JJ Abrams' Lost Revolution

There may not have been a more compelling pilot on television than the initial episode of JJ Abrams' Lost. The first scenes of the airline disaster, played over and over from the points of view of the different characters, demonstrated the incredible tapestry of interwoven lives and connections at that single moment in time, and foreshadowed the way in which, throughout the series, the larger island story would be told.

Lost was simply made for DVR and internet technology as fans searched for and found connections left behind for them by the writers and directors. You did not just watch the show. You participated in it by scanning the background for information or comparing dialogue. Every episode was a source of clues in a world-wide puzzle contest.

I fear that Abram's newest offering, Revolution, created by Eric Kripke and currently on Monday nights on NBC, may suffer a similar activity for just the opposite reason. Revolution presents us with an alternate reality. The initial moments of the pilot episode jerk us immediately from the world in which we live, into a pre-Thomas Edison existence in which items using electricity have been rendered useless. Cars, planes, lights, televisions, computers - all of it fades to darkness. Then, after a pause to sell us car insurance or whatever, the story advances 15 years into the future. The United States government has fallen. Strong arm militia groups vie for control of their little piece of the country side. What population that has not killed itself trying to stay alive has huddled together in little xenophobic groups spattered about the countryside.

On the island in Lost, everything about the story could be controlled by the writers. Want a smoke monster? No problem. Want time travel? No problem. Move the entire island? Again no problem, because the framework of the laws associated with the island were entirely in the minds of the writers to be revealed, as needed, to the audience. We accepted the premise that we did not have complete information about the island so we allowed the story to take us where normally we would refuse to go.

Great pains have been taken in the first episodes of Revolution to inform the audience that the setting of the story begins, near our own time, in the United States of America - mostly in and around Chicago, Illinois. We see shots of a rundown Wrigley Field and Michigan Avenue as our heroes trek from an equally dismal and overgrown O'Hare airport.

And therein lies the problem. We know things about this world that the writers apparently do not. We see a small stockade in a suburban cul-de-sac with a few gardens of corn surrounded by countryside gone wild and we think, "What are these people eating?" I don't care if there is no electricity, 15 years implies that they might just have learned a little something about survival.

If they are resorting to being hunter-gatherers, then the little group would not be in permanent dwellings. Permanent dwellings imply food production and we do see some little gardens planted with corn. Now corn may indeed currently be the most significant crop in the country but, as Scientific American blogger Melissa C. Lott points out in this post from October 2011, only 20 percent of all the corn produced in the US is for human consumption, a quarter of which is for highly processed syrup. The other 80 percent is split between livestock feed and ethanol production. Besides, according to the USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory, as a staple, corn is a poorer cousin to wheat, containing less protein and fewer minerals. And considering we see no livestock, why do we see so much corn in the food supply?

Or should I say so little. In 1862, Congress passed the Homestead Act, giving an individual 160 acres of land as long as he lived on, and improved the property for five years. Much of the middle portion of our nation between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains was placed under cultivation, to varying degrees of success, by men and animals plowing up these 160 acre tracts, all done without electricity. By all rights then, the little outpost we see at the end of the cul-de-sac should have been surrounded by 800-1000 acres of wheat, corn and livestock.

Then, just as in 1862, trains, with steam engines, using no electricity, could collect those crops and bring them to feed hungry people in the cities. And finally, between 1861 and 1865, the United States government transported hundreds of thousands of soldiers along rail lines, using steam locomotives to wage war and defeat a civil uprising, mostly without the use of the emerging electric telegraph. And let's take a close look at some of the equipment used to defeat that uprising. The catalyst for the action in Revolution is the death of Ben Matheson, the father of "Charlie" who is the heroine of the story. Ben is shot by a muzzle-loading rifle in an encounter with a local warlord's militia. The muzzle- loader appears to be standard issue amongst the soldiers. Assuming that the equipment of the militia represents the highest average available technology, it represents yet another serious failure of the eye-test of plausibility.

The modern muzzle-loader looks nothing like the guns Fess Parker carried playing Daniel Boone and Davy Crocket on television. But on Revolution, Monroe the warlord's soldiers appear to be carrying a weapon that looks very much like a Model 1842 Springfield caplock musket.

Why? What prevents the militia from all carrying a modern firearm? The caplock has all the component parts of a modern rifle. Earlier flintlock muskets used a flint and steel combination to ignite a small portion of powder which, in turn, ignited the gunpowder within the chamber forcing the bullet down the barrel and on to the target. But the caplock improved on that design, replacing the awkward flint and steel combination with a nipple that held a small cap containing fulminate of mercury. Yes, the caplock was a cap gun. The hammer struck the cap and the cap ignited the powder and shot the bullet. The process of firing this weapon uses up bullets, gunpowder and caps. A flintlock would use up bullets, powder and eventually, flints, which being rocks, are pretty readily available.

Creating caps, or primers, requires a chemical process involving the metals mercury or silver, combined with nitric acid, and in a technically reduced society it might make sense that they become scarce enough to force the flintlock's return as the typical firearm. However, the appearance of caplocks, not flintlocks, on the show, implies that there exist adequate supplies of gunpowder, bullets and caps.

So what is missing from a caplock that is contained in a modern firearm? Oddly enough, the only difference of consequence is the cartridge. Every muzzle loader takes the three individual component pieces - bullet, propellant (gunpowder), and ignition (cap or flint and steel) and places them together within the weapon. The brass cartridge brings the bullet, the propellant and the ignition primer together and holds them in readiness, separate from the weapon itself. When the cartridge is placed in the chamber and the gun is fired, the action which occurs at that time is essentially identical to the caplock, destroying the component pieces and leaving the empty casing.

But ironically, this is what the writers of Revolution have missed. The key item that has brought technology backward to the caplock in the story is in fact, the one item that is actually recyclable. Clean it up, replace the primer, pour in powder, press on a new bullet and you are ready to fire again. Technology has made the process easier certainly, but the lack of technology does not make it impossible, or even difficult.

And these are only a couple of problematic background points. What is being used for currency at the bar the group visits in Chicago? Where does the sugar come from for the bar's whiskey making operation? The list just keeps growing.

There are many good, alternate history stories where the authors seem to have actually done a little research. And when we read Harry Turtledove, or Orson Scott Card, we are swept along for the ride, amazed at the small moments in time that result in major swings of history's pendulum. Abrams and Kripke have failed to sweep us along with Revolution. Their blatant disregard for reality is overwhelming any possible chance for their story to become compelling.

My prime reason to watch, after the first ten minutes, was simply to find fault with it. What might have been another Lost is just lost. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Reviews of Famous Martial Arts Movies, The Brothers Five

Out of all Cheng Pei-Pei movies, "The Brothers Five" which was released in 1970 was probably the most queer as the main female lead in the movie was not the center of the story at any time. Still, with the help of an excellent cast which included the beautiful Pei-Pei, director Lo-Wei pulled off an amazing movie.

Like all other wuxia movies during that period, the movie has nothing new on offer as far as the script is concerned. The movie begins with Yueh Hua helping a man who was being roughed up by the driver of a coach while going to the Flying Dragon Villa, a mansion that is usually not spoken of by the villagers.

Yueh Hua beats the driver who runs away leaving behind a driver-less carriage. Yueh Hua finds Yan Loi (Cheng Pei-Pei) sitting inside the carriage. Yan was herself going to the Flying Dragon Villa. So Yueh offers to driver her coach and together they head for the Villa.

Gao Wei (Yueh Hua) wards of a few more bad guys on the way and then Yan Loi tells her story. Gao Wei was going to meet Yan's father who is dead and the evil Long Zhen Feng is responsible. We are then introduced another revenge story that unfolds gradually. "The Brothers Five" have the usual wuxia style of plot which is set in a world filled with martial arts exponents.

The action sequences are well thought and executed. We are introduced to the Flying Dragon Villa almost half an hour after the movie starts. The first fight scene at the Villa featuring a blacksmith (Chin Han) and a group of baddies is a feast and the original location adds to the thrill. Devoid of any background music, the scene is filled with wide shots plus loads of mouth-watering action.

The film might seem predictable at times with the brothers arriving one after another, but most of the time the movie is exciting and well planned. All the five brothers are eventually drawn towards the Flying Dragon Villa in a series of well thought and executed events.

The timing for the release of "The Brothers Five" was perfect. It does not have the usual super-male quotient as other Cheh movies, nor does it have the stodgy factor as in the earlier Shaw movies during the 60s. Male chauvinism is, for once, is never the highlight of the movie. The usage of real locations to show the Flying Dragon Villa is a welcome relief and it is in fact exciting to watch the brilliant actions scenes against the backdrop of blue sky as well as greenery.

"The Brothers Five" is definitely lengthy when compared to other movies by Cheh. But you can't really complain when you have a 15 minutes long climax which is filled with heart-stopping sword fights and feisty hammer fights. This is the movie to choose if you are a fan of such thrilling and well-crafted action. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Blame It On The Movie

A couple of months ago after watching a rather strange, yet superb offering from Greek cinema titled 'Dogtooth'; I decided to browse the IMDb website to see what other people thought of the film. Eventually I came across a thread on the message board which was discussing disturbing films; being a dedicated follower of controversial cinema I read on and found that a number of people had mentioned a film called Murder Set Pieces and so, after reading how 'horrific', 'sick' and 'extreme' this film was supposed to be, I added it to my 'LoveFilm' rental list!

A few days later, I was on the 'LoveFilm' website checking to see which films I was waiting for, when I noticed that amongst someone's review for Murder Set Pieces were the words 'You won't get to watch this film, as it's banned in the UK and cut by 20 minutes in the US' in big, bold lettering. Highly irritated, I decided to check whether there was any truth in this and after some research, I discovered that the film was in fact rejected by the BBFC in 2008, thus making it illegal to supply the film in the UK. Apparently, this was a film that in the BBFC's words 'may encourage a harmful association between violence and sexual gratification' something which is apparently 'reflected in research and consistent with public opinion'. And which members of the public might they be exactly?

This was not the first time that I, a grown woman, was being told what I could and couldn't watch (two summers ago I had planned to watch A Serbian Film at Frightfest, until it was pulled due to BBFC cuts). Apparently I am responsible enough to vote, have a mortgage and supervise a classroom full of children, but when it comes to planning my Sunday night in front of the TV, I am far too stupid to be left to my own devices and clearly need some assistance. Why was it that as a university educated adult, with the ability to make financial, political and religious decisions, I was having my viewing habits dictated by people who had never met me, knew nothing about me, yet chose to lump me under the term of 'the general public'? It was because my choice of films were those that fell into the category of movies which had the potential to harm- now I was always under the impression that it was humans who harmed other humans? I don't ever remember a case of a person being bludgeoned to death by an axe wielding video cassette!
Yet the concept of the media having a harmful and corrupting effect on the general public is nothing new. In the past we have seen a whole host of films, computer games and songs demonised because it was thought they had some influence on a particular crime. In the 1970s it was reported that gangs of teenagers dressed as 'Droogs', were committing acts of violence similar to those depicted in A Clockwork Orange, and many say that this, along with alleged death threats, are what led to Stanley Kubrick banning his own film.

The early 1990's saw copies of Child's Play 3 removed from the shelves, after it emerged that the stepfather of one of Jamie Bulger's killers had rented the movie; yet it was never confirmed whether either of the boys had actually watched it.

More recently the computer game Manhunt became the latest target, after it was alleged that the murderer of Stefan Pakeerah- who was stabbed to death, had mimicked behaviour from the violent computer game. And who can forget the 1984 Video Recordings Act with its notorious Video Nasties; films apparently so vile, so violent and bloody that they were considered harmful to watch, on the grounds that they could deprave and corrupt (anyone who has actually seen one, will know that the majority of them are most likely to either send you to sleep or have you wet yourself with laughter).

What is worrying is that few people seem to challenge this perception that life imitates art, (and yes I am aware that many of the texts I have referred to here can only very loosely be described as art!!). What is startling is not the fact that more and more films are crossing boundaries, dealing with taboos and pushing the limits, but that the real problems behind violent crime, anti-social behaviour, promiscuity and immorality are often ignored. When will we start to talk about bad parenting and a decline in community values? When will we acknowledge the fact that sometimes violence does not have a reason, that we can't blame the media or society and that in fact some people are just downright evil?

Did Jack the Ripper remove the intestines of Annie Chapmen because he had just watched Cannibal Holocaust? Can the murder and sexual assault of the victims of the Moors Murderers be blamed on the killers having a penchant for films such as Saw or Hostel? No, these horrific acts happened because the killers were sick, twisted and evil; period. Perhaps a film, DVD, computer game can give ideas, but the evil needs to be in the killer's mind already; a serial killer will maim and dismember regardless of whether they watch a violent film, because they are cold, calculating and often mad. We cannot censor, ban or withdraw a text simply because it might give someone 'ideas'. Where will we draw the line? Are we going to ban school children from studying Macbeth because if features violence and murder or The Colour Purple because of the rape scenes?

Any sane and remotely intelligent person knows that it is not right to copy the acts they may see in the Saw films, in the same way that a person who may enjoy watching extreme films is not necessarily a pervert. I love controversial and so-called disturbing films; I have grown up on a diet of Uwe Boll, David Cronenberg, and Larry Clark. I have sat through The Human Centipede, Irreversible, Martyrs and such like. As a child I was obsessed with horror films and throughout my teens and adulthood, I have set out to watch every film dubbed disturbing, sick, and ultra-violent. But I don't go out and commit random acts of violence, I don't get turned on by watching these films, they don't make me want to go out and rape, murder, or eat other people, why- because I am not a lunatic! Because I am intelligent enough to know right from wrong, because I am one of the many sensible people who can watch a film and know that it is just that- a film.

I overheard a comment from a fellow teacher at my school recently, apparently one of her Year 9 boys has been getting into lots of fights recently because he seems to be playing too many violent computer games; umm no, he isn't doing too well in school because his parents couldn't care less about his education and he is a little trouble maker. I'll end on this note; there is no freedom when it comes to choosing which film to watch- censors, governments and councils have all made sure of that and yet it remains that anyone can choose to become a parent... I'll let you decide how that works. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Jason Bateman: A Child Actor Moves On From His Arrested Development

As a popular child actor in the '80s, Jason Bateman seemingly went off the radar after his show, "The Hogan Family," was canceled in 1991. As he struggled to find work, Bateman's career seemed to be heading towards the same early end as those of so many other young actors, until he was brought onto the show "Arrested Development." Now, Bateman is one of the most recognizable faces in comedy, frequently appearing in ensemble pieces to critical and box office success.

His first major role was in "Little House on the Prairie," in which he played young James Cooper Ingalls. Bateman's character lasted for twenty-one episodes before the show was taken off the air after a slow decline in ratings. With his first taste of national recognition behind him, Bateman went on to co-star in "Silver Spoons" with Ricky Schroeder. Cast as Derek, Bateman appeared on the show for its first two seasons before moving on to star in his own series, "It's Your Move." While popular with critics, the show was canceled after its second season. Following the cancellation of "It's Your Move," Bateman would continue to work as a guest star in shows like "Knight Rider," "Mr. Belvedere," and "St. Elsewhere."

In 1986, Bateman was cast in the role of 16-year-old David in the show "Valerie." Starring Valerie Harper, the series focused on the title character as she tried to raise her kids while working full time. During the show's initial run, Bateman became the youngest member of the Directors Guild of America when he directed three episodes of the series at the age of eighteen.

In the middle of the show's second season, trouble arose when Harper wanted a raise. The producers wrote her out of the series, changing the show's name to "The Hogan Family," and brought in Sandy Duncan as the family's aunt. Initially, the change was a success, but by 1991, ratings were at a low, and the series was canceled.

Following the cancellation of "The Hogan Family," Bateman struggled to find work. He had starred in "Teen Wolf Too" in 1987, but the film flopped at the box office, leading to a stigma that Bateman could not open a film.

During the '90s, Bateman would appear sporadically on television, guest-starring in shows like "Ned and Stacey," "Chicago Sons," and "Rude Awakening." His luck finally changed in 2003, when he signed on to star in Mitch Hurwitz's new show, "Arrested Development."

Detailing the fall of the Bluth family, "Arrested Development" took a very tongue-in-cheek look at family dynamics, politics and economics. Bateman played Michael Bluth, the good son of the family, who tries to keep everyone together after his father is arrested for fraud. The trailblazing comedy featured a biting wit that had no problem with making fun of television clichés, the Iraq war, or even its own network, Fox. The cast included Michael Cera, Will Arnett, and David Cross and would even feature guest stars Liza Minelli and Henry Winkler poking fun at their own images. Producer Ron Howard lent his voice as the Narrator, playing off of his own image. While the show was a hit critically, it couldn't find an audience, leading to its cancellation in 2006. Since then, the show has become a cult hit, finding success on DVD and Netflix. Its influence has been felt in some of today's biggest shows, including "The Office" and "30 Rock."

For Bateman, "Arrested Development" was the spark that would reignite his career. His comic timing and ability to play the straight man led to him seeing an influx of work. He would work with Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau in a number of films, including "Dodgeball," "The Break Up," and "Couples Retreat." Bateman would become a featured actor in many of Peter Berg's films, having major roles in "The Kingdom" and "Hancock." He would even reunite with Michael Cera in the Oscar-winning comedy, "Juno."

With his career at an all-time high, Bateman has continued to find consistent work. The 2011 hit "Horrible Bosses" teamed Bateman with Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day, leading to financial success and production on a sequel. He has even started a production company with "Arrested Development" costar Will Arnett, and their first film, "Mansome," was a Spotlight selection at the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival.

Even with all of these projects, Bateman shows little sign of slowing down. He's currently filming the fourth season of "Arrested Development," due to be released on Netflix. For 2013, he has a couple of films in production, with "The Identity Thief" set to premiere in February. For an actor whose career was nonexistent in the '90s, Bateman has risen to the challenge and become one of the go-to actors for ensemble comedies. 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.