Men In Black 3 Movie Review

Well, it's been ten long years since Agents J and K showed off their intergalactic protection skills in Men In Black 2, and given that the film didn't exactly win rave reviews, you can't blame anyone for being a little skeptical about the likelihood of a third installment being memorable. Luckily, I am always willing to give Will Smith the benefit of the doubt, and I'm happy to report that he and the entire cast made it worth my time.

THE GOOD: In order to go forward in this story, we have to go backwards... meaning time travel to the past; the summer of 1969, to be exact, when astronauts were preparing to walk on the moon and the Mets were poised to win the World Series. Another newsworthy event was Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) putting a foul looking alien by the name of Boris behind bars---in a prison on the moon, no less. But 40 years later, Boris has busted out of his lunar lockup and has managed to sneak through the space time continuum in an effort to find K and kill him. It's all up to J (Will Smith) to go back in time and put Boris out of commission, before he can achieve his goal. Oh, and J also needs to keep himself from getting left in 1969 as well... yes, it's sort of a "Back to the Future" twist, and it may not be as ingenious of an idea as it seemed 25 years ago, but for all intents and purposes, it works. As you can imagine, there is a social commentary to be made with J going back in time as a black man, and Smith delivers some great attitude at perfect moments when small minded people speak without thinking.

As much as I adore Will Smith however, the scene stealer in this movie is without a doubt Josh Brolin, who not only plays the younger version of Agent K, but NAILS it. There's no debating that Tommy Lee Jones has a very unique presence and mannerism, so for someone to be able to capture that with such flawlessness, it is award worthy in my opinion. From his facial expressions to his accent and timing, everything was spot on... and hilarious. Adding to that fun, we have the alien character Griffin (played by Michael Stuhlbarg) who is a sweet and perpetually anxious little creature, and has the dubious gift of seeing the future----or rather the equal possibility of several different futures, some positive and some not so much. With his misty blue eyes, Elmer Fudd wool hat, and innocent childlike responses, he might come across as goofy to some, but I adored him.

THE BAD: I can only assume that in order to capitalize on how amazing Josh Brolin is in this role, efforts were made to keep Will Smith's character from shining too brightly. Or at least, that's what ends up happening. Usually Agent J is so full of sarcasm and attitude that the laughs are pretty constant... this time around, it took almost 45 minutes for Will to have a laugh worthy moment, at least for me personally. This isn't to say that Smith isn't his usual great talent, but be prepared that he doesn't pack nearly the punch in this installment as he did in the first two.

THE UGLY: I'm torn really, as to what the most hideous part of this movie was, but I certainly have it narrowed down to two contenders: the first being Boris (Jemaine Clement) in general---this guy just brings repulsive to a whole new level---but it's his teeth specifically that had me completely nauseated. It was like an entire mouth full of giant yellow molars and reminded me of the scary monsters I imagined as a little girl. Of course none of those creatures were ever making out with a woman in black leather pants in my imagination---which brings us to contender number 2. If there is anything more disturbing than a monster like man with bad dental work, it would be watching that same man sticking his tongue in a woman's mouth. Shudder. It's like I'm a five year old girl again, with a whole new scary image to keep me awake at night.

It's a generally accepted fact that the Men In Black Franchise started off strong, then hit a low with MIB2. There will be those who won't be willing to give MIB3 a chance because they fear things will only get worse... the surprise is that, as sequels go, this one is actually worth seeing, not only because of Brolin's performance, but the touching surprise twist at the end that explains J and K's relationship.

The Trophy Wife gives this movie 3 ½ trophies.

Men In Black 3 has a running time of 106 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and brief suggestive content. No F words. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Skyfall: Review

To start off, I really enjoyed Casino Royal and thought it was a fantastic, much needed reboot of Bond. Quantum of Solace was a cluster and disappointment though. Much more ambitious than Casino Royal and ended up being meh.

So Skyfall looked interesting right from the first trailer. It looked like Bond was finally going to fall at the knees of a villain, or at least thats what the trailer led on. The title Skyfall also sounds mysterious and very important. So did the film live up to the Bond legacy. Well, of course it did.

Skyfall starts off a little slow, Even though the opening act is a chase sequence that includes motor bikes and a fight scene on top of a moving train. It ends with Bond being shot by his partner on accident. The whole opening scene didn't seem intense or anything and was a bit boring. So right off the start I was worried. The opening credits that follow right after, tops the best of the Bond songs. Adele's theme is fantastic.

Then we get to the juice of the film. The whole middle act is just so much better than the beginning and ending of the film. We learn that M must retire and that Ralph Fiennes character is pretty much going to take her place after. But M refuses untill her current job is over. M thinks Bond is dead. Then there's an attack on M16, which brings Bond back from the dead to help M investigate and find who is doing this. Then the whold middle act starts and the world adventure begins. Its all fun to watch and the acting is great. Also the way this film was shot is stunning. This is definitely the best looking Bond film

Javiar Bardem portrays the villain in Skyfall and is just fantastic. He practically steals the show, giving a performance worthy of some sort of reward! But he enters the film about half way through and is in the film not nearly as long as I would like.

The ending is a huge letdown. After Bardem's character takes a direct shot at M, her and Bond flee to Bonds child hood house. The whole ending is a shoot out defending Bonds old mansion and is just underwhelming. The act was just as a let down as the opening scene and it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, as your thinking "That's it"?

Overall this is a better film than the previous Bond film, but doesn't even touch Casino Royal. The played the film a little safe this time around. But there were a few nice touches, having a much darker tone, a crazy villain, and a Bond that is coming out of retirement.

Even with all the complaining, I did enjoy the film. Now its time to wait for whats next. Which has the parts to make the best Bond ever. Final Score: 8.0. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

3D Geek V 3D Consumer, A New Look at the Passive Vs Active 3D TV Debate

Once 3D was a novelty act in cinemas. Now it's a rapidly developing technology that helps movie directors and progressive TV channels find new and better ways to help you feel part of the action.

Early 3D technology made it possible for manufacturers such as Samsung, Sony and Panasonic to introduce 3D TV sets into homes. They applied the early-adopter rule of money being no object and technical specification being everything. So they developed the geektastic active 3D technology systems that require shutter glasses with powered lenses and transmitter mechanisms to sync the tech-heavy 3D glasses to the display unit.

Active-shutter glasses are actually small LCD screens that alternately dim the left and right lenses at speeds faster than the human eye can detect. They use an infrared signal emitter in the TV to ensure each pair of synched 3D glasses dims each of its lenses at the appropriate moment. Each eye's glass contains a layer, which flickers between dark or transparent when voltage is applied. The timing signal allows the glasses to synchronize together with the refresh rate of anything between 100Hz and 240Hz.

Active-shutter 3D glasses, thanks to the technology involved are relatively expensive. So much so that manufacturers don't often include them with active 3D TV sets - you have to buy them at a substantial additional cost. Besides the cost of the glasses - anything from £50 - £150 per pair, you also have to stump up for the batteries they need to keep them running. It's these batteries that also give active 3D glasses a bit of a weight problem that can cause discomfort during full-length feature films. An issue that becomes even more problematical if you already wear prescription glasses.

The final difficulty with active 3D glasses is that no two systems use the same signal emitter set-up: you can only use them on your own system and will have to wait for the development of universal active 3D glasses to head round to your pals to watch the football in 3D.

Fortunately a solution, in the form of passive 3D systems, arrived on the fast developing 3D TV scene.

As other TV manufacturers such as LG, Philips, Toshiba, Vizio, Cello, Manta, Bush and Finlux began to develop 3D TV systems aimed at mainstream consumers, they opted for passive 3D glasses technology. Making passive 3D glasses is no more complicate than making a pair of standard sunglasses. Only the specially designed polarized lenses are different.

When you watch a 3D film and the cinema or on a passive 3D TV, the polarised lenses in the passive 3D glasses simply block different kinds of light from each eye to create that immersive illusion of depth inside the mind of the viewer. The circular polarised lenses are set at angles that match a combined image on the screen. The glasses simply decode the images with any need for those flickering shutters that can cause headaches on active 3D glasses. What's more, you don't ever have to replace any batteries or miss out on the football in 3D because they are flat. So why doesn't everybody see passive 3D glasses as sounds like the perfect 3D solution?

The makers and enthusiastic fans of active 3D systems often refer to the fact that technically passive 3D glasses do not provide a true HD experience on 3D TVs. With passive 3D, the viewer sees 540 lines of resolution to each eye, or half 1080p (provided the source is 1080p). So, theoretically the picture will have less depth and quality than one of 1080p - the norm for active 3D systems. However, active 3D supporters claim that this difference is only noticeable a couple feet from the TV. As nobody buys a large screen TV to use as a laptop the issue seems to be nothing more than manufacturer spin.

To prove the point, LG has recently won ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority that allows them to state that the passive 3D glasses experience is a full HD experience. Perhaps that is why Panasonic and Sony have both recently began making passive 3D systems?

The real difference lies not in whether active 3D glasses are too heavy, cause dizziness and headaches, or passive 3D glasses offer a less immersive experience cheap as chips experience: real difference lies in the eye and the mind of the beholder.

Each of us experiences 3D in a way that is unique to our own viewing physiology. Our eyes, our experiences and our preferences, shape the way we see things. The fact is, we simply do not see exactly the same things as people sitting right next to us. Moreover, 3D is a depth-perception illusion created in our mind's unique eye. While technical facts and research can advance all manner of claims, it is only you who can decide what rocks your 3D world.

At a geek v consumer level, each of us is either the kind of avid technology buff that wanted to be the first to experience 3D TV in the home or someone who was always going to wait until the technology developed to a point where updating the old TV with a state of the art but relatively inexpensive passive 3D TV seems like a no brainer. Especially when you consider that you are likely to be watching a mixture of 2D (60%) and 3D (40%) programs on your 3D TV.

Even if you adopt a try before you buy approach, evaluating passive or active 3D TVs is fraught with difficulties. For one thing, it is impossible to experience what it is like to live with heavy active 3D glasses unless you spend hours in the showroom watching a film. Equally, the quality of passive 3D glasses is enough to make anyone think twice about making an impulse purchase.

May we suggest a solution?

Perhaps before you risk investing in a prohibitively expensive active 3D system because of the perceived picture quality or dismiss the very idea of a passive 3d system because of the poor quality passive 3D glasses, you should take the opportunity to experience the outstanding passive 3D experience delivered by Designer 3D glasses by Oskav.

All our wayfarer-style glasses are made to the same exacting standards as designer sunglasses. Our lenses are made to a particular specification that ensures a high definition 3D experience and lasting durability. Our collection of designer finishes is simply without equal in passive 3D glasses. So what have you go to loose? From just £19.99 you could get the LG, Philips, Toshiba or Panasonic passive 3D TV test drive of a lifetime and in the process get a pair of designer 3D glasses that also allow you to go to see any 3D film in style. Put the 3D geek v 3D consumer debate behind you in a pair of designer 3D glasses by Oskav. Buy designer 3D glasses by Oskav online at oskav.com. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

The Business of Movie Theaters: Films or Food?

Not so long ago people went to the movies to, well, see the movie. Now it's almost as if the movie has become secondary to the food and arcade games that most theaters have on offer. Montreal, as was the case in most cities, had its fair share of movie theaters - we didn't call them cinemas, to us they were movie theaters, plain and simple - both in the downtown core and in the suburbs.

These were often elaborately designed single-screen theaters showing films every night and offered matinees on the weekends and during school holidays. I recall the price being 75 cents before seven o'clock at which time the cost of admission shot up to a whopping $1.25! For that princely sum movie patrons were treated to a cartoon - usually a Blake Edwards'Pink Panther short which worked well in Montreal as it could be used in both French and English theaters given the lack of dialogue - in addition to the main feature.

But the price is not the issue; the price of everything has gone up over time. What has changed is the focus from movie house to all round food and entertainment center. Not all that long ago your admission fee got you into the theater to see the movie. There were, of course, snack bars where you could buy soft drinks, popcorn, candies and chips. But these were just for convenience because many people, perhaps most, brought their own snacks to the movie. I'm not talking about smuggling in contraband Twizzlers or Reese's Pieces, sneaking past ushers who look like they want to pat down movie goers. The goodies people brought to the theater were most welcome; after all they had paid their admission. It was a movie theater, not a restaurant - it was a Bring Your Own Food establishment

Movie goers would bring in, openly and honestly, snack items such as a box of a dozen Dunkin' Donuts and Dairy Queen milkshakes. Others brought submarine sandwiches or even hamburgers. Some folks even made special snacks at home and, along with a thermos of coffee settled in to enjoy the movie and munch on a ham on rye.

These days the film is almost an afterthought; once you get past the vast array of food on offer at exorbitant prices and run the gamut of the umpteen video games in the lobby, you can finally settle down to watch the feature.

The Movie business has changed. Long gone are the days when movie theaters were in the business of selling admission to films and providing convenience snack bar counters, but were BYOF! 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.

Relaxing With a Classic On Thanksgiving

The Thanksgiving table is filled with excitement each year. Good food, family, and friends all take center stage during the celebration. After dinner is over, many choose to turn their attention to the numerous college and professional football games that flood the television, choosing a side and sticking with the cheering section assigned to their favorite team. This year, if football is not on the agenda for the gathering, watching a few warm Thanksgiving movies instead will help the family maintain a relaxed holiday atmosphere. Plenty of holiday movies address the Thanksgiving theme in various ways. Whether the preferred movie genre is animation, comedy, or action, one of the following movie selections is sure to please the family at this year's gathering.

"Pocahontas" is an Oscar-winning animated favorite that was released in 1995 by Disney. The movie explores the love affair that sparks between a Native American chief's daughter, Pocahontas (Irene Bedhard), and an English soldier, Captain John Smith (Mel Gibson). The two are on the opposite side of an invasion by the English settlers. In the 1600s, the English land in Virginia, the homeland of Pocahontas. She stumbles upon their camp and a romance begins with Smith. The fairy tale love is disrupted by the greed of Governor Ratcliff; it is believed that Pocahontas's tribe is literally sitting on a gold mine.

As friction builds between the two groups, it is up to the two lovers to try and keep the peace. This animated film is engaging for older adults and filled with action to keep the attention of any teens who may be watching. This is a movie that captures the Native American-settler encounter in a way that is not too violent for young eyes, but accurate enough for the adults to refresh their American history. The soft song selections are enough to lull even the tiniest baby to sleep so that the rest of the crowd can enjoy the movie without interruption.

Every Thanksgiving, there is a channel that features the comedy "Dutch." A single mother (JoBeth Williams) tries to give a little love to her son, Doyle Standish (Ethan Embry), at Thanksgiving after her selfish ex-husband (Christopher McDonald) leaves her holding the bag again by cancelling his holiday time with his son. Her knight in shining armor, her new boyfriend Dutch (Ed O'Neill), volunteers to go to the boarding school her son attends and retrieve him for the holidays. They do not make it out of the dormitory before the bubble bursts. The two end up at each other's throats all along the road trip.

This film is a precursor to the "Are We There Yet?" series produced by Ice Cube; the good guy gets stuck on a bad road trip with his new love's kids. When the news of the new guy reaches her ex-husband, he mysteriously finds time in his busy schedule to try and further destroy her reputation with her son. This film is a roller coaster ride filled with some very funny interactions, but may be suited for a more mature audience. The film is rated PG-13, but if there is someone in the crowd who does not understand about the birds and the bees, he or she may be better off in the football room.

An all-time classic Thanksgiving movie must be included on this list of Thanksgiving favorites. "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving" was released in 1973, but is still relevant to the families of today. Any adaptation of the comic strip series always brings laughter and cheer to viewers. This animated gem is the story of the Peanuts gang's celebration of Thanksgiving. Peppermint Patty (Christopher DeFaria) plans a dinner for her family and friends. As is the tradition of the series, Charlie Brown (Todd Barbee) always gets the short end of the stick, but remains as good as gold throughout the story. There is even a scene with a football, just in case viewers think they are missing out on something in the other room. One of the best scenes in the movie is the Thanksgiving prayer given by Linus. In his prayer, Linus relays the importance of the holiday by giving a bit of history surrounding the celebration.

The holiday season can be very stressful with the anticipation of guests, family interactions, and all of the preparation that goes into the festivities. To set the tone for the celebration, try a cool music selection, good food, and a good movie. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

3 Latest Movies Filmed on Location in South Africa

South Africa has been a prime location for film productions for years now, but it is still a novelty to find an international movie or major TV series actually set on the streets of Cape Town or Johannesburg. So it was with great excitement that South African movie goers greeted the release of Safe House earlier this year, and that is not the only movie to be filmed on location in Cape Town recently.

Safe House - This blockbuster box office hit stars Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds and was filmed on location in and around Cape Town. The story of a young CIA agent on the run as he tries to look after a fugitive in a safe house gives lots of scope to the Mother City as a setting. Capetonians get extra thrills from location spotting of their familiar streets and mountain, but from the fact that it scored a huge $40.2 m in its first weekend after release it went down a storm everywhere else in the world too.

Chronicle - Here Cape Town is doubling for Seattle, as three teenagers with supernatural powers find their lives spiralling out of control. The sci-fi thriller is filmed as if it were found-footage put together from video recordings. As well as being filmed on location in the streets of Cape Town, the production used sets constructed on a film studio stage at Cape Town Film Studios. Left hand drive cars were shipped in especially for the production and ingenious special effects produced to show the effects of the heroes' telekinetic powers crushing a car.

Dark Tide is another 2012 release filmed on location in and around Cape Town. This harnesses the power and drama of the ocean as Halle Berry stars as a diving instructor who returns to work in deep waters after an almost fatal encounter with a shark. The crew shot on a small boat with real great white sharks in False Bay. The studio filming in an underwater tank was completed at Pinewood Studios in the UK. The film was released in March 2012 and didn't get very good critical reviews, either for the plot or for the acting, but everyone agrees that the scenery is stunning, as you would expect for any movie filmed with the Cape Peninsula as a backdrop.

And something else to watch out for, though not yet released, is the third TV series of military drama Strike Back, which was filmed in various locations in South Africa earlier this year. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Television Influence on Small Children

The Greek and Latin languages are where the word 'television' has its origin. The word is a derivative from 'tele', which is a Greek word translates, to 'far sight' and 'visio' is a Latin word that means 'sight.' In the latter part of the 1930s, the television made its way to the commercial markets. These days, television is the single most popular type of audio-visual in commercial set-ups and home. Merely mentioning the word 'television' calls to mind a medium which assists individuals in keeping abreast with entertainment issues and current affairs. No longer is the television set a single communication unit. The television has evolved in the complexity of the design to transmit recorded material that is stored on Blu-ray discs, laser discs, DVDs and video cassettes.

Television History

The television history spans over time zones and regions, in view of the fact that the technology has evolved in different places and at different times. This communication system, as it is known these days, is not the brainchild of any one specific inventor. The process has taken the endeavours of a number of engineers, over several decades, to develop along various overlapping designs, to utilize commonly accepted electronic and mechanical principles. Despite the fact that electromechanical television sets have been abandoned for the completely electronic, ultra-modern designs, the fundamental design rests on the discovery of selenium photo-conductivity in 1873. That discovery which was made by Willoughby Smith brought about the scanning disk invention from Paul Gottlieb Nipkow in 1884. In 1926, a demonstration of televised moving images was carried out by John Logie Baird, that technology was joined with the image dissector that was designed in 1927 by Philo Farnsworth, to provide viewers with the fundamental principles of the television that we currently know.

These days, the world of television is discovered by children at an incredibly tender age. A number of studies have indicated that kids who are younger than 6 years old watch television, DVD or video on a daily basis, at an average of 2 hours. In a number of instances, watching television can be useful, particularly the wildlife and educational programs that have the capacity to broaden the understanding and knowledge of your child in relation to the world around him or her. In addition, it can introduce them to a variety of communities and cultures of the world. However, at the moment the negative effects are seemingly outweighing the uplifting ones.

The Negative Influences of Television on Children

The formative years in the life of child, particularly the first two to three years, are vital to the mental growth and development of the child. Those are the years in which a child learns by way of interacting, observing, playing and discovering new things. As a result, these first few years are extremely vital for the physical and mental development. Therefore, a pattern of watching television excessively could hinder his or her social activities such as spending quality time with members of the family, reading and playing with friends.

There are a number of television programs that portray extreme violence and this could induce lots of changes in behaviour in young children. In view of the fact that kids can relate easily to what is being shown on the television screen, they will be more prone to imitating the behaviour that is depicted. As a result, you may notice aggressive behaviour in your child. In addition, it could cause the little one to develop sleeping disorders and have nightmares because his or her sense of anxiety and fear has been stimulated by what is shown on the television. In addition to this, it will possibly result in creating confusion in the mind of the young child as it relates to knowing the difference between good and bad. That is because parents most likely teach their kids that aggression and violence is bad but the program on the television will possibly show the heroes or 'good guys' perpetrating violence.

Apart from the violence, drinking and smoking scenes are depicted widely in commercials and television programs, without giving an explanation of the unfavourable consequences. The repeated and continuous exposure to these programs will make children feel as though these activities are quite acceptable and normal. As a result, kids who watch these programs on a regular basis are a great deal more likely to mimic and develop these unhealthy habits from an early stage in their development.

In the developed world, obesity is a widespread problem and television is among the important factors that are responsible for the increasing incidences of obesity among kids. Excessive watching of television decreases physical activities of the kids and simultaneously amplifies the popularity of unhealthy foods, such as potato chips, soft drinks and other snacks that they see on the commercials. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

American Idol: The Spotlight on the Judges

It was just over a decade ago where we saw the landscape of television change due to the success of the hit tv show, American Idol. The show managed to produce a fair share of talents in every season that kept viewers wanting to see more. Aside from the talent that was showcased, the viewing public also got exposed to three different personalities standing as a judge for the show. Randy Jackson, a well-known producer in the music business, Paula Abdul, a popular singer/dancer and probably the most memorable of them all, Simon Cowell, a music producer from the UK who handled the careers of several musicians and was known for his straightforward opinions which means contestants usually receive harsh criticisms from him without feeling remorse.

The relationship between the judges also became one of the reasons why people tuned in to the show. Paula and Simon's nonstop bickering turned out to be a form of entertainment for most people. However, that trio was not meant to last long as the judges had a change of line-up in the latter years of the show. We've seen the judging panel grow to four when comedian Ellen DeGeneres joined the panel. Some have criticized her for not having enough experience as a judge and for not having enough music credentials. She later left the show after one season. We also saw Kara DioGuardi, a music producer and song writer, join the show. The major turning point of the show would have to be the time when Simon decided to leave the show. Many thought that the show will not continue without his presence but the concern that was in everybody's heads was the question of who was going to replace him. Several names popped up until we saw the entire shake-up in the judging panel.

They were cutting the judges back down to three like how it used to be with Randy Jackson being the only original judge to be retained. It was later announced that he was going to be joined by famous rock star and lead singer of the band, Aerosmith, Steven Tyler and popular singer/dancer/actress Jennifer Lopez. There were mixed reactions regarding the new panel of judges but in the end, the three of them did their best to have some chemistry between each other, much to the delight of the fans. But while some were pleased with the decision, some thought that the three of them were too nice to the contestants and they fail to give enough constructive criticisms like Simon Cowell used to do.

It has now been a problem for talent competitions to be criticized for their selection of judges and not just contestants. Some criticizes them for getting judges only for high ratings instead of producing a good talent molded by a credible set of judges. For a show like American Idol, they have endured these criticisms for more than a decade and it doesn't seem to affect them as they have clearly gained a loyal fan base whoever they put on the judging panel. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Movie Review: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012)

An unending, melancholy tone permeates the entire film, once again demonstrating Steve Carell's knack for that typical, sad, lonely character he always assumes (when he's not the cocky, ignorant, inconsiderate "Michael Scott" persona). But unlike Dan in Real Life or Little Miss Sunshine, there are few ups and downs - the role isn't nearly dynamic enough for audiences to invest in the somber development that keeps his plight from being emotionally involving. Similarly, Keira Knightley goes through the motions of being an unlikely companion without a convincing connection that could warrant their cross-country pilgrimage to find meaning in a world coming undone.

Dodge Petersen (Steve Carell) still goes to work each day at Metropolitan Consolidated Life Insurance, even though a 70-mile-wide asteroid named "Matilda" has just annihilated space shuttle Deliverance, the last remaining hope for saving Earth from certain doom. The countdown has begun: 21 days before the world ends. Many resort to abandoning hope, participating in carefree orgies of food and sex, or spending their final hours with family and friends. Penny (Keira Knightley) has missed her last opportunity to fly home and so laments outside Dodge's window. The two strike up a friendship and decide to embark on an odyssey to reunite Dodge with his high school sweetheart - a reconciliation botched by Penny retaining a misdelivered letter for Dodge. They're also accompanied by a randomly deserted dog dubbed "Sorry" - a witty moniker never fully utilized.

It's sometimes touching and undeniably soothing to see the obvious counterparts come to a romantic fruition, even if the casting choices don't appear completely compatible. Perhaps it's the age difference, or the contrasting personalities, or witnessing brief, unfulfilling assemblies of Penny's past admirers that seem probable yet discordant. Or maybe it's Dodge's admirable yet clashing sacrifices for love that suggest contrivance and an expected resolution. Regardless, a deeper association with the lead duo is elusive, what with the pervasive reminiscing, brooding, and irrational behaviors that are never delirious enough to be funny. Serenity arises, but not as repeatedly as bewilderment from the scenario.

This setting, with citizens either rioting, killing, offing themselves, contradictorily mowing the lawn as if to forget, or stocking bomb shelters for apocalyptic survival, is both the most unique element and the film's undoing. Ceding appeasement for an eye-opening twist essentially ruins the normal romantic comedy hiding beneath the frantic premise. And it's toned down to a degree, materializing less anarchy and chaos than might be expected (infidelity, rape and theft become a casual joke) if the situation were real - yet the shock of suicide and death still work their way into the picture. Enlightenment, a day at the beach, and reconnecting with loved ones can't mask the nerve-wracking, spontaneous nature of encountering bizarre strangers and frequenting eerily abandoned houses. At times it's more disturbing than humorous or romantic. Why should this bleak device interfere so tragically with a simple tale of recognizing the importance of truly worthwhile relationships?

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