freedom

Hollywood studios once had a corner on edgy material. In 1972, comedian George Carlin had a list of the seven words you can't say on television. That inventory remained intact two years later when Hoffman starred in "Lenny," the autobiography of another off-color comedian, Lenny Bruce.

Such a movie could have never shown to a TV audience in those days. Rewriting it to meet FCC standards would have been a disservice. But now Carlin's list is a memory of how things used to be on TV. Television pursues content without strict censorship. In addition, TV has strayed from its traditional good-and-evil characters. For example, the lead in the Showtime series "Dexter" is a serial killer. He is good in the eyes of viewers because he eliminates violent criminals who have slipped through the cracks of the legal system. It's a far cry from what television used to be, and many high-profile performers relish the change.

Conclusion

The theater box office no longer represents the only option for actors in search of profound or high-paying roles. The law of supply and demand applies. Because of that, the resettlement of big-time film stars to television is sure to continue. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Is Television Positive or Negative for Our Society?

In society, television can be positive or negative depending on the different views. I will consider various aspects of television, like watching for leisure, for news and generating jobs, in addition to becoming addicted, and trash TV ads. I am going to analyse the arguments for and against television.

Many people believe that television is a good way to relax because they can sit with friends and watch it together. My friends and I are hooked on an American series called 'Awkward', a romantic comedy, and I usually talk about it with them. It's a good way to share our interests. In addition, TV helps me stay in touch with world news. When I want to know something important or spend time, I usually turn on the small screen and watch the news. It is often very interesting and it is inevitable that you will learn something new. I think that the television industry is very special. This industry generates jobs and income for the economy. Television has existed for less than 150 years, so I think it's very inspiring that the industry is so large and includes many different people in the work. It is an industry through which thousands of people have jobs that otherwise would not be available.

Furthermore, there are many disadvantages of television also. First, there is too much junk on the TV. Every time I turn on the idiot box, the first thing I see is a contest to win money. Today it seems that all channels have only gossip programs and competitions stupid. It's a shame that art well done program dies. We live in a materialistic society that likes to watch TV is useless because an escape from their own lives. In addition, television ads are very annoying in my opinion. Interrupt programs too, especially in Spain and in America, because they are very long. Also affect children and parents have no control over the types of ads that their children watch.

There is another problem with television when parents do not block the channels that show inappropriate content. Increasingly, there are violent or sexual movies during the day, so if parents do not censor those channels and care for their children they may have their children becoming addicted to the wrong type of programs. Despite this, I do not think censoring is effective because people can search for what they want on the net. Parents would also have to censor certain websites to make this ban on television effective. Finally I think it is horrible that in England it is imperative that people have to buy the public channels if they want to watch them.

My conclusion is that the key problem is today's society. The popularity of these programs depends on the viewers and it is shown that all programs inappropriate content or people who make bad decisions. I suggest that if people watch less TV in general and focus on socializing, then everyone would be healthier mentally and would watch less trash on the boob tube. I do not like television because it has a negative and addictive impact on society. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Bond Less then Suave

What is wrong with these people?

For the last three outings (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and now, Skyfall), the people behind the franchise chose to present Bond, Commander James Bond in a different form- a hunky assassin, nothing more.

James Bond, of course, is the fictional spy created by Ian Fleming, made infinitely more entertaining with slapdash additions from a multitude of writers who co-opted the character through the screenplays of now, 23 outings.

The last three movies portrayed Bond as more of a killing machine, licensed to kill, with a penchant for speedo rather than a highly sophisticated spy posing as an executive for Universal Exports who goes about unearthing schemes of world domination hatched by crazed master criminals that takes him globe trotting to exotic locations,.

So in Casino Royale (2006), Bond engages terrorist-bomb maker, Mollaka in a cardiac-arrest inducing, crane-hanging, parkour style, impossibly long chase that ended in the obligatory explosion scene. Reviews generally gave the film a positive rating, even citing the chase, the best bond sequence. Ah, that maybe true for some. For me, the chase in 'Tomorrow Never Dies' (1997) featuring Bond handcuffed to a female Chinese agent while riding a motorcycle, negotiating the ledges and canopies of a residential area of a Vietnamese town still stands as the best.

For that particular sequence of Casino Royale, my alternate sequence shows Commander Bond, wearing a bush jacket from Saville row, Walther ppk in hand, waiting on the other side of the crane for Mollaka. Smiling at the dumb founded, totally exhausted, sweat drenched terrorist, Bond speaks with something like " My dear chap, I would have brought you Gatorade but I've a bit of a credit card glitch." spouted in that Bond-patented nasal, low-pitched,clipped Brit accent.

Why would Bond be traipsing atop buildings and cranes? He is an intelligence officer of her majesty not part of the British Olympic team.

I heard somebody ask " wearing a bush jacket from Saville row? why he would have been spotted a mile away". My dear chap, Bond would not be caught dead in anything less chic. In "Tomorrow Never Dies" Bond sneers at the clothes worn by Wade consisting of an odd Hawaiin shirt and slacks when he meets the American spy on board a carrier. Now that would tell you Bond is also a fashion police.

Because James Bond is the most élite spy, a spy's spy, he can't be spotted even if he comes off the oddest thing in a given environment. Remember "You Only Live Twice" (1967)?

Custom made Saville row suits and funny quips define the Bond flair. Who is Bond without suave? If Bond were not suave; if Bond were vulnerable, sartorially inadequate and aging., he might as well be Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt and Aaron Cross, maybe even pinoy super spy, Tony Falcon.

The thing I like about Bond is the idea of a guy who knows what he's doing and showing class while at it. In Dr. No, Bond immediately finds out that the driver supposed to fetch him from the airport was really an enemy spy sent to kill him by merely making a telephone call. In 'Die Another Day' (2002) Bond knows all too well about a Chinese spy ring in a Hong kong Hotel but only exposes his knowledge at exact time, after putting on custom tailored clothes. In all the Bond films I have seen, the commander always possessed some background knowledge of elements of a case.

Diametrically opposed to that particular Bond concept, in Casino Royale, Bond losses all his money in a poker table to a guy called le Chiffre because he assumed the opponent was bluffing. Any fool poker player knows that in a tourney, one does not risk tilting on the assumption of a bluff. It is not just done.All these years Bond possessed incredible luck at the tables.In the Fleming novel, Bond wins. Why they would chose an alternate version is again beyond me.

There is nothing wrong with Daniel Craig. He is as good as his predecessors, except maybe the bad hair. In Skyfall, Craig wears a scruff which looks totally unsuave. Even on vacation Bond is never scruffy. The only other time Bond looked scruffy was In Die Another Day, where he was captured and kept prisoner for a long time and so grows a beard and long hair (though being beaten thoroughly by the Koreans, he should have lost weight a bit).

Writers of the last three Bond films removed the suave side of Bond for no valid reason I can think of. They just made Bond ordinary.

Probably the writer lost track of Bond's cover, a well-traveled executive of Universal Exports (which I think might need updating. It's not really known what it exports, cigars maybe as in 'Die Another Day'?). As such, Bond has to look the part, custom clothes (should fit well, they would be custom tailored after all), cigarettes (555 was the Bond brand until 'Live and Let Die' in 1973), Smirnoff, most expensive watch and Aston Martin.

Bond would also have to be not just literate in computers, he would have to be a techie, as most executives today. As such, Bond would be well verse in broad range of subjects.

And as techieness goes, Commander Boothroyd (or Q) is the mother of all techies (even before the word came about) and in that, Bond can never be without a new gadget.

Skyfall (2012) meantime shows signs of Bond aging, sensitive (he took personally M's order for moneypenny to take the shot that fell him in a struggle on top a moving train) and unable to hit targets. I don't think 007 is authorized by her majesty to age, be sensitive, even sweat or miss targets, let alone non-moving ones during practice. those traits belong to a lower paygrade, I suppose, definitely not for double Os.The secret service recruited Bond from the Navy from which he earned the rank Commander. At that rank, he should be in his thirties or there about. The franchise having thrown away the time line of Ian Fleming (that he was recruited after the 2nd world was) abandon the age question entirely (as an example, in Casino Royale Bond just earned his double 0), it then stands to reason that he is still in his thirties, strong, sharp and cocky.

And what about the famous Bond girls? They lost their catchy names like Pussy Galore, Octopussy, Dr. GoodHead, Major Onotop and Honey Rider? But I like the idea on Moneypenny being a trained operative, although she should have disrobed for a sneak peek on what Bond is missing. The occasional appearance of Moneypenny should beg the question, will they?

And then there are the more ordinary villains that Bourne could kick with one hand tied.

My list of first-rate villains include Jaws and Oddjob, almost industrutable. I like 006 as a villain as well, more gripping when it is two equal forces and suaveness. Silva in Skyfall is not comparable to 006 even when it is indicated that he is a top spy as well. How can a trained operative miss M at the hall?

All in all, the Bond franchise moves rather splendidly, if it were judged by the box office return. But for the old Bond followers like me,come on then, give us back old James. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Prometheus Review, Symbols and Themes

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

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

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

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

SPOILERS BELOW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purposeful Practice, Dancing With the Stars Edition

Ever wonder why Dancing with the Stars is being dominated by former athletes? Most people jump to the conclusion that it is a result of their physical prowess. Certainly this does not hurt them, but I know many highly accomplished athletes who are horrible dancers. For every Donald Driver, Shawn Johnson, Apolo Anton Ohno and Emmitt Smith there is a Monica Seles, Clyde (note nickname "The Glide," which at least suggests dancing skills) Drexler, Natalie Coughlin and Ron Artest (Aka Metta World Peace) who bow out early.

Before I get too far into this let me make this disclaimer, I've never watched Dancing with the Stars. That said it is safe to say, I am about as far from being an authority on both dancing and this show as possible. However, I do know something about performance and developing skills, and that will be how I approach this topic.

I suspect a big reason that athletes seem to dominate this competition is related to how they practice and evolve through the competition. To be a successful athlete at the highest level requires that you not only spend a lot of time practicing, but that the practice is purposeful. Purposeful practice has several characteristics, including but not limited to the following: it is centered on progress rather than results, it is deliberate, and it is highly focused on going just beyond your current limits.

When the average person practices, they want to spend 90% of their time practicing what they already do well. The highly accomplished athlete knows that he must spend the majority of his or her time working on things that they are not currently good at, but which will make them much better over time. The goal of purposeful practice is always the same: progress. We learn almost everything through making mistakes. That's how we learned to walk and talk and that's how we progress.

Additionally, most athletes at the highest level are striving to get better even once they reach the higher levels of their sport. Not to take anything away from the other competitors invited to compete on Dancing with the Stars, but most of them get comfortable with their craft once they achieve success.

Once a comedian has a successful routine, they stick with it for years or longer and are more likely to hire writers than continually work at getting better. Likewise, most actors and actresses tend to play the same kind of parts throughout their careers and when studying usually spend 90% of their practice on things they are good at. They are not actively trying to get better everyday with purposeful practice like most high level athletes.

Most athletes who reach the highest level of their sport also possess the mental edge necessary to master nearly any skill they choose to pursue. So if you combine their mental edge with purposeful practice, it is quite predictable that the athletes will improve much more throughout the process of the show than their competitors. You don't have to be athletic to sing and I suspect if they come out with a show called (please no) 'Singing with the Stars,' that it is entirely likely that athletes would dominate it as well for the same reasons I stated above. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

The Finest Hours Of Alfred Hitchcock, As Decreed By Us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adaptation Decay

When a franchise reaches a certain level of popularity, it has become a noticeable trend to adapt written works, comic books and even video games into Hollywood Pictures. This practice has become prevalent in a number of recent motion pictures: Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games, the numerous superhero movies, Transformers and games like Resident Evil and Tekken. While seeing these materials in motion is definitely a big draw of a film adaption, there is often one thing that long time fans of a franchise end up looking at when these movies finally come out: How faithful the movie is to the source material.

For fans, it often does not matter how pretty the effects are or how famous the cast and production crew are, the film is rendered pointless if nothing resembles the original. Books seem to get off the easiest in this department, as at worst content is omitted due to the fact they need to compress a large amount of content into a relatively small time frame by comparison. It is the same with comics, though they are spared because an issue is often a self-contained story and does not reach the length of a novel, though skipping through big events is still a problem present in these...

Other franchises are not as lucky however. Video games seem to lose the most when they are ported from the home consoles to the big screen. Starting with the concept with something as simple as a fighting game it was a wonder how so much was changed in regards to Tekken. The characters were not recognizable beyond their names and most of the fighting styles were not even similar, and this is taking into account the transition from video game design to real life. Resident Evil is another game series that falls short in the film adaption department, whose story has absolutely nothing to do with the games beyond there are zombies in them.

Children's franchises also take a hit here, with Transformers and Avatar the Last Air Bender also receiving a number of negative criticisms in regards to how faithful they were to the original concepts. Admittedly while Micheal Bay's Transformers is its own universe, it does not really make people think of the classics beyond wondering what happened to them and why they are like this in his version. Avatar on the other hand just has a number of problems utilizing the original's content and is once more not recognizable by fans beyond their names.

While it is not true to say all adaptations of different media are bad, they suffer a lot in the transition and makes people question whether it was really worth it in the end. Further there are times when the creator is not even consulted for such and thus the distance between the adaptation and the original becomes even further. There is no real line to be drawn at what can and cannot be done in a movie, which is what makes these creative liberties happen. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.