Five Reasons to Adore Mission Impossible 4

- Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt. He reprises his role effortlessly, as effortlessly as he escapes through the maximum security prison cell in the first scene of the movie. Cruise in MI series is definitely the best rival of Daniel Craig 007 for the title of the most suave and gorgeous action star of 21st century Hollywood. If Daniel Craig had his extraordinary moments of composed physical eloquence in Bond movies of late, Cruise cruises with his deft and nimble physical prowess and unparalleled charm. At 50, Ethan in MI4 moves, shakes and rattles the whole police force of Moscow and hums all along the steep walls of Al Burj Dubai, making the audience mesmerized as to how at 50, someone can look and stunt that good!

- The script, which is very tight and multilayered as a fine tuxedo. The movie moves from Moscow, to Dubai and finally to Mumbai and all the while, action sequences, smart dialogues, brilliant suspense sequences and realistic characterizations make the action more believable for mature audiences, a forte which Bond movies have being cashing in of late.

- The dangerous stunts performed by the actors, especially Cruise. The free solo climbing with battery charged gloves with the approaching dust storm, or the combat sequences in an Indian car manufacturing plant with the arch villain Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), even the martial art techniques of Ethan's attractive sidekick Jane Carter (Paula Patton)

- Paula Patton as Jane Carter. A new find indeed, she sizzles with her curves and personality. Stealthy, sharp, smooth, seductive and compassionate, she fits the role of a capable IMF agent pruning the loose ends left by Ethan in his feverish quest to hunt down Hendricks and his NY nuking plans.

- The gadgets yet again, putting gadget creator Q of James Bond to shame. Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) dishing out some mind-blowing gadgets which walk the thin red line between the weirdly unbelievable plasma guns of Men in Black and the boringly un-fascinating concoctions from Discovery Science Channel. Starting from the invisible 3D screen which mirrors a video image, or the trademark Mission Impossible face masks, to the battery operated gloves clinging Ethan precariously over the breathtaking Burj Dubai and the retinal camera of William Brandt ( Jeremy Renner) relaying visual information to Dunn's Macbook.

The gadgets are more stunning and subtle, the stunts are more unbelievable, the story is intricate and extensive without being rushed, and Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt carries the Mission Impossible franchise to yet another lofty milestone, leaving behind a trail of spectacular action in Moscow, Dubai and finally Mumbai, India. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

How Accurate Was the Movie The Social Network?

Altering the Facts Makes for Great Drama but Poor History:
A Review of Aaron Sorkin's movie "The Social Network"

Aaron Sorkin earned a stellar reputation as the producer of "West Wing," an idealistic TV show about a smart and sophisticated American president with good ethics and equally good policies. Having high expectations for a Sorkin production, I was disappointed in his current release, "The Social Network."

"The Social Network" is the story of Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder of Facebook, which has 800 million users worldwide and is currently estimated to be worth $25 billion. That's no small feat for a 26-year-old entrepreneur. How did he do it?

Zuckerberg, played beautifully by Jesse Eisenberg, is a 19-year-old student at Harvard as the movie opens. He is having drinks with his girlfriend, and manages to insult her and offend the audience within less than five minutes of crisp, sardonic dialogue. Sorkin establishes immediately that Zuckerberg is arrogant, insufferable and Mensa material, and we cheer when his girlfriend, Erica, breaks up with him. A frustrated and intoxicated Zuckerberg returns to his dorm, thinking that he will create a social media site where Harvard men can rate female students in terms of their attractiveness. He calls the site "FaceMash."

It's a powerful scene, arguing that the birth of Facebook was motivated by teen angst and revenge. The only problem is that it never occurred. Zuckerberg didn't even know a woman named Erica, although he did drunkenly blog about a Harvard coed named Jessica Alona, but he denies that he ever went out with her or that she was the driving force behind Facebook. In fact, Mark had the same girlfriend for the last eight years and she is now his wife.

After the so-called romantic breakup, Mark conferred with his friend Eduardo Saverin (well played by Andrew Garfield), seeking a logarithm that would enable him to hack into various "face books" that were already in existence in individual Harvard dorms. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg was approached by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, twins who asked if Mark would program a dating website for students that would be based on exclusivity; only Harvard students need apply. The site would be called the HarvardConnection (later renamed ConnectU). Zuckerberg was given the private server location and password for the unfinished HarvardConnection site and the code, with the understanding that he would finish the necessary programming.

He agreed verbally to this arrangement, exchanged 52 e-mails with the brothers and had several in-person meetings, but never delivered the work that he'd promised. Instead, he provided a long list of excuses as to why he couldn't meet with the twins. Then one day, to their shock and dismay, they discovered that Mark had been secretly working with Eduardo and Mark's roommate, Dustin Moskovitz, to launch what was then called "The Facebook."

The twins sued Zuckerberg for stealing their idea and alleged that he used part of their programming code. They were awarded $65 million in damages; however, since then, the Winklevoss brothers claimed that Facebook stock was undervalued at the time and they're really entitled to $466 million. The litigation continues.

Zuckerberg led the twins to believe that he was actively working with them when in fact he was working behind their back to establish something similar, but not identical, to their site. The twins wanted to devise a dating site for Harvard students and to expand this across the country. Zuckerberg's site had little to do with dating. It was a place where people could make friends, network, find a date, or simply chat with their nephews, colleagues or children away at school. Moreover, Zuckerberg's original hot-or-not, drunken FaceMash included both men and women. Sorkin omitted this important detail because he wants us to believe that Mark Z. was angry enough at the imaginary Erica that he would have created a website just for men to humiliate and insult women, and have fun doing so. But the site was never that way. Women could also rate men. And there was no Erica. Ergo, Sorkin's hypothesis for Mark Zuckerberg's basis for forming Facebook was false.

As "The Facebook" was catching on like wildfire, another young genius became involved. Sean Parker was one of the instigators of the now defunct Napster, an application that allowed people to download music for free. This infuriated and worried many musicians; ironically, Justin Timberlake played Sean Parker in the film - I hope he took some pleasure in that role since he must've lost a lot of money to Napster! Unlike Zuckerberg who was basically a studious guy with an obsession for programming, Parker was already leading the glamorous life in Los Angeles. He was a party boy who thought big and made Eduardo look small in Mark's eyes. Mark had to decide between the two of them. Would he pursue Parker's vision of Facebook, funded through venture capitalists, or would he stick with his best friend and company CFO Eduardo and their smalltime advertisers, even though Eduardo had refused to move out to California when Mark wanted to advance the business there?

Ethically-challenged Zuckerberg opted for the latter and left his best friend in the dust by writing Saverin out of future Facebook contracts once they reached the 1 million user mark; his share went from 34% of the company to.03%. Saverin was enraged; he sued in April of 2005 and won back a 5% share of Facebook, worth 1.3 billion, as well as an undisclosed amount of money. Parker had a 7% share in Facebook which was revoked when he was busted for cocaine use. Zuckerberg maintains a 24% share although Sorkin leads us to believe he still owns 51%.

Sorkin relied entirely on interviews with Eduardo Saverin to make this production, which was based on the book The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich. Not surprisingly, Mark Zuckerberg refused to be interviewed. Consequently, the movie can't help but be biased in Saverin's favor.

Since the courts had already established that Zuckerberg was guilty of intellectual property theft, there was no need for Sorkin to embellish. "The Social Network" would have benefited by sticking more closely to the facts, which were dramatic enough.

The movie poses hard ethical questions. It makes us ask ourselves if we are complicit. Do you have a Facebook account? Are you helping to keep the accidental billionaires rich? If you wouldn't wear a T-shirt that says, "Free Bernie Madoff," why would you support Zuckerberg?

Finally, the movie acts as a Rorschach test - in exit polls, people under 40 viewed Zuckerberg as a visionary genius with drive, purpose and ambition: a young man who saw a golden opportunity and took advantage of it. Those over 40 saw him as cold, morally bankrupt and cutthroat. In that respect, "The Social Network" succeeds as a provocative film and it is excellent entertainment. But I fear that many people will mistake this fascinating half-truth for a documentary, and that it most definitely is not. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Is It Any Wonder That Movie Piracy Sites Are Thriving?

It was a rainy day today, so my wife and I decided that we should go and see a movie. We called up Grandma and asked if she would be willing to look after the kids for a few hours, and she was happy to spend some extra time with the little ones. So, after finally agreeing to go and see the new Men In Black 3 movie, we got into the car and headed to our local Cineplex theatre. When we arrived, we walked up to the ticket machine, requested 2 general admission tickets and then proceeded to pay. For the two tickets at this particular Cineplex, the grand total was $21.00, which seemed pretty reasonable. Next, we proceeded over to the concession stands to consider our options for a snack. We didn't want to get too elaborate, so we settled on a large popcorn, 2 regular sized drinks and a small bag of candy.

Fortunately, my wife has a 'SCENE' card (a promotional card that rewards purchases with points and lowers the cost of some goods when presented at time of purchase). However, even with the card, the snacks cost us another $21.00!! Now, we're not talking about pizza and fries, or hot dogs and energy drinks here....we're talking about one of the cheapest snacks known to mankind....due to the sheer abundance of raw materials available on this continent, popcorn costs mere pennies to produce, but apparently commands a GIANT price tag to consume when purchased at a movie theatre! As well, those large cups of soda are quite expensive as well (after they fill your cup with Ice, there might be the equivalent of one standard can of soda in that cup). The way I figure it, we probably got the equivalent of 1/4 a cup of popped corn kernels, 2 cans of pop and a bag of candy that could be purchased at a local grocery store for about $2. Based on some quick research that I have done, a pound of popcorn kernels is equal to about 4 cups of kernels, and a 1/4 cup of kernels will yield approximately 8 cups of popped popcorn.

So 4 cups of kernels will yield about 128 cups of popped popcorn! Oh and wait!, it's important to note that a pound of popcorn kernels costs about $2.00, so as you can see, you can produce approximately 128 cups of popcorn for about $2.00! Keeping these figures in mind, it cost the movie theatre approximately 13 cents for our large bag of popcorn, another couple of bucks for our soft drinks (calculated at a retail cost of $1 per can of soda), and about $2 or $3 for the bag of candy...for a grand total of about $5! In turn, they charged us $21.00 for those snacks!! That represents a mark-up of over 400%! As a result of this, it cost my wife and I just over $40.00 to see a movie today...and that was at a Cineplex where the price of the general admission tickets are much lower than those found at the same theatres in larger cities, where it's not uncommon to find admission prices ranging from $12 to $18 per person!

With pricing like this, it is little wonder why piracy has become such a large issue in today's society. After all, imagine if instead of Men In Black 3, my wife and I had decided to take our kids to the movies with us and take in a children's movie. Even with the cheaper kids ticket and concession costs factored in, the costs associated with such an endeavor would balloon to somewhere between $70 - $90! In the current economy, families are looking for affordable entertainment, and I do not believe that our local movie theatres are doing a very good job of providing that. Instead, families are more likely to download a newly released movie, pop up some popcorn on the stove and crack open some beverages found in the fridge... then curl up on the sofas and lazy boy chairs and have a family movie night. The costs associated with the stay at home movie night are likely under $10 bucks, and you don't have to worry about the obnoxious teenagers 3 rows behind tossing popcorn at you, while texting and speaking on their cellphones!

In the past 5 years alone I have witnessed the costs at the concession stands rise nearly 40%! I understand that some food industries have had to suffer through shortages due to issues related to weather and environment, but corn has remained very affordable throughout those 5 years. The costs associated with soda and candy has gone up slightly, but certainly not enough to justify a 40% hike at the movie concessions. So, is this just a matter of corporate and shareholder greed? Is the never ending appetite for ever increasing profits starting to get to a point that average families now face exorbitant costs just to take their loved ones to a show? Is it any surprise that movie theatres have to plaster large signs at the doors declaring "No Outside Food or Drink Beyond This Point"?

Obviously they are trying to protect their very large profit margins and thus their investors returns.....not to mention the fat salaries and bonuses awarded to their top executives! In 2010, the CEO of Cineplex received over $4.5 Million in total compensation - most of which was received in additional incentives beyond his base salary based on performance and profit targets! His base salary was just $803 Thousand dollars.....but he earned over 5 times this amount once all of the additional bonuses and incentives were paid....and you can bet your bottom dollar that those rising ticket prices and exorbitant concession prices factored largely into his compensation package....but hey, who can live on a paltry base salary of $803,000/year anyways right?

Here is an idea for Cineplex that would result in continued growth of profits and thus, investor delight. Why don't you drop your prices 40%, encouraging more families and individuals to visit your theatres and grow your business through expanded ticket and concession sales! As a result, you could positively affect the employment figures and employ more people to serve the influx of customers who can now afford to come to the movies, and more people could enjoy the magic of watching movies on the big screen, rather than downloading those movies to hard drives at home that are hooked up to their large screen televisions. I think you will find that people are more willing to pay a fair price for the entertainment you are providing, than stay at home and watch their free downloads because they cannot afford to pay your unfair and outlandishly exorbitant fees.

Furthermore, the movie industry going after the websites that provide free downloads of your movies will never yield any great blows to the infinite community of piracy sites that exist out there in the wild of the world wide web....but charging people affordable prices to visit your theatres will slowly start to win back customers who are tired of being overcharged to watch movies that rarely live up to their trailers! While the cost of your tickets and concessions have been steadily going up, the cost of large screen televisions and the technology used for downloading content has been steadily going down. If that trend continues, theatre companies like Cineplex will continue to see their viewership decline (Between the years 2000 - 2010, cinema attendance has dropped by over 22%, while during the same period, ticket prices have increased over 15%!), and large electronic retailers like Best Buy, Future Shop and Amazon will continue to benefit from the increased demand for new big screen TV's!

The bigger concern for companies like Cineplex should be...how long can they continue raising prices to offset the decline in ticket sales before they begin seeing massive drops in cinema attendance! Only time will tell, but if I were the CEO of Cineplex, I would be very concerned with the long term prospects of my job. Of course, the question remains whether the current CEO has enough foresight and courage to challenge the traditional business model that has over the past 10 years continued to show steady declines in attendance! Personally, I hope the industry turns itself around, and many more generations of people can continue to experience the magic of the big screen at an affordable price. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.