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.

Movie Review: Rock of Ages (2012)

Rock god Stacee Jaxx vents that he's a slave to rock 'n' roll. His lament parallels the problems at the core of Rock of Ages; the story and characters are swallowed whole by the music - and when the pounding beat ebbs, there's little left to attract us to what's underneath. This won't be a problem for many as the creative use of classic rock songs as a form of narration has its own substantial appeal. The clever juxtaposition of recognizable tunes and the extravagantly choreographed dance sequences are also entertaining, but they don't provide the stability of a stronger plot and more intricately developed characters. When the guitars roar and the singing starts though, it can be easy to forgive the faults and submerse yourself in the pulsing music and fervent performances.

With high hopes of becoming a singer, young Oklahoma girl Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) heads to Hollywood. Once there, a chance encounter lands her a job at the Bourbon Room, a famous nightclub run by Dennis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) that has played host to countless rock icons, including the wildly unhinged Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise). Falling in love with the Bourbon's busboy Drew (Diego Boneta), Sherrie thinks she's found happiness, but a grave misunderstanding finds the lovers parting ways; as each one drifts further away from their dreams, tragedy also strikes the Bourbon in the form of a bitter mayor's wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones), intent on shutting them down. But with a little luck and a lot of love, the power of rock 'n' roll might just save them all.

Fleeting cleverness works its way into a story of shattered dreams, lost and found love, personal redemption, and all that is '80s rock (including oodles of sweat, skin, pyrotechnics, girls, booze, and mischievous pet monkeys). With laughs from sexually deviant setups, suggestive comedic arrangements, and lascivious routines, and awkwardness from the stereotypical insanities of out-of-control musicians, the lack of a plot is intermittently forgotten. The infectious, nonstop soundtrack is also, fortunately, so intoxicating that it hides the deficiency in scripting. Generic characters and expected revelations messily fill in the gaps for a thrillingly assembled composition of catchy tunes and innovative duets, further augmented by an impressive cast (considering the success of the stage play, notable actors were probably easily attracted to the theatrical adaptation).

An abundance of energy similarly makes up for the unconvincing lip-syncing and spontaneous song-and-dance that isn't as smoothly integrated into character actions as other modern musicals. The flow and transitions are somewhat abrasive at the start, but after a few montages that seem to exist in their own indeterminate time frame, it's difficult not to get caught up in Cruise's silliness (embellished with an unwarranted sense of entitlement and extreme decadence), Giamatti's go-to sleazy linguist role, and Baldwin's uncharacteristic visual styling. Russell Brand, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Bryan Cranston, and Malin Akerman conflictingly add nothing but recognizable names and missed potential. Despite the foibles and faults, however, the music really makes it work.

- The Massie Twins (GoneWithTheTwins.com) Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Jim Parsons: Stage, Screen and Television

Jim Parsons' role of Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory may be the only place you've ever seen him. But Parsons is a stage-trained actor who's been in plays since the age of six. Parsons has received two Emmy Awards, a Golden Globe, a Critics' Choice TV Award and a Television Critics Association award for playing Sheldon Cooper.

Growing up in Houston, Texas, he appeared in Noises Off in his junior year of high school. At the University of Houston he appeared in 17 plays in three years. After graduation he moved to New York, working on off-Broadway and in TV appearances.

While The Big Bang Theory was on hiatus in 2011, Parsons was on Broadway in The Normal Heart. From May until August of 2012, he's starring in Harvey. He's remarked that he has never seen Harvey on stage, nor has he seen the James Stewart movie. It's his 30th stage appearance.

He's also appeared in 11 films. Two were cameos. The Big Bang Theory is Parsons' 10th TV series. You can't really call them all his series, since he appeared in only one episode of six shows. He has said he auditioned for between 15 and 30 pilots. Sometimes when he was cast, the shows weren't picked up by networks. But that's how you work your way up.

The role of Sheldon Cooper changed everything. The character is a scientist and a genius, having completed college in his teens. He's surrounded by three nerdy friends whom he constantly criticizes. He is obsessive about routine, especially certain dinners on certain days of the week, and he's very upset with any change. The waitress who lives across the hall confuses him, since he's the only one in the group not attracted to her, and he never understands sarcasm from her or anyone else. Despite his narcissistic personality, he is devoid of social skills, and he intensely dislikes being touched. (He's virginal at 31.) He spouts arcane scientific details -- and his own opinions -- in rapid-fire speech. This is undoubtedly a big reason for his Emmys. The scripts must be incredibly challenging.

Fans are fascinated by the difference between Jim and Sheldon. Jim smiles a lot more than Sheldon does. Actually, Sheldon practically never does. He has an almost nonexistent sense of humor. Parsons was hilarious on a recent interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. (Harvey will close in August..."get your tickets now!") His Emmy acceptance speeches were humble and grateful. And he smiled!

He loved school, and he loves his career now. He's worked hard for his success. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

How Accurate Was the Movie The Social Network?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Perry's Newest Release of the Madea Movies

Tyler Perry has done it again in the latest of the Madea movies, "Madea's Witness Protection." The beloved wise-cracking African-American grandma is again making her presence known on the big screen. Played by the ever prolific and talented Tyler Perry himself, Madea opens her home to a family on the run from the Mob. Comic genius Eugene Levy plays the CFO of a New York investment house who is framed and accused of defrauding churches and charities. The boisterous "real-life" household of Madea forces his family and hers to learn some invaluable lessons. George Needleman, a high level CFO in New York City, is accused of spearheading a Ponzi scheme involving the mob. This forces his family into the witness protection program. Madea's house down south with her brother, Joe and nephew Brian is a place that absolutely no one will think to look for them.

While not necessarily intended to be Christian films, most Madea movies usually feature a distinctive Judeo-Christian worldview. "Madea's Witness Protection" takes a positive approach to the very touchy issues of race relations and shows how the average person can overcome racial bigotry by cultivating compassion and understanding. The character of Madea in Tyler Perry movies embodies a number of other themes, including: a teaching experience for living "The Golden Rule" within the family, letting go of excessive materials, and offering productive alternatives for dealing with anger. Madea helps to answer the question-Does God "punish us" for our sins? Other reinforcing moral qualities teach to welcome strangers, respect elders, and honor parents. Although Madea's character may reflect some irony with her Christian charity, she holds conviction not to be too self serving.

Perry has said in various interviews that he pulled from the various personalities in his own family to create his alter ego, Madea. However, he confesses that his childhood was difficult. "I was quiet and always felt out of place my entire life. We grew up poor, but somehow I always knew that I could have a better life. No one around me believed that. I ended up keeping all my dreams to myself because whenever I'd share them with people they'd end up tearing them apart." Yet even with all the emotional despair he suffered as a child, Tyler Perry is still able to create humorous characters like Madea who has developed into a beloved character with a fan base all her own.

"Madea's Witness Protection" is due for release on June, 29. As an American comedy-drama film directed, written, and produced by Tyler Perry, this will be the fourteenth film in Perry's film franchise, and the seventh in the Madea franchise."Madea's Witness Protection" is the fourth Tyler Perry film not adapted from a play alongside The Family That Preys, Daddy's Little Girls, and Good Deeds. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Things to Do In Orlando Harry Potter Theme Park

First came the thick books, then the blockbuster movies, now Harry Potter fans can experience the world of magic through the Harry Potter theme Park in Orlando, Florida. With almost six years in the making and a cost of roughly about $200 million, Universal Island of Adventure was opened to the public in June of 2010. Since day 1, countless of Harry Potter fans around the world visited the place for its magical scenery and exciting Wizarding activities. It didn't take a long time for the park to become a legit tourist attraction in Orlando.

This 20-acre Wizarding World is an area inside the Island of Adventure Theme Park. Right from its entrance gate, visitors are welcomed with a stone arch of the Hogsmeade village by a steam-blowing train of Hogwarts Express. In front of it is a stretch taken straight from the movies: crooked-chimneyed old English shops along its winding road while snow-capped roofs are gleaming in the Florida sunshine.

Because of the popularity of the park, it's normal to see the park very crowded, everyday. So if you're planning to take your kids and the whole family to see the magical Harry Potter universe come to life, make sure you follow these tips:

1. Get there Early

Avoiding peak hours is your best option for a hassle-free visit. If you don't want to spend long minutes waiting in the long line just to get in the rides, make sure you arrive early. Also, the park usually closes during peak hours later in the day.

2. Take full advantage of Bypass Line-Ups

Universal Studio Theme Park helps guests who can't be at the park early through their alternative routes. There are three ways to bypass line-ups;

a. Staying at the Universal Orlando Resort and getting free "Universal Express" access.

b. Buying the Universal Express ticket.

c. Getting a VIP tour at a premium price.

3. Avoid crowded areas, such as shops.

As much as you want to purchase souvenirs, don't waste your time in buying items in crowded shops. There are tons of souvenir shops inside the theme park where you can get merchandise items. If you're thinking of going shopping inside the park, then you better avoid shopping in small shops. Those in the lower area of the Hogwarts Castle are better options for shopping.

4. Purchase wand at the Owl Post shop rather than in Olivanders.

Getting your own wand is a part of the whole Harry Potter theme park experience; however lines can be quite long in the Olivander wand shop, as it can only accommodate so much people at once. Owl Post shop on the other hand, is quite accessible in the connecting Banges and Dervish shops. Also, this shop is far more spacious.

5. Wait for the Lights

Though it can be quite tiring to walk around the park for hours, staying inside until night will allow you to see more magical ambiance of the park, completing your whole Harry Potter Theme Park experience. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.