What Film To Watch Tonight

So just in case you have haven't heard of it, Twitter is a recent addition to the Social Network spectrum which involves posting (or tweeting) small messages to a group of self proclaimed followers.

Twitter exploded specifically through the Arab uprisings and has become a de facto real time News source for many people. The thing that most interests me about this is that people are starting to ask questions of the Twitter-sphere like 'what film to watch #decisions' being a common one.

So what are people's real expectations of asking these questions?

Unlike Yahoo Answers Twitter is not a fan of people abusing the ability to direct posts to people who aren't followers however I am sure that Twitter users are not relying on their own followers for advice. I base this on the fact that during my research I have found that few people answer tweeted questions. Especially if the user has few followers and little notoriety in the Twitter field.

So are uses expecting random people to respond?

I did a test, I focused my research on the Twitter question posted above. I set up a small experiment where I build an automated Twitter personality who would search recent tweets for these questions 'what film to watch' and post back responses. The responses varied from simple film suggestions:

'What about The Godfather?'

To more complex responses such as suggesting multiple films:

'What about The Godfather or Scarface?'

And then on to more useful responses including links to popular sources of trailers and/or reviews to allow the user to click through to the relevant resource and find out more.

So what were the findings?

Well people's expectations fell into a few categories.

The first were tried and tested users of Twitter who exhibited large tweet counts, large following and follower counts who would ignore this message or worse report it as spam. These users were net contributors to Twitter. They would use Twitter as a social platform to advertise themselves and their own thoughts.

The second were more moderate users of Twitter who exhibited small tweet counts and small follower counts but perhaps large following counts. These users would be grateful for the answer since they shows signs of being a net beneficiary from Twitter. They would use Twitter as an information source, be likely to subscribe to News websites and other information sources. These users were more likely to retweet the response or even respond back.

So in conclusion I found that Twitter is full of contributors and beneficiaries. Depending on the context people's attitudes to anonymous responses would differ. Is this something Twitter should considering in their Social Network model? What do you think? 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.

Reviews of Famous Martial Arts Movies, Sword of Swords

If someone tells me that they have had enough and now they have had enough of Jimmy Wang-Yu, they are not to be blamed. Cheng Pei-Pei, known as the "Master of the Flying Guillotine", was cool albeit in a funny way, but one will agree that it becomes very difficult to digest the awkwardly bloody "The Golden Swallow". Although the movie was made by the legendary Chang Cheh, it did not have the usual light mood but was packed with oppression and the overall mood of the movie was heavy which made it more difficult to watch.

The difference as an audience was as evident as that between John Ford's "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" and "The Wild Bunch" by Sam Peckinpah. Both the movies were western classics with some common thematic factors. However, the way in which the movies were made and delivered created that world of difference.

One good point that can be said about "Sword of Swords", which released in the year 1968, was that the film had many familiar faces which we were used to seeing in Shaw Brother's wuxia movies. These included Tian Feng (see "Raw Courage" by Cheng Pei-Pei) and Huang Chung Hsin (famous for his role in Pei-Pei's "dragon Swamp) who played the lead negatives roles in the movie. The disappointments - Yeung Chi Hing (from "Rivers of tears" by Jenny Hu) and Ouyang Sha Fei (see "Sweet and Wild" by Li Ching) were completely wasted in the movie. The director of the movie was the father of the legendary director and choreographer Ching Siu-Tung, Cheng Kang.

After watching "Sword of Swords", one is compelled to feel that the role played by Li Ching was written to be bashed and beaten repeatedly, to help Jimmy's character get instigated and act on taking revenge!

In the film, Jimmy Wang-Yu is a member of a clan who is trying to get hold of the Sword of Swords. This sword was said to possess the strength of the Wind if used in a certain manner. This special power of the sword was shown in a hilariously choreographed scene.

The film basically comprises of scenes in which either Jimmy is resisting his fighting desire, or protecting the powerful sword against the bad guys, or getting beaten, or getting his family bashed up and his house getting burned.

However, he is the hero and heroes just doesn't seem to die! Therefore, even though Jimmy is blinded and is repeatedly stabbed, he just freezes in the snow and recovers with the help of a poor old woman!

Overall, the movie is neither funny nor witty to amuse the audience. Neither does the movie have an enticing plot. However, this movie will surely be liked and maybe worshiped by Chang Cheh fans, as the movie has is super-violent and has the ultra-male factor playing throughout.

My advice - try watching Chang Pei-Pei's films once more, just to get your sanity back! Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Jackie Chan's Last Major Action Film: Chinese Zodiac

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times: "Oh, I'm too old to do that". Every time I've heard that statement, I've politely disagreed. I believe that as we grow older we just become less active. So, to that previously mentioned statement, bah humbug!

Now, on to the main topic of this article, Jackie Chan! At 58 years old, Jackie is still doing his special brand of stunts and is going to release the biggest film of his career: Chinese Zodiac. If Jackie can still kick butt, then you have no excuses!

This is what Jackie had to say about his final action flick:

"I've been fighting and doing action films all my life, you've got to find a point to stop. With this movie I'm the director, I'm the writer, I'm the producer. So okay, I think it's a good time to announce that it's my last big action movie. I would still do action movies but not a big one like this.""For the last ten years I've been choosing the director to direct me. This one I direct myself," he explained. "I hope this movie, 20 years later, people still remember it. For me, for the audience, for my future, for my history - it's very important."

Chinese Zodiac is the third installment in the "Armour of God" series which was titled "Operation Condor" in the U.S. It's funny how Jackie says that he hopes people still remember this film 20 years from now. It has actually already been 21 years since the release of "Armour of God II: Operation Condor" and I remember that movie... it is one of my favorites.

Chinese Zodiac is about a treasure hunter/ thief that is on a mission to find a rare set of Chinese sculptures that represent the zodiac animals. Jackie has spent 7 years preparing and 1 year shooting in over 10 cities in 5 countries. The film is also being produced with a Hong Kong production company instead of one in Hollywood. Yes! Now we can count on it being somewhat decent instead of a run of the mill piece of Hollywood garbage.

I can't wait until Chinese Zodiac is released. When Jackie says he's going to do something, he means business. I've seen countless behind the scenes footage of him doing stunts over and over and over again until they are perfect. He doesn't want any of his action sequences to look bad. This film is no exception to the rule... it is going to represent his life's work.

As far as continuing his career, I'll admit it, I don't think Jackie is going to have a very easy time transitioning into being a "serious" actor. Even if Jackie does have an incredible acting talent, he has branded himself as an action star and most will scoff at the idea.

I applaud Jackie. He just wants to keep doing what he loves. He has had an incredible career. He has acted in over 100 films and has even shared the screen with the great Bruce Lee in "Enter the Dragon".

Even if he remains in excellent shape, at some point, you've got to relax a little bit. I haven't seen too many people in their sixties jump from building tops to the roofs of buses or fly down zip lines at 40mph. I'm hoping he will continue to do as many stunts as he can in his future films. Jackie truly is a living legend. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

The Story Behind Bollywood

With a world population of 182 million speakers of Hindi and a thriving cultural industry, we investigate the story behind Bollywood in translation - the focal point of traditional India cinema enjoyed the world over. However, there are lots of misconceptions about this worldwide phenomenon. Although it is commonly interpreted as a wide spanning term for Indian cinema, it is actually a smaller part of it. Bollywood is only part of the Indian film industry, which produces films in regional language. Known formally as Hindi cinema, it also has an increasingly common feature of incorporating Indian English in songs and dialogue (Hinglish in translation).

So where did the word come from? It's a portmanteau of Bombay (former name of Mumbai) and the multimillion-dollar film industry of Hollywood. However, the similarity ends here as it's not an actual physical place, although it does reside in pride of place in the Oxford English Dictionary. The name has also been contested over its original coinage - from the scholar Amit Kannar to journalist Bevinda Collaco.

The story behind Indian cinema began with the screening of six silent films at the Watson Hotel in Bombay from the Lumiere Brothers. Having watched a screening in 1910, Dadasaheb Phalke decided to make his own screening, with the silent film Raja Harishchanda in 1913.

To reflect the times socially, culturally and historically, Indian cinema and Bollywood cinema underwent many trends in subject matter. During the 30s and 40s alongside social upheavals and the partitioning of India, more lighthearted subjects came from a wave of directors who used this political backdrop and freedom movement to flavour their scripts, dissecting many various issues and bringing them to life.

Following the 1940s and 50s, the independence of India heralded the Golden Age of Hindi cinema. These covered a wide range of issues, including social themes dealing with urban life in the famous films of critical acclaim such as the Raj Kapoor films Awaara and Shree 420. Black and white films were still prevalent until the 1960s, although the 1950s heralded in the new age of colour films. The plots now gravitated to romance and dramatic themes with famous actors such as Raj Kapoor and Meena Kumari and then eventually action.

So here is a snapshot of the famous industry, with now such famous stars as Rani Mukeraji and Aishwarya Rai. Hopefully we've helped to shed some more light in translation of Bollywood and the influence it has had over history!

Read up on Hindi interpreting services for more information on the relationship between English and Hindi. 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.