One Night With the King
October 25, 2010
Two of the more fun traditions we have in Judaism are that of the Midrash and that of the Purim Spiel. Combine the two, add a little Hollywood magic, and you are likely to end up with something like “One Night with the King,” the 2006 film that dramatizes the Biblical book of Esther.
Like the best of Biblical epics, such as one of my favorite films, “The Ten Commandments,” the movie embellishes the original story and adds motivations and explanations that may be missing from the original text.
Purists may have trouble dealing with a more modern interpretation, but the average, contemporary filmgoer will find much to enjoy in this movie, which is based on the 2004 novel Hadassah: One Night with the King by Tommy Tenney.
The film doesn’t so much change the familiar story as it enhances it. For example, the original Biblical text mentions, in passing, the names of several of the King’s advisors including Memucan and Admantha, but we don’t really know much about who they are.
The film “One Night with the King” develops both of these as very important characters (played with great depth by Omar Sharif and John Noble, respectively). They have different points of view and head opposing factions within the court.
This allows Haman, like Iago, to cunningly play the two against each other. Haman pretends to be loyal to one and then betrays him to the other, allowing him to rise quickly within the political structure. Here, Haman is a master of the complex and deadly game of palace politics.
In some of the scenes, Haman can be very manipulative by being understated, and in others he shouts like Hitler as he tries to enrage a crowd with anti-Semitism. James Callis, who plays Haman, makes the perfect villain.
Another important addition the film makes to the Biblical Esther is the role of Hegai the Eunuch, played by Tommy Lister. In the original text, he is only mentioned briefly, but in the movie he becomes a very important, sympathetic character. At first he doesn’t think much of Esther as he prepares her to be judged by the King, but as he gets to know her, he comes to favor her above the other contestants, giving her advice and other positions of advantage.
And it probably goes without saying that Esther, too, played by Tiffany Dupont, becomes a much deeper and more complex character than she appears in the original text. Early on, she is deeply devoted to her people and is in love with a young Jew named Jesse ben Joseph (Jonah Lotan) who is never mentioned in the Bible.
She is quite intelligent and literate in several languages—unusual for a woman of her time—and quickly recognizes the opportunity she has, if she were to become Queen. She regrets that she must reject Jesse for the chance to have a real impact on the Jewish people.
And when at last the hour comes for her real mettle to be tested, she must risk her life to try to save the Jewish people. This is very hard for her, but somehow she gathers the inner strength that she needs to appear before the King without being sent for.
The film also answers some age-old problems with the Biblical text that scholars have wrestled with. For one, who was this King Ahasuerus? There is no mention of him in the records of the Persian Empire. Some scholars think Ahasuerus was simply another name for Xerxes I, the Persian king who invaded Greece in 480BC. Perhaps he was his grandfather. Or his grandson. It’s hard to know for sure. Some scholars think there never was such a historical King; they believe that Ahasuerus was made up and, furthermore, the entire book of Esther is just a fictional story.
So how does the film answer this question? “One Night with the King” declares that Ahasuerus is indeed Xerxes I and gives him that name. More importantly, his invasion of Greece plays a huge role in the movie.
The story is set immediately prior to the Greek invasion as the King (Luke Goss) and his advisors debate whether or not to go to war. There are pro-war camps and anti-war camps. And as public opinion is being whipped up against the Greeks, Haman tries to associate the Jews with the Greeks, calling them “Greek Democracy-lovers.”
Another important question, of course, is why does Haman hate the Jews so much? In Biblical Esther, Haman is incensed because Mordecai won’t bow down to him. But that made little sense to scholars who note there is no Jewish law that says a Jew cannot bow to a person of higher rank.
So the film invents a new motivation, going back five centuries prior to when King Saul wipes out all the Amalekites, enemies of Israel, but refuses to kill their king, Agag. (This scene is shown briefly in a prologue in which Peter O’Toole plays the prophet Samuel who orders Saul to kill Agag.)
According to a Midrash to which this film subscribes, Agag’s heir escaped and Haman is descended from him. Now supposedly, for five centuries, the offspring of Agag have held a grudge and have vowed to wipe out all the Jews as revenge for killing all the Amalekites. Haman sees himself as the ultimate executor of that revenge.
Haman takes advantage of Xerxes’ need for money for the war campaign and convinces the King that the Persians should kill the Jews and take their money to pay for the invasion of Greece. Now Mordecai (John Rhys-Davies, in another excellent performance) has real reason to hate Haman and refuses to bow. This makes a lot more sense than the Biblical version.
Anther issue that always perplexed me was the heroine’s two names. In Hebrew she is called “Hadassah” and in English it is translated as “Esther.” I am told that “Hadassah” is a Jewish name and that “Esther,” at least prior to this moment in time, was not a Jewish name. That never made any sense to me.
The movie, however, explains this perfectly. She was born “Hadassah” but when she was taken to the palace and Mordecai told her not to reveal she was a Jew, he gave her a new non-Jewish name, “Esther.” Now that makes perfect sense and clears up that confusion.
Also, why had Esther not been sent for by the King for such a long time? The Bible never explains why she may have fallen out of favor. But the film gives a good explanation: due to a misunderstanding, the King mistakenly thinks that she has been unfaithful to him, just as Othello falsely thinks Desdemona has been adulterous. This makes Esther’s appearance before the King all the more brave.
One other interesting textual problem that the film solves is in the final scene, at the banquet. According to Biblical Esther, immediately after Esther accuses Haman of plotting to destroy her people, the King leaves for a few minutes and then returns. No reason is given. I don’t want to ruin the ending, but the movie does give a good motivation for that.
And one other interesting thing is that according to the original text, after the King leaves, Haman begs Esther for his life. I can see why the filmmakers would not want to include that, as it would make Haman too sympathetic. So they found a great way to be true to the letter of the text while still making Haman despicable.
Watching a film like this can remind you that sometimes the greatest storytellers are not the ones who come up with an original story, but those who take someone else’s story and make it better, more believable, more engaging. I think, in many ways, the movie “One Night with the King” can be more meaningful to a contemporary audience than the original text which was written for an ancient audience 2500 years ago.
So next Purim, if you can’t make it to your local synagogue for their Purim Spiel with new Midrashim on Esther, pop in “One Night with the King.” It’s the next best thing to being there.
Copyright © 2000-2017 Jonathan Chisdes and ChizFilm LLC. All Rights Reserved.


(I posted a shorter version of this review on Backstage so for some of you, this post might feel familiar. LOL)
So, at the last minute (and to get over my depression about not being at Jazz Fest), I decided to try to get a rush ticket for the final screening of Bon Jovi: When We Were Beautiful. I was lucky and ended up being one of the last few people to get in.
I have to say that it was great seeing it the second time around -- you really do catch so much more. Also, it was very different watching the film with very few die-hard fans. Heck ... there was only one little yelp in the scene when Jon takes off his shirt (no, it wasn't me.) I got the impression that most of the audience really didn't realize that Bon Jovi isn't just Jon Bon Jovi. So I was interested to see what their reaction to the film would be.
So sure ... they laughed at some of the same funny moments ... Jon and the "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" comment and Richie's musing about the picture of Tico on the wall of the girl's bedroom. And of course, David. But, people really listened. I heard a number of comments such as "oh I forgot I liked that song" ... and "I didn't know he was so intense."
All I can say is, people have their perceptions (and misconceptions) about this band and I really do think the film (if people are open enough to see it) really does shine a light on the reality of why Bon Jovi has remained relevant.
As for my impressions the second time around ... there are a few things that I noticed that I didn't before. For example, when Jon says "David could be in the spotlight for the first time in his life" (with his musical theatre work) I really caught a sense of the pride and happiness from Jon that I didn't hear the first time.
One thing that irked me more this time around was the footage of the stage jumper in Dublin. Yes, it gets the cheap laugh ... and the look on Jon's face when he wipes his lips with the towel afterwards is great. But, on the other hand - we all sign an agreement to act appropriately and respectful of the band when we get those pit wristbands. Its unfortunate that the film immortalizes and rewards her blatant disregard for the rules. Perhaps they will cut that out of the final version....
(As a side note, Sunnynight - I saw you this time!!! And no, she wasn't the one jumping on the stage.)
I did laugh even more at a couple of moments ... maybe because I knew they were coming ... or maybe because I actually heard them better ... not sure.
For example, when Jon is talking about playing small venues versus larger ones ... he says "I want to play the desert and sell it out ... more than once." (The man certainly has a vision of who and what he wants this band to be.) I also actually caught this time when Jon is talking about being a happy drunk and says that he is happy to sit in the corner and drink a bottle, pass out and go to bed ... "the highlight of my day." You know he's joking ... but maybe only slightly ....???
Also, how on earth did I forget the scene with Jon and Richie doing Diamond Ring during soundcheck?! What the heck planet was I on?!? Or when David said (I'm paraphrasing) if Jon were to come in one day and change things and it became a complete democracy, I'd say "okay" and then check the Prozac or whatever he was taking. (Yes, David ... I don't see the modus operandi changing anytime soon ... why fix what ain't broke.)
This time I also had the opportunity to stay til the end of the credits during which they have the continuation of the song Jon is recording in the studio at the end of the film. I noticed in the credits that the song ("When We Were Beautiful") is actually co-written with Billy Falcon (who also co-wrote "Just Older.") If you don't know Falcon's work, you should check it out. He has some great stuff.
So ... I'm not sure about the "new" song yet ... some of the opening lyrics are ...
The world is cracked.
The sky is torn.
I can't pretend that nothing's changed.
Lets just say its not an upbeat, optimistic song ... we'll have to wait for the final version ... we know how Jon likes to change things ... LOL
In any case, I hope the film is finished soon and y'all get to see it at some point.


Not yield any of new concepts and movie release order of
As the franchise remains as popular now as it was a decade ago and with the films now playing on their new basic cable home at Syfy and USA. The Harry Potter movies are nearly a decade gone Are we do for a reboot and if so where Who else would watch a multi-season Harry Potter. All the profits go to Comic Relief a British charity November 16 Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone Movie Poster The first film is released. Since the play was first announced and especially after its script was released in book form some people have wondered whether we'll ever. When considering that harry potter?
It was elongated and movie release date
When users are, been busy in
Fantastic Beasts 3 the third installment of five in the prequel Harry Potter saga had long been expected to be released in 2020 but likely. The Harry Potter Movies in Chronological Order by Date of Release by kendallspencergibson created 09 May 2011 updated 09 May 2011 Public. It's been eight years since the last Harry Potter movie Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows Part 2 released and three years to the release of. A New Harry Potter Movie Might Be Coming Here Are The.
We should you wish to harry potter movie release date
According to Daily News Warner Bros is interested in bringing the West End play 'Harry Potter and The Cursed Child' to the big screen in 2020. Warner Bros released a 4K 3D restoration of the movie in China over the weekend where cinemas have started to reopen after being closed for. A New Harry Potter Film With Original Cast Reportedly In The. Harry Potter Movies Walmartcom.
Business insider india website, movie release date
Harry Potter movies in release order Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 2001 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 2002 Harry Potter. Speaking of schools insiders say that the film will feature more Hogwarts Dumbledore and breadcrumbs for diehard fans That's all that's been. There are 7 main books in the Harry Potter Series by JK Rowling and eighth coming on 31 July making it a total of books Hogwarts School. Harry Potter Movies Common Sense Media.
Clearly harry potter movie release
From release date and cast details to story possibilities here's everything you Harry Potter fans need to know about the live-action Wizarding. It's not hugely different added Jude Law Albus Dumbledore in an interview with USA Today There are very specific guidelines and there's a. Would Rupert Grint return for more 'Harry Potter' films l.
Harry potter movie
The makers of the Harry Potter series are releasing their next film 'The Secret Garden' on January 2021 in India Here are all the details of. As exciting as the news is the reason this upcoming entry in the Harry Potter franchise might be the last is author JK Rowling Related Here's. Upcoming Harry Potter Books Movies And More What's.


Shirin Etessam is an entrepreneur, advisor and seasoned media executive. She has produced films, original television series and specials, created several companies, and led brand and product campaigns for some of the world’s most recognized companies (ABC, CBS, Discovery, BBC, Facebook, Apple, Intel, Virgin and many more). She holds a BA in Film and Broadcasting, is an avid soul seeker, traveler and a dedicated mom to two teens.
Nanci began making films and performing in her native metro-NYC at 15 years-old. She is a writer/director of shorts, features and TV. Her shorts have screened in over 150 festivals across the world. Nanci has developed programs for BBC, Channel 4, Amazon Prime, STARZ, Facebook and A+E. She is an active member of several professional film organizations including NY Women in Film & TV, and the San Francisco Film Society where she has participated as film juror, screenwriting instructor, and distribution consultant. She is a Nicholl QF, a finalist with the Santa Barbara International Screenplay Awards, and a Sundance Screenwriting Intensive Knight Fellow. She earned an MFA from NYU's Tisch School of the Arts on a full tuition scholarship.


ShadowLight Productions Founded in 1972 by Larry Reed, ShadowLight Productions is one of the very few professional shadow theatre companies in the world honoring ancient shadow theatre traditions while innovating through the use of contemporary technologies and interdisciplinary approaches. Its mission is to expose the general public to shadow theatre in a wide range of forms including, but not limited to, live performances, film, and other media. All ShadowLight’s activities are designed to demonstrate a wide spectrum of Shadow Theatre for the enjoyment of the multicultural, multigenerational audiences. The company’s activities range from traditional shadow theatre performances and creation of new works to documentary films on various shadow theatre traditions and arts-in-education programs. Performed behind and in front of a large screen (15' x 30'), our original productions employ specially designed projectors to cast silhouettes of puppets, actors, and cutout sets, all of which are manipulated to create astonishingly cinematic effects live on stage. With each project, we seek to create works that reflect the diversity and complexity of the modern world. Original works include IN XANADU, COYOTE'S JOURNEY, 7 VISIONS and GHOSTS OF THE RIVER. The company has received two Citations for Excellence from the International Puppetry Association and has been nominated for the America Theater Wing Design Award.


"Our lives center around meal time. A hot meal goes a long way. It gives us energy, boosts moral and brings communities together. No one should have to go hungry in America and that's why I stand behind Feeding America. It's a community I'm proud to be a part of."
Jamie Chung was born and raised in San Francisco and graduated from UC Riverside.
In 2012, Jamie won the Special Jury Award at SXSW for her performance in the film EDEN, based on a true story about a young Korean girl who was abducted and forced into sex trafficking and years later miraculously saves herself. The film also won the Narrative Audience Award. Chung returned to SXSW in in 2018 in the AIDS drama "1985" based on Yen Tan's short of the same name.
In television, Jamie has received praise for her role as "Ji-Ah" in HBO's LOVECRAFT COUNTRY, which was nominated for a Screen Actors Guild Award for Oustanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series.
In film, Jamie is known for her role in THE HANGOVER 2 & 3 hit comedy films for Warner Bros, Zack Snyder's SUCKERPUNCH with Oscar Isaac, Frank Miller/Robert Rodriguez's SIN CITY 2, and Oscar-winning animated film BIG HERO 6.
Most recently, Jamie was seen in Showtime's revival of DEXTER: NEW BLOOD. She will next be seen in Spyglass feature film REUNION opposite Jillian Bell, Lil Rel Howery, and Billy Magnussen, and in HBO’s upcoming new season of SUCCESSION.


With a background in theater and drama, Canadian singer-songwriter Lucy Morgan brings heartfelt emotion to her lo-fi pop style, and explores suffocating relationship issues in her new single, “Upper Hand.”
Fresh to the scene having released one single prior, “I Really Loved You”, Morgan is discovering her full and resonant sound by fusing natural and electric sounds along with her rich vocals and poignant songwriting.
Morgan’s moving perspective on abuse in her new single, “Upper Hand,” features a resonating pop rhythm, and her crystalline voice emphasizes the heartache of a vastly unhealthy relationship.
Opening with the feeling of imprisonment, Morgan uses metaphors like, “It’s like I’m coming up for air / But at the top there’s nothing there / It’s like you’re holding me captive / With nothing but the waters,” depicting the survivor’s struggle. The chorus rings strong with the bitter words, “I know I said it first / But you’re holding the cards / You just like the upper hand / Even if it hurts.”
The dramatic music video depicts chilling scenes of the songwriter seemingly lost in the woods at night, after appearing to free herself from ropes securing her to a tree. The song starts as a slower burn with the vocals shining forth, but around a minute in, the R&B-type groove kicks in, bringing a new energy in. At this point in the video, she is seemingly free, waving to passing cars, but the cycle of toxic control continues, leaving her trapped.
Morgan’s sharp vocal runs over the ominous melody, enhancing the apprehensive atmosphere in the lyrics, and haunting the listener with all too real vocals.
Lucy Morgan may be just getting started with putting out her music, but the future looks bright for this Canadian songstress.
Note* Paul Howard contributed to this article.


I rarely watch movies and since I've been here in Ukraine I don't have much taste for TV either. Neither of these facts is the result of a conscious choice. I do like films and if I had to admit a weakness for any particular genre then it would be for animated films. After seeing a trailer on YouTube, something pushed me to make time for "Rango". The soundtrack is great and some of the scenes, most even, are riotously funny and truly entertaining.
"Rango", however, has a very adult theme, even if the animation is spectacular and certain characters, like the armadillo and the head of the mole family, are so well drawn they deserve a place in an art gallery. When I say that the film has a very adult theme, what I mean is that it has "no redeeming social value" as it so scorns or scoffs at the things of the spirit. It's cutesie atheism or agnosticism flaunted on the silver screen and dished up with almost enthralling graphic detail, right down to the little mustache on the big rattlesnake.
All I could think of while I was watching it was, "I wonder how would it be rated by the Catholic Film Academy." The portrayal of so much cynicism when it comes to matters of the spirit deserves a warning to parents and a challenge to anyone not to go there hoping for more than mindless entertainment. The million dollar question is, of course, why couldn't it just have been mindless fun and great special effects? Did I really need to have human hope and ritual trashed?
As I say this, I remember back to my childhood when, before going to see a movie at the theater, we would check the rating on the chosen film in our Catholic paper. I also remember as an adolescent and perhaps even as a young adult being mystified by the poor rating some films got from the Academy. No doubt, others who have seen "Rango" will wonder about my worries and reservations. I think I'm right and I guess I'm sad that even an animated film has to be so jaded.


I rarely do a post specifically as a review of a movie, but this time I need to. I have been on a quest to see all the Oscar nominated films before the Oscars. I was really slacking this year and didn't see many in the past couple months, so I have my work cut out for me. But Tuesday night I saw Finding Neverland
. I wasn't expecting all that much from the film. I will gladly go see a Johnny Depp movie, but the last one I saw was Secret Window, which I was not enthralled with. And Kate Winslet has bothered me ever since she had a sour look on her face when she didn't win the Oscar for Titanic. But knowing they are both good actors, I thought I would give it a try anyway.
I saw it at the Angelica Movie Center in Plano
. It is a wonderful place to see a movie. Not only is it a new theater and thus has comfortable seats, but it feels artsy. It almost feels like you are going to The Theater not just a theater.
But back to the movie. It is set in Edwardian England, and recounts a fictionalize tale of how James Barrie created Peter Pan. The best I have determined is Barrie was in fact inspired by the Davies family. Llewelyn Davies was a widow after her husband died of cancer and she was left to raise her four boys on her own. Barrie met the family and began a relationship that forever changed all of their lives, inspired Peter Pan, and helped to destroy his marriage. That much I gather is true. And that much is all that really needs to be. The details of their relationship need not be accurate for this to be a good movie.
The movie courses through Barrie's struggle to write a decent play and the inspiration he finds in the four boys who are so desperate for a father. He teaches them to play, to dream, to imagine whatever world they want, and through their time together Barrie concocts a fanciful world of fairies, pirates, nanny dogs and flying children.
This is a beautiful movie full of the elaborate and colorful sets we have come to associate with a Johnny Depp film. The scenes skip seamlessly between Barrie's imagination and reality offering us glimpses of what might have been the catalysts for different parts of Peter Pan.
Johnny Depp's youthful persona is a perfect fit with this character who sees the beauty in never growing up. He plays a fanciful part seriously, and the character pops off the screen with the vivacity a story like Peter Pan deserves.
Kate Winslet, playing a mother of four, still coping with her husband's untimely death and an overbearing mother, offers us a strong performance without revealing much about her character. Her personality is learned through her actions rather than her words as she interacts with Barrie, her mother and the children.
This movie swept me away. It was fast enough to keep me from looking at my watch but never felt rushed. I would definitely recommend this film.
I am feeling better today. Between the support of several people, definitely to include my Cousin Rob (see the comments section of my depressed post) and a conversation I had last night, I am feeling better. I am sure I am not 100% yet, but I am feeling better about what is going on in my life right now, and I am trying to let some of the pressure off myself. Everyone, just keep telling me I am being ridiculous and eventually it will be engrained and stick. I just crashed and burned for a few days. But I'm not one to stay down for long. If anyone tells me they are suddenly engaged or about to run a fortune 500 company or go on a Mediterranean cruise I might lose it again, but I think we are safe for a while. And even better, as of today, I do not have a single wedding to go to this summer! Wow! Just realized that! Hmmm....maybe I can take the money I would have been spending on weddings and use it to go on the Mediterranean cruise!! Now that may just be a plan!! :)


It's a Wonderful Life
by Frank Capra starring James Stewart and Donna Reed
A most beloved movies. George Bailey, a small town entrepreneur, dreams of adventure and travel but circumstances keep him enslaved to his home turf. Meanwhile, George's buddies and family leave Bedford Falls to find fame and fortune. Frustrated by his life, and haunted by an impending scandal, George prepares to commit suicide on Christmas Eve. Clarence, his guardian angel, arrives and shows him what the world would have been like if George had never been born.
Life is frustrating and few of us reach our dreamed fame and fortune. That's why It's a Wonderful Life is such an endearing family movie. A great way to broach, as a family, the value of friendship, work, and appreciation for what we do have.


At the prestigious Shin Hwa High School in Seoul, four boys comprise the group known as the Flower Four. The creme de la creme of most powerful families from Korea, these spoiled, rebellious, flirtatious and cruel boys rule the school. Enter Jan Di, a girl of humble upbringing who is accepted into Shin Hwa on a swimming scholarship after accidentally saving the life of a Shin Hwa student. Not one for following the rules blindly, Jan Di faces immediate scrutiny from the entire school and in particular the boys of the Flower Four and their leader, Goo Jun Pyo (Lee Min Ho), who dislikes her instantly. Through her charm and undying optimism, she slowly begins to capture the hearts of those around her, even the icy boys of the F4.
2. Playful Kiss
An adaptation of classic manga Itazura No Kiss, Playful Kiss is a warm, bubbly drama about falling in love and growing up along the way. Oh Ha Ni, nicknamed “Noah’s snail” by her father and friends for her ability to keep trying even though she isn’t the brightest in the bunch, has one goal in mind: to capture the heart of school genius, Baek Seung Jo. After harboring an all-consuming crush for years, she finally gets up the courage to give him a letter confessing her feelings. Seung Jo, an icy perfectionist, coldly rejects her. When Ha Ni’s house is destroyed by an earthquake, she and her father move in with an old family friend?none other than Seung Jo’s father. Now, Ha Ni and Seung Jo must deal with the awkwardness of living under the same roof.
3. My Girlfriend is a Nine Tailed Fox
Cha Dae Woong is a spoiled brat with plans to become a successful action star. One day, on the run from his rich grandfather’s latest fit of rage towards him, he accidentally frees a nine-tailed fox, Gu Mi Ho, who has been imprisoned in a painting for 500 years. Frightened at first, he runs away to the woods and ends up getting seriously injured. Feeling indebted to him, Gu Mi Ho gives him her ” fox orb ” a powerful part of her life force, to heal him. When he wakes up, the two form an awkward partnership, as Dae Woong begins to rely on the power of the orb to shoot his action sequences, while also giving in to Mi Ho’s request to teach her how to act human. Though Dae Woong is initially acting out of fear, things start to change as he gradually begins to fall for her. However, Mi Ho will be faced with a terrible choice as her time in human form runs out in this heart-wrenching comedy. My Girlfriend is a Nine-Tailed Fox is a snappy, quirky, folklore-infused romantic drama about a star-crossed couple played by actor/singer Lee Seung Gi and Shin Min Ah.
4. Personal Taste
Personal Taste tells a story of confused love and sexuality. After being dumped by her long-time boyfriend, Park Kae In, a furniture designer and daughter of a famous architect, is convinced she will never love again. Enter Jeon Jin Ho, an architect who needs to scout out her house for his latest business deal. After Kae In assumes Jin Ho is gay during an early encounter, Jin Ho capitalizes on the opportunity to pretend to be gay in order to move in with her. Once there, he gradually embarks on a mission to make over the tomboy, but in the mayhem of makeover and hiding his true orientation, he begins to fall for her. Lee Min Ho finally returns alongside Son Ye Jin in this quirky series.
5. City Hunter
For Lee Min Ho fans, this intense, beautifully shot romantic thriller loosely based on a manga of the same name by Tsukasa Hojo, is a revenge drama done right. In 1983, 21 South Korean military operatives are sent into North Korea on a secret mission. After completing their mission, they are executed by their own side in a government cover-up. The sole survivor, Lee Jin Pyo, watches as his closest friend dies beside him. Taking his friend’s son under his wing, Jin Pyo raises him as his own and trains him with one goal: to take revenge on the men responsible for this massacre. Some twenty years later, a brilliant young man joins the international communications team of the Blue House (Korea’s White House). Lee Yoon Sung has but one mission in mind: to find and bring down the five men responsible for the murder of his father. To do so, he must hide his identity and fighting skills to infiltrate the government. During his quest for revenge, however, he also enacts justice, and is given the nickname City Hunter by the populace, who knows only of a shadowy figure exposing corruption in their city. Torn between his surrogate father’s drive for vengeance and the innocent girl he loves, Yoon Sung must fight to survive, and choose the path he will take.


It may be หนังออนไลน์ล่าสุด complicated to choose a movie on opening night. You can not potentially know what you’re mosting likely to such as, or even what is actually mosting likely to be the agreement of the whole viewers. What you need to do is approach it a little bit differently from how you move toward every other motion picture and also this may help you make a better decision.
You have to think of what was actually happening when you were actually thinking of the movie that was going to be opening evening. This is your window right into a motion picture’s headspace. When you went to see the movie, what performed you presume you were obtaining. As well as is it one thing that you will want to go to see again?
Always remember when you first viewed the movie in show business? Just how much did you like it? If it was fine, then you may want to continue to the following one.
I don’t encourage that you merely go view a flick that you don’t understand just about anything around. If it has actually been actually made, then you are actually being a smart consumer. Yet if you do not recognize anything concerning the flick and also you would like to see it, after that do not squander your opportunity along with one thing that you do not know anything approximately.
The explanation for this is due to the fact that when you go to the films as well as don’t know just about anything regarding the film, you are actually mosting likely to be actually worn out. That are going to wreck the experience. Don’t be that person.
The main reason you need to visit the movies is to ensure that you can be entertained and also you wish to know every thing there is to learn about the flick you are actually going to see. Considering that the cinema is certainly not visiting reach your face and discuss each and every facet of the motion picture.
This is certainly not how you want to experience the film. All they are actually heading to do is try to market you on buying tickets to a movie that doesn’t exist.
Since you’ve developed that you like to know every thing there is actually to understand about the flick you are actually visiting, what type of motion picture are you going to see? The upcoming question you need to inquire your own self is do you would like to be actually delighted by some form of activity movie or even are you much more considering a comedy? That will assist you calculate the category of the flick.
Humor flicks are pretty simple to discover. There is actually a variety of them accessible. Humors are going to typically be actually quick and easy to find in the movie theater.
Action flicks are a bit more difficult to discover at the theater. They are available in a lot of different spots.
Films that are comedies are actually regularly visiting cost a lot less to buy at the manifold versus flicks that are actually humors that are readily available in the manifold for a portion of the rate of those that are actually not funnies. So it’s regularly a good concept to visit the manifold to go see a funny motion picture.
Carry out a Google.com search or even examine out some of the world wide web web sites that possess movie customer reviews if you can’t discover the film you’re searching for in the multiple. The net possesses it all!
The number of times have you viewed a motion picture and found yourself very bored? Possess you ever before assumed that perhaps you could create that film much better for yourself or even your close friends? Then think about utilizing the method of cinema editing and enhancing to enhance a film into something you can easily delight in.
The best simple definition of the process of movie theater editing is to simply reorganize a flick to make sure that it will certainly make it a lot more amusing for the visitor. Some people would claim that this is actually more likely to be a simple matter of changing different aspect of the flick and also including some enjoyable clips and sound to the fact but a motion picture is actually that it is so much more intricate than that.
Various elements of a motion picture necessity to become reorganized to create the movie much more intriguing. Characters and settings need to be altered. A movie needs to have to be edited for the purpose of connection, indicating that it ought to stream so that the target market can easily observe what is actually taking place in each setting.
Many people have the myth that editing and enhancing entails copying several models of a motion picture if you want to make it funnier or to make it even more significant. This is actually not the situation in the modifying method; somewhat, a motion picture is actually revised because a bunch of components are actually missing out on coming from the final version of the movie as well as given that there become part of the movie that perform certainly not have the effect that the component that was eliminated need to have possessed.
There are actually pair of various types of editing and enhancing techniques; there is the standard and also the non-conventional. The distinction in between the 2 is in the method which the process is actually carried out.
The standard kind of film modifying is actually to shed the film onto a DVD or even VCD. The VIDEO or even VCD is actually then inserted right into a VIDEO gamer as well as viewers may play the movie. Nevertheless, considering that DVD heat units perform not work with HD (High Definition) motion pictures, the traditional approach of seeing films in HD is actually via using a high-definition television set. The various other alternative for the editing and enhancing procedure is utilizing the web. If one does not wish to shed a DVD or to use a VCD to view the flick, there is another choice. This 2nd choice is actually by using the web to produce the film into a film file.
The motion picture files created with the process of modifying are ordinarily sizable in dimension. The flick files are created in to a video clip data via converting all of them right into a collection of MP4 (Movie & Audio Online video Codec) documents.
You possess to think regarding what was actually going on when you were actually thinking concerning the movie that was actually going to be opening up evening. The explanation for this is actually due to the fact that when you go to the motion pictures and don’t know anything regarding the movie, you’re going to be burnt out. Currently that you’ve set up that you prefer to know whatever there is actually to understand concerning the movie you are actually going to observe, what kind of film are you going to observe? Various components of a film requirement to be reorganized in order to create the motion picture extra intriguing. Due to the fact that DVD heat units carry out not work along with HD (Higher Meaning) films, the typical approach of seeing motion pictures in HD is actually by means of the use of a high-def tv set.


Saturday night we finally got around to watching The Social Network, the film about the origins of Facebook.
We'd meant to go and see it when it came out, didn't get to the cinema at the time for a whole host of reasons, I then slept through most of it on a United flight back from SFO, which at least prompted me to buy the DVD, even if it took us another three months to get around to watching it. Why it took us so long to get around to watching it is one of the imponderables of life, because it was a pretty gripping, and slightly disturbing film.
How true it is, whether undergraduate life at Harvard is anything like it's portrayed (and I hope it isn't) and whether the portrayals of the main protagonists are as deservedly unsympathetic as they are in the film is for others to judge, but the story rings true.
I've seen a couple of failed startups, and the film certainly catches the manic mood, arguments and personality clashes. If you've read Robert Cringley's Accidental Empires, or books like High Stakes, you'll already be aware of the combination of luck, happenstance and hucksterism that accompany the way an IT company starts up, the idea, the product, the growing pains and so on, and the way that most projects start up as just two or three programmers working in their spare time and only once they're successful morph into something else.
However, to succeed you need to be driven and obsessional about your project, because basically until it ships you have nothing. And that definitely does not bring out the best in people. And of course, once it ships, you may still have nothing - the history of computing is littered with good concepts that just never went anywhere ...


Saturday, August 6, 2011
Did someone say, 'Tree of Life'???
All right, so I just got back from seeing this one at the Art Mission. I read everyone's initial thoughts on it too, but stopped reading after the gloves came off and it was Lisa and Brandon vs. John and Jeff. I have a short attention span and I really just want to dive into things. So if you're wondering why I'm covering things that have already been covered, that's why.
First of all, I loved this film (though I don't necessarily want to call it a film. Sure, it's captured on film and it features actors, a script, etc., but I think we're dealing with something different here). Because I loved it, I cannot wait to watch it again and would even go back tonight. Another reason why I would love to see it again is because I think I had the worst theater experience ever. I really don't want to spend too much time on this, but you all know how much I love to rant...
For those of you who aren't familiar with the Art Mission Theater, it's pretty small. I picked the worst seat in the house (as you'll discover) and had I been in a bigger theater, this all could have been avoided. But I sat with the wall to my left and my friend, Sharon, to my right. To her right was a small family of about four people. The six of us filled up the row, so I really felt trapped in this seat - me getting up would've caused a huge inconvenience to the people in our row and the people behind us. Anyway, the reason why I bring that up is because the guy sitting in front of us had terrible BO. I'm not a mean-spirited person; I didn't spend a lot time thinking about how much I hated the guy because he smelled, but I think we all can admit that bad odors are hard to put up with. I spent the majority of the film smelling my hand. Behind us, and I mean directly behind us, were two of most loquacious women I've ever come across. They talked throughout the movie and it was the usual commentary that you tend to hear from people in theaters - stupid observations, obvious remarks, etc. Toward the end of the film, one of them begin to yawn repeatedly. Jeff told me that you guys had people walk out of your theater....I was waiting for that to happen in this case. I don't think these women are stupid because they didn't like the film, but (as Jeff established in his Midnight In Paris post) I absolutely loathe anyone who treats the theater like it's his/her living room. So between the talking heads (not the kind I'm a fan of) and smelly guy, my movie experience was under attack.
And despite all that, I enjoyed the hell out of Tree of Life. I mean, I can't wait to watch the dvd from the comfort of my own home and with the subtitles on, but I was still able to strongly connect with the film tonight. Like Brandon and obviously Jeff, I was able to relate to Jack's childhood. There's the scene where Jack asks his mother if Brad Pitt is away - he is and the kids jump for joy around the house. Malick must have been spying on the Howard household when he wrote that scene.
One thing that I loved about Brad Pitt's character is that he is never abusive. He's an asshole who's quick to point out the shortcomings of Jack, but he's never purely evil or sadistic. There's even the moment when Jessica Chastain begins to hit on him, instead of smacking her across the face, he holds onto her to stop things. Even when he gets really angry during their meal, he never hits his son, he just sends him outside. Again, I haven't read all of Jeff's thoughts on this, and we haven't spoken to each other at all about the movie, but our father is similar to Brad Pitt in that sense. He's a self-centered asshole most of the time, but he has never been abusive. Brad is phenomenal in the film, as Brandon points out. But I was even more impressed with Chastain. And maybe that's the case for all of you as well. The word perfect comes to mind. Perfectly cast, perfectly written and executed. Beautiful and pure.
Lisa, I wonder, if the film was about a girl growing up in Waco, Texas, do you think you would have enjoyed it more? I know that's probably tough to say, but one of the thoughts I had was that I think I really got the film because I know what it's like to grow up as a boy with brothers. I guess the siblings aspect is very important too. But I'm definitely with Brandon in the nostalgia that the film provides. As boys we have spent time hanging out and chucking rocks at windows and strapping frogs to firecrackers. It's what boys do. I don't think that that's all the film has to offer, but I just wonder if you would have liked it more had Jack been a Jill instead. Just a thought...and I apologize for that last line.
Tree of Life is what you get when you attempt to shoot someone's memory. And it's much more than that. It's ambitious. It's challenging and thought-provoking. It's not afraid to ask the questions that have been silently wondered by me and many others. It's a film that loves and hates creators. I think it's probably popular to compare Pitt's character to God. The hypocrisy, the offering of free will - these are just a few examples of how they're similiar. But one thing I took away from the film is that parents are more God than God. They create life and they teach their offspring how to live, act, and speak. There's such a larger influence of a parent on a child (more so than God's influence on a child), even in a religious home.
Lisa had the question of why is Jessica Chastain is looking up to the heavens and offering her son to God near the end. Chastain is also and more directly offering her son to the world and the people in that world. At a certain point, Jack is no longer under her control. He is under the control of everything that is out of her control.
I also see Chastain as a representative of nature. She's viewed lovingly by Jack in the way that nature is viewed lovingly by Malick (I think her Snow White burial is further evidenced by this). And yeah, Earth is often feminized, so I realize that I'm not telling you something you haven't heard or thought before. But anyways, in the mother there is much beauty and tranquility. It's what we find in the visuals of the world/nature.
I know I'm really starting to analyze the little things about the film, but I would like to take a step back and say that I think we'll do a disservice to the film if we analyze it too much. I was expecting to watch a film that I would not really comprehend, but that wasn't the case at all. I think the story of Jack's childhood is basic. And I mean that in a good way, but also in an oscillating way. It's also pretty damn complex and intricate. Again, another reason why it's well done.
But I really feel that those who feel that the film is a) an artsy fartsy film that is too smart for them, or b) pretentious bullshit that isn't intelligent at all - are either dismissing it too quickly or are making it seem more complex than it is (and I would say that it is definitely complex). When Sean Penn begins to walk on the beach at the end and he sees his family and others roaming around, one of the women behind us asked, "Is he in Heaven?" I don't think it matters. Sure, we can theorize about it, and hell, I'm sure there are some great theories/analyses out there, but it really doesn't matter where Sean Penn is at the end. I think too often we try too hard to figure things out and explain them. It's as if we cannot like something until we understand it. I don't know what that location represents. I do know what the interaction between Penn and his family represents, but beyond that, I'm not too concerned. I don't feel like I need to know what it fully symbolizes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if one of the criticisms is that the relationships seem too detached. I know I kinda addressed that with my thoughts that I was able to relate to the family because it's similar to my own, but I just want to write a few more thoughts on that idea. This isn't a movie that holds your hand throughout or anything. This family has existed longer than the duration of the film. There's back story and exposition needed. There's more interaction needed between the family members certainly. But I really didn't need more than what I was offered. And obviously the character's facial expressions are heavily relied on, and for me they work. I didn't have a problem with the voice over. Sure, sometimes it was very inaudible, but it wasn't enough to bug me. Another complaint may be about the length and pacing. It felt much shorter than 2 and half hours to me. Thought the pacing was great. Never lost interest in it. I think a Malick film and my ADD are somehow a match made in heaven.
I have more to say, but I'll stop here. I know you guys are probably all tired of this shit.
Ben, can't wait to hear your thoughts.
Brandon, that's really cool that you're friends with Colt. I found Whispertown on last.fm about a year ago and I'm really enjoying them. Yes, my list is pretty white...but come on, I've got Nas on there. Okay, true, a white guy would put Nas as the token hip hop artist on his list. Fair enough. Love Hip Hop is dead because of the Jimmy Page guitar riff. ZEPPELIN RULEZ DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Forrest Gump: Book vs. Movie Written in 1986 by Winston Groom, “Forrest Gump” was eventually made into a movie in 1994 and won an Academy Award. Both the book and its film concern the title character, a man who goes through many obstacles and a number of historical events around the world.
Forrest Gump: Book vs. Movie Written in 1986 by Winston Groom, “Forrest Gump” was eventually made into a movie in 1994 and won an Academy Award. Both the bo.
Forrest Gump Film and Novel Comparison Works Cited Have you ever heard of a world-class chess and Ping-Pong player, a wrestler, a six-foot-six running back, who opened a shrimping business, earned the medal of honor, traveled to outer space and crashed in a jungle then taken hostage by cannibals?
Forrest Gump Essay. Forrest Gump is an intriguing and graceful comical film. It is interesting to see how life can surprise us as God turns our weaknesses into strengths leaving all in awe. Driven by the notion that life is a box of chocolates and one never knows which filing they will pick, a delicate, graceful and innocent Forrest Gump comes.
Forest Gump the book vs the movie. I recently read the Forrest gump book and found it completely horrible. how on earth did someone make a movie out of this? the movie is great but damn the book sucks. 9 comments. share. save hide report. 93% Upvoted. This thread is archived.
Forrest Gump Book Vs Movie English Literature Essay. Forrest Gump: Book vs. Movie Written in 1986 by Winston Groom, “Forrest Gump” was eventually made into a movie in 1994 and won an Academy Award. Both the book and its film concern the title character, a man who goes through many obstacles and a number of historical events around the world.
Forrest Gump Watching Forrest Gump for the first time I feel that the movie has a little of everything in it, from action and war to love and romance. For one man to overcome so many hardships and live a life full of love and happiness it is inspiring. Each character had something that reached viewers.
Forrest Gump Have you ever had a question you wanted to ask a person that you might never meet? Have you ever wondered why a person did something that he was not expected to do? Well, I have, as a matter of fact wrote an essay about a person I want to meet, Forrest Gump.“Forrest Gump,” is a movie released on July 6th 1994; its actor is an individual named Tom Hanks.
Introduction This paper aims to discuss a movie summary and analysis. The chosen movie is “Forest Gump”, which is an American film with a comedy-drama genre. The movie is based on a 1986 novel with the same title written by Winton Groom. The movie concentrates on the life of Forrest Gump, which is the main character of the movie. It depicts.
Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — Forrest Gump — Movie Review: Forrest Gump This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Forrest Gump Book Vs Movie Essay. Forrest Gump is the 1986 book by Winston hand. This writing character retells adventures ranging from seafood boating and ping pong titles, to guessing about his childhood passion, as he bumbles his choice through American past, With everything from this Vietnam War to college football turning into part of this history.
Forrest Gump is a 1986 novel by Winston Groom.The title character retells adventures ranging from shrimp boating and ping pong championships, to thinking about his childhood love, as he bumbles his way through American history, with everything from the Vietnam War to college football becoming part of the story. Gump is portrayed as viewing the world simply and truthfully.
Forrest Gump, a landmark film by Robert Zemeckis released in 1994, is mentioned by countless people as a moral tale of great insight.The film is not overt in its teachings, but if we dig a bit below the surface, we can notice certain life lessons. In particular, these teachings can be said to be: learn what you are capable of through trying, be a good friend and you will have a good friends.
However, his mental impairment doesn't seem to bother Jenny, the love of Forrest's life, who's feelings toward Forrest evolve differently in the movie compare to the book. The viewer of Forrest Gump doesn't know her real feelings and might even think that the main character is the person to whom she runs for a comfort and a place to stay until she is strong enough to run away again.
The movie also incorporates deeper detail as one black lady drops her book while walking into the school, which really occurred, and Forrest picks it up, but this part never occurred in history. The counterculture and the Blank Panther Party indicate the domestic troubles in America.
Forrest as a child did not speak until nine minutes into the movie, telling me a lot about his personality and slight mental disorder. Experts suggest that Forrest Gump probably has pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) which explains why he did not talk for the first couple of scenes.
Forrest Gump. a film that non merely informs the audience and the people who interact with Forrest. about the life of a really simple adult male ( Forrest Gump. played by Tom Hanks ). It besides teaches ethical motives and the manner life is perceived in the beautiful head of a simple adult male.
It pretty much stays with the book, except for the part of the book where Forrest becomes an astronaut and flies in a rocket with a woman and a monkey. The monkey somehow gets hold of one of the waste receptacles and because the monkey doesn't lik.
Download file to see previous pages Many of the characters within the movie version of Forrest Gump maintain certain aspects of themselves from the book, but also exhibit a few key differences. This is especially true for the main character. The main character, Forrest Gump, is characterized as a person with less intelligence than most.


Bill Mechanic is a name that most of us don’t know. But, maybe we should.
The head of FOX Filmed Entertainment from 1994-2000, he oversaw probably dozens of movies you’ve seen and loved—not to mention his name sounds like a character Jason Statham is going to play in a bad, VOD action movie.
*Russian gangster lays on the ground bleeding*
Gangster: Damn you, Mechanic. Damn you.
Bill: Hey, I don’t make the problems. I just fix them.
*shoots gangster with a bazooka*
*peels off in a Maserati*
During the six years he ran FOX film, Mechanic was ahead of his time. He talked about concepts like “shelf-life”. He believed in the idea that if a movie was good, and it actually meant something to people, it could earn more money for the studio in the long run than a movie that simply opened big and no one gave two shits about. He talked about turning FOX Films into a brand. He got super fired.
Which sucks because it wasn’t crazy talk—these were ideas rooted in previous success. Before Mechanic ran FOX, he was in charge of Disney’s home video distribution. While he was there, he created the “Disney Vault”—a concept that capitalized on the Disney name and turned their classic films into collectibles. It also revolutionized home video and made the company millions. Looking back, it seems clear Mechanic understood the value of how people felt about Disney movies. Obviously, achieving that feeling isn’t easy—it takes a consistent level of quality and an original brand of storytelling to create an emotional connection to a studio—but he wanted to create that at FOX. Ironic, when you consider that one of the movies that got Mechanic fired was Fight Club.
To be fair, Fight Club opened poorly in the states—only making $37 million by the end of its theater run. After that, it made another $63 million overseas, pushing its worldwide total to $100 million—most likely barely covering its $63 production budget (plus whatever they spent on marketing). That’s not great, but it’s also probably not worth losing your job over. Especially, when you consider that the actual movie was great (that’s kind of the point, right?), and a big return on the domestic budget wasn’t all Mechanic was after. He was after that “shelf-life” idea, remember? And he was right—Fight Club had it.
Not only did it go on to become a cultural touchstone for every frustrated male age 25-40, but it also became one the best-selling DVDs of all time. Exact numbers are hard to find, but most estimates put Fight Club‘s DVD and Blu-ray sales at around $75 million. Those same estimates also put its posters sales at over $12 billion. (Okay, I made that part up.) But I’m pretty sure that when I was in college, Fight Club wall decor came standard in any dorm room that housed more than three dudes. That fanaticism was exactly the kind of impact Mechanic was after. When you look at its resonance on DVD, combined with all the times it did (and will) play on cable, movie channels, internationally, and in special screenings—there’s no doubt that people will be watching Fight Club forever. There’s also no doubt that FOX missed out on the kind of once-in-a-lifetime film they could’ve built a brand around.
To me, the movie represents a lost opportunity—an overlooked solution to many of the problems that film studios face now. As I read through the history of these events, I couldn’t help but notice that it all sounded very familiar.
Building a storytelling brand off the back of one transcendent property? Hmmm…
Creating a library of entertainment that will be watched by viewers for years to come? Let me see…
Oh yeah, it sounds exactly like the thing that is going to put FOX out of business: Netflix.
Bill Mechanic’s concept of “shelf-life” for the studio was no different from Netflix’s concept of building a library of content that could make their streaming service money for decades to come. It sounds like he wanted to turn FOX into Netflix before Netflix was even a thing.
When Mechanic got fired in 2000, people in the industry thought it was weird that he not only admitted it, but openly discussed why the choice was made. He didn’t. He saw an industry that was short-sighted and broken, and he knew that if certain problems weren’t addressed the whole ship was going down anyway (he would know, he oversaw Titanic). He offered a vision on how to change things and they told him “no thanks”. That was 17-years ago—and just look at what has happened to movies since then.
Today, all it takes is a simple thought experiment to realize they’ve gone in the complete opposite direction. That experiment is this: I challenge you to come up with one discernible quality for a movie made by a studio other than Disney. I’ll wait.
- UNIVERSAL? I know more about their theme park than what a “Universal movie” is.
- WARNER BROTHERS? Uh, Batman kinda?
- FOX? I bet they’d fire everyone tomorrow if they could have one-tenth of the brand identity their news division has.
- SONY? Lololol.
No. They’re all just a blurry mess. Messes that are going to find themselves with fewer and fewer options as the landscape of film and television continues to change. Most of their digital competitors—Netflix, Amazon, Hulu—are already starting to produce massive amounts of their own movies and television. And it’s kind of the studios’ fault. A lot of them made a killing over the last few years selling their content to these digital distributors, but the chickens that produced those profits are coming home to roost. A writer’s strike will put a dent in those profits. So will the realization that they’ve been sleeping with the enemy—filling the coffers of their competitors so they could use those assets to destroy them. It won’t be long before the digitals have everything they need to cut out the middleman. And guess who the middleman is in this situation?
As the studios move closer to killing theaters, they might have left themselves in a position where they’re forced to launch their own content channels to stay afloat. But I ask you, who’s going to pay for those? You think I care enough about Sony movies to pay them a subscription fee every month? Think again. All they’ve done the last ten years are trash reboots and Adam Sandler movies. You think I’m going to give them $15 dollars every 15th of the month when they haven’t given a shit about me in 15 years?
No, the only studio that will make it is the same one that actually listened to Mechanic way back when—Disney. If Disney survives, it will be their smart (branded) acquisitions of Marvel and Star Wars, and the classicism of the Disney brand that keeps them afloat. That, and that alone, may allow them to stay alive during the scorched earth, ass kicking that the digitals are about to rain down upon everyone in the business. In 15 years, a Disney movie might still mean something. Those other studios? Well, let’s just say if that’s where you work—you might wanna start updating that resume, bro.
The harsh truth is that the tech companies you’re now battling are smarter, better, and faster than you at almost everything. They sharpened their teeth in the dog eat dog world of tech, and you’ve been chewing on your ass for the last 20 years. The one advantage you might’ve had was in the world of storytelling—building off your decades of experience and your relationships in order to make a better product than your competitors—but it seems pretty obvious you have no interest in doing that. You continue to jettison quality professionals to the world of television, cable, and streaming. And in the process, the thing that’s become most obvious is that the studio system—and the executives who constitute it—now represent a net-negative for filmmaking. The proof is in the numbers:
1) It’s become clear that studios have virtually zero ability to shepherd and facilitate an artist’s vision for a unique project. Certainly, no better than an experienced producer can while working through the channels of independent financing.
2) It’s become clear that the studios are unimaginative and uninformed about the very product they are making. The industry’s obsession with how they market films (instead of with the making of good ones) means more influence from the marketing industry—guys and gals who have never written script, or made a film, and thus lack a fundamental understanding of what it is they’re even doing.
3) It’s become clear that the one thing they should be good at—selling movies—they can’t do. By consistently opting to rehash old (and already proven) ideas, or continuing to make an endless number of sequels, the studios have essentially admitted that they have no clue how to promote anything unless the bulk of the work has already been done for them. “You had one job to do!”
And I don’t say this as some movie purist or from a position of snobbery either. I don’t think that everything should be an “important film”, and I’m not against sequels or franchises in any way. In fact, I love many of them. I get that movies are a business, and I’m not here to argue on behalf of Terrence Malick getting $100 million so he can make a movie about birds.
But I also don’t see how it would take more than ten seconds of thought to realize that you can’t just make sequels and reboots. The ideas for these spin-offs have to come from somewhere—otherwise you’re going to be left with nothing to reboot or sequel. Maybe that sounds obvious, but it obviously bears mentioning because studios are doing nothing to alleviate the problem. Instead, they’ve slated 117 films for remakes, while their original projects continue to hit all-time lows. It’s like they are completely unaware that the majority of movies they’re remaking came from a middle class of films that they’re simply not making anymore.
Here are just a few of the original budgets for films that studios either rebooted, sequeled, or put back into development in the last five years:
- The Terminator – Budget: $6.4 Million
- The Fast and the Furious – Budget: $40 Million
- Raiders of the Lost Ark – Budget: $18 Million
- Ghostbusters – Budget: $30 Million
- Star Wars – Budget: $11 Million
These franchises didn’t start as giant blockbusters. They were middle-range movies that struck a chord with audiences. And yet, the class of films that produced the studios’ most cherished (and tired) properties have been dwindling since the late 1990’s. (Go back further and look at the 1980’s—not a single year’s highest grossing film was a big-budget “blockbuster”.)
The point is original films have to be made. Both for the quality of movies in general and for the quality of the movie business. I get that you studios now believe that only big-budget can mean big-success, but if that’s all you make it doesn’t prove anything. It just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your “it’s a business” argument for dismissing original properties gets pretty hard to accept when your analysis of that situation is dead wrong and you’re ignoring the films that earned you those big-budgets in the first place. It’s no wonder you’re having trouble finding financing for new movies when everything you do seems to say, “We have no clue what we’re doing.”
For about two decades now (maybe longer), film executives have increasingly become a sector of the industry built on naysaying; a part of the business that focuses more on why new things can’t be done, rather than doing the hard work it takes to figure out how those things can be done. Too many of them are in the business to make money—financial forecasters whose primary focus is on discovering some “proven formula” for manufacturing hits. Almost 100 years of movie making tells us that such a formula is impossible; a fact they might know if they actually loved movies. But a lot of them don’t, so here they are in 2017, still chasing their ill-advised dreams like a backlot full of Don Quixotes.
For real, Hollywood never ceases to amaze me in its ability to make the most surface level reading of any original success they have. And they never cease to disappoint me when it comes to turning that surface level reading into a bunch of derivative trash.
“Avatar made a billion dollars?! Everything has to be a sci-fi movie with weird aliens in it now!”
You don’t get it, you stupid ass potato. Please, go away. You’re making me type things like “ass potato”.
I mean, really, if you want to do something that makes a billion dollars go move to Houston and work for ExxonMobil. I don’t want you near the thing I care about. The movie business is an industry better suited for dreamers, not for people who dream of being rich. It’s for people with imagination, and your head is in the wrong set of clouds.
I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think I’m echoing a frustration felt by a lot of moviegoers. Over the last two decades, they’ve taken something that was incredibly special to all of us—the movie-going experience—and taken a giant shit in our theater seats. It’s really sad actually. And I don’t know if you can feel it every time you go to movies, but I can—it’s the feeling that films don’t matter anymore.
I understand that our culture has changed a lot over the last two decades, but frankly, I’m tired of hearing excuses. Be a professional. Try harder. Do better. Quit acting like you’re doing a “heckuva job, Brownie,” when the whole movie industry is underwater. For real, if you ran a sports team this bad, you’d be fucking fired.
Too many of the studio heads, their executives, and their parent companies have given themselves a free pass because of “the internet”—blaming its monolithic and evil presence for something that is actually their fault. Movie attendance is down? Well, two decades of dumping crap on people will do that to you. I mean, it’s gotten so bad that we’re all sitting around trying to convince ourselves that the new Star Wars movie is good, when in reality, it’s like 5% better than Scientology. All this because we’re so desperate for anything that might make us feel like the original Star Wars did. Talk about a Jedi Mind Trick.
The studios seem hellbent on the idea that they can build audiences that simply don’t exist. Like getting people to go to a movie is something that can be manufactured. And watching this approach is like watching someone bang their head against the wall to get rid of a headache. They continue to double down on transforming filmmaking into something that more closely resembles an assembly line. They continue to focus on new marketing strategies without having something good to market. You can come up with whatever innovative strategy you want that involves securing release dates, and your Snapchat digital integration that will engage four quadrants—none of that will matter if your movie fucking sucks. And most of them do.
The worst part is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Every once in a while, we get to see what happens when something good and original actually gets made. We already saw it this year with the release of Get Out (made by one of the few production companies that actually knows what they’re doing, Blumhouse). I absolutely loved Get Out, but that love quickly turned into frustration. Leaving the theater, I was thinking, “Why aren’t there ten or twenty movies like this a year? Why has it become so hard to make a film that takes the audience to a place that it’s never been—that is fun, and suspenseful, and surprising?” Sitting there and listening to the audience delight in every moment, it’s so obvious it’s something we all want. How has it become a lost art?
Studios don’t seem to realize that the internet is winning, not because it’s “the internet” (like saying that even means something). It’s winning because it’s doing what movies used to do. When I was growing up (I hate typing that sentence, but it’s true), films were the thing you sought to broaden your horizons and experience new things. Now they’re not. Now the internet is where you go to hear new voices, to engage with thought-provoking ideas, and to experience the truth. The internet is doing the job that studios should have been doing all along—building audiences for people with something unique and engaging to say.
If studios want to keep blaming the changes in the business model on technology, be my guest. But we the moviegoers should never forget that they’re the ones who let this thing slip away because of nothing other than laziness, a lack of passion, and a lack of ingenuity. They opted for short-sighted cash grabs instead; and now they’re going to be left without a new generation of fans alongside a disengaged generation of older ones because of it. The truth is that the studios haven’t cared enough about movies to take a step back and understand why they even matter in the first place. And it only took two decades for them to crater film’s once valued place in the culture.
My greatest fear is that it’s too late. Seriously, it might be (and it absolutely pains me to write that). One of my greatest joys in life is going to the theater, and it would be a devastating development to have that joy taken away. So my god, I hope the studios prove me wrong on this one. I hope they start making the kind of original films people love. I hope they quit chasing trends and start creating them. I hope they shove this whole article right in my goddamn face. I really do.
But I don’t see it happening. Because in order to do that, you have to fail. And the large, greedy, grubby-ass corporations that own them don’t care much for failure. Especially for the sake of art.
Therein lies the problem. When it comes to trying to make good movies, failure is an inherent reality. Not only is it guaranteed, but it is critical to creative success. Read that again—it is critical to creative success. A crucial part of their business that won’t happen if studios continue to insist on “safe” creative choices—like those exist and aren’t always the absolute worst kinds.
The studios still don’t realize that nothing will ever be “safe”, so they might as well live a little and get more adventurous in their decision-making. They don’t realize that in doing so, they’re more likely to make something that’s so original, and so moving, it resonates with people on a profound level. They don’t realize that risky decisions make it far more likely they’ll discover something great they never intended to find. They don’t realize this is the nature of filmmaking.
Never forget: The Fast and Furious is a multi-billion dollar franchise. Multi-billion. With a “b”. Do you, for one second, believe the studio ever thought that a $40 million dollar movie about the subculture of street-racing would become an international sensation? No. They did not. Yet they made the movie anyway, and in the process, stumbled onto something wonderful (and wonderfully profitable). Take a page from one of your most successful franchises—take risks, do something new—you never know where the road might lead you. And if you don’t, well, let’s just say people will continue to flee the theaters faster than Ludacris being chased by a submarine.
Movies shouldn’t be dying. That’s ludicrous.


Critical analytical essay on macbeth
Ocr english gcse coursework percentage sylvia plath poetry essay english 102 college admission essay titles college admission essay titles cpt code 49324 descriptive. History and literature often mirror each other, but sometimes there are inconsistencies with the truth. The play Macbeth by William Shakespeare is one instance of. Michigan fraternal order of police essay contest Critical Analysis Essay On Macbeth why i love america essay oscar madison sports writer paper. Macbeth by William Shakespeare is a play in which the eponymous hero changes from a good to a. Macbeth - Critical Essay critical essay ; Analytical Essay on. ビーチクルーザー 送料無料 クルーズ ローライダー自転車 スタンダード ブラック ローチャリ ビンテージ スタイル ビーチ.
Master thesis writer in malaysia Critical Analysis Essay On Macbeth doing my assignment help for homework website. Macbeth essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Macbeth by William Shakespeare. Get free homework help on William Shakespeare's Macbeth: play summary, scene summary and analysis and original text, quotes, essays, character analysis. Guilt is a very strong, uncomfortable feeling that is often a result of one’s own actions. In the play, Macbeth, the author William Shakespeare uses character. Extracts from this document Introduction. Macbeth Critical Analytical Response If Hollywood ever dared to take a second attempt at making Macbeth into a movie, it.
Critical analytical essay on macbeth
888 698 3760 Critical Analysis Essay On Macbeth writing a topic proposal i will pay for essay writing. Essay competitions uk 2014 reviews essay on labor day in pakistan yahoo mail law dissertation proposal outline ppt all coursework a levels. Good conclusion paragraphs. Macbeth critical essay. Act writing an exploratory essay Explore the critical analysis and macbeth essay critical lens essay is whether or if he was never thinkers. History and literature often mirror each other, but sometimes there are inconsistencies with the truth. The play Macbeth by William Shakespeare is one. Essay about my family in french language history philosophy meaning of life essay book Carter: October 16, 2017. Working on an internship essay don't know were to.
Essays and criticism on William Shakespeare's Macbeth - Critical Evaluation Act I Summary and Analysis. Macbeth Critical Evaluation - Essay William Shakespeare. Macbeth essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Macbeth by William. プラダ (prada) ハンドバッグbl0838 nzv f0002nero ブラック【レディース】【02p03dec16】 【メンズ】 (miumiu) hobo. When you hear the name: William Shakespeare, you usually think of elaborately written plays with a good main character and a bad minor character, battling it out in. Macbeth critical essay. Macbeth critical analytical essay. Knights in macbeth criticism of critical essay on the following topics and ideas.
- Macbeth Critical Response Essay Macbeth Critical Analytical Response If Hollywood ever dared to take a second attempt at making Macbeth into a movie.
- Shakespeare uses vivid and powerful forms of imagery to let the audience visualize the setting. Lady Macbeth is portrayed as a strong woman who is.
- These analytical papers are designed to review your knowledge of the drama and apply that knowledge to a critical paper. The topics may request that you examine the.
Critical Analysis of Shakespeare’s Macbeth Essay Macbeth Critical/ Analytical Study ;. Haven't found the Essay You Want. “Dreams do come true, if we only wish hard enough, you can have anything in life if you will sacrifice everything else for it. ” James M. Barrie. Dreams, it can. Which test are you preparing for? Click for comprehensive study guides and strategies for performing your best on test day—all for free! SAT. Get free homework help on William Shakespeare's Macbeth: play summary, scene summary and analysis and original text, quotes, essays, character analysis, and.


Movie Review: IT
Director: Andy Muschietti
Starring: Bill Skarsgard, Finn Wolfhard, Sophie Lillis, Jaeden Lieberher, Chosen Jacobs, and Jeremy Ray Taylor .
Release Date: 18th August 2017A group of bullied kids band together when a shapeshifting demon, taking the appearance of clown, begins hunting children.– courtesy of IMDB
Check out that clown’s sick dance skillz
After the critical and financial flop of another Stephen King adaptation only a couple of months ago, The Dark Tower left a sour taste in many a fan’s mouth. Expectations have been building up for years surrounding the idea of an IT remake and the first trailer blew up everywhere on the internet. Hype was high, but expectations were dampened by The Dark Tower’s less than faithful adaptation. Would IT suffer the same fate?
Well, no. As it turns out, IT is an ambitious, highly entertaining film for fans of the original source material and newcomers, such as myself. Now being the highest grossing horror movie of all time, IT has certainly struck accord with the vast majority of people who have experienced this newest rendition of the story. But what sets IT apart from other similar movies in the same genre?
IT cares about its story. This is a good start. Far too often in the horror genre we see that the scares are set far above any resemblance of a cohesive, thought-out narrative. This is understandable - studio executives want to promise scares and thrills in order to fill seats; that’s business. IT, whilst being filled with frightening imagery, is more concerned about the characters and setting at the core of the film. They understand that in order to make a story compelling, you’ve got to ground that story in a believable setting and by making us as an audience care too.
The filmmakers have created a tremendous sense of place. This movie, first and foremost, truly feels like an eighties adventure throwback in the style of The Goonies or Adventures in babysitting. . The writers need as much credit as they can get. The highly likeable central kid characters, from the arrogant-smooth talker, to the germophobe, to the stutterer struggling to find his voice in a summer of fear; all of them come together with surprisingly charming results. A great group dynamic has been created here that has a real sense of heart. I’m sure it’s one audiences will remember in years to come.
Although the kid characters are the driving force of the film, IT pulls very little punches when it comes to high-stakes and violence. Right from the shocking opening moments of the movie, the writers have created an environment where anything is possible. Just because the characters are kids does not mean they are safe from harm. Whether it be abusive parents, psychotic knife wielding bullies, or the demonic creature stalking their every movement – the kids are put through a rough ride. It’s unexpected, wicked, and leaves you on the edge of your seat in the films tensest moments. Any film that has its protagonists feel like they are in tangible danger is doing something right.
"Even if IT isn’t totally original in its scares, its presentation more than makes up for it."
And here’s the thing, IT may have its unsettling moments, in fact it has them in an almost unrelenting abundance; I wouldn’t necessarily say this film is scary through and through. I saw it as more of an adventure/thriller that highly entertained me rather than shaking me to my absolute core. But I don’t consider this a failure. A structurally sound, well-told story can be the decider for the vast majority of movies. Even if IT isn’t totally original in its scares, its presentation more than makes up for it.
Not much to say about the cast of child actors, apart from that they’re a fantastic ensemble. It’s rare that Hollywood is able to cast one genuinely talented child actor for a film, let alone a whole cast. They all play there parts and they embody that certain nostalgic charming sense of child-like inquisition and flare for adventure (even in the face of possible death). And Bill Skarsgard does a great job of portraying Pennywise the all-knowing dancing demonic clown. With just the right balance between playfulness and threat, Skarsgard has sculpted an unpredictable character that is deliciously creepy. You eagerly await his next scene on screen and then immediately regret wishing he reappeared – the markings of a villain you love to hate.
Other than the odd moment of CGI looking flimsy, with a mixture of a few instances of strange camerawork and editing, IT shapes up to be not only the best horror movie of the year (duh) but one of the most exciting cinema experiences too. From the great acting, to the great writing, and strong moments of pure tension and terror, IT is a remarkable hit and marks a high hurdle for the second half of Steven King’s story to leap over in the future.
+ Great sense of place and characters
+ Entertaining horror
+ Never feels like the film drags
- Slight CGI/Technical filmmaking issues


November 25 and 26, 2019
9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.*
*Drop-off between 8:30 – 9:00 a.m., Pick-Up after Camper performance at 4:00 p.m.
Mythic Creatures: Play in a Day (Ages 6-12)
November 25, 2019: Mythic Creatures: Play in a Day (Ages 6-12)
November 26, 2019: Mythic Creatures: Play in a Day (Ages 6-12)
$80 Members/$100 Non-Member per day
Uncover the untold stories of the legendary mermaids, unicorns, and dragons and create a Play in a Day at the Witte! Led by professional actors and together with their co-stars, your young performer will take center stage at a special one-day only workshop amongst the magical creatures that are calling the Witte home this Fall.
The Witte Museum is proud to partner with The Classic Theatre of San Antonio to present Mythic Creatures: Play in a Day. The Classic Theatre creates excellent theatre that is relevant, diverse, entertaining and transformative.


LeBron James gave a small preview of Space Jam: A New Legacy, and shared that the premiere will be in a few months.
2021 seems to be good for the premiere of ‘Space Jam: A New Legacy’ as the protagonist of this installment, LeBron James, shared some images on his social networks, next to who will be his main ally, Bugs Bunny.
In the images, you can see one of the most suspenseful moments of the film, when, apparently, one of the Tune Squad’s enemies will face, shoots out towards a kind of board.
Both LeBron James and the rest of the Tune Squad already wear the uniform in that scene, which was unveiled in August 2020.
The coronavirus pandemic has raised doubts about whether Space Jam can really be released on July 16, 2021, as has been raised for a couple of years. However, LeBron James published the images along with a message that makes us think that we will indeed be able to see this movie next summer.
“Space Jam will be coming to all of you in just a few months. I’m so excited about this project, and I can’t wait for you to see it,” said the Lakers star, who in the film will not wear the number 23 (the one he wears in the Lakers and the one Michael Jordan wore in the first film ), but 6, which was the one he used in the early years of his career.
Space Jam’s production ended on September 14, 2019, a year after LeBron signed with the Lakers, with whom he did not have a good season in his first year, so his team did not enter Los Angeles for six years, so 2020 wasn’t a good year to release the movie anyway.


FOOTLOOSE the Musical
Come and see our amazing students perform the Drama, Singing, Dancing and Music of this classic 80’s Musical. The original story line with Reservoir High twists. Our senior students do a wonderful job of leading the cast of 50 students through a singing, dancing and acting extravaganza. Students are involved in choreography, character development and musical production in association with staff from the school.
We look forward to seeing you there:
Reservoir High Performing Arts Centre
August 24th, 25th and 26th at 7.30pm
Tickets available at Trybooking: https://www.trybooking.com/216057


The Faculty of Theatre offers two main programs both of which are designed to reflect the needs of the professional theatre. This Program offers courses on aspects of the traditional arts, modern and contemporary theatre practice. Even though courses are primarily practice based they are all framed by theory.
Diploma in Theatre
The Diploma program prepares students through formalized training and education by developing talent and skill as required by the Malaysian contemporary theatre. Learning is through lectures and studio-based practice facilitated by experienced teaching staff, professionals, and industry personnel. This program offers a blend of the theoretical and the practical in acting, management and theatre design.
Bachelor of Theatre (Hons)
The programmes offered under the Bachelor of Theatre are:
i.BACHELOR OF THEATRE (HONS) (ACTING)
This programme offers formal and systematic training focusing on modern and traditional theatre practices using lectures, and studio-based work delivered by experienced academicians/artists. Through this offering students are immersed in the mastering the styles and techniques of classic, modern and experimental acting. In class activity is further enhanced by emphasis on preparing for working for the stage, television and Film.
ii. BACHELOR OF THEATRE (HONS) (DIRECTING)
This programme provides students with the understanding of the role and work of a theatre director. There is an emphasis on theory, organization, leadership, research, and artistic management, in addition to the introduction to the latest stage technology and directing styles.


This year, Walt Disney Animation Studio’s 17th film turned 60 years old. Though today it has become a classic film filled with 1960s nostalgia, it has still remained a timeless and contemporary film. 101 Dalmatians was released on January 25th, 1961. This animated film stands out from its predecessors because of it’s use of xerography - a process in which the ink and painting step became retired. Animators could transfer their pencil drawings straight to animation cels. This change in the process marked a significant growth period for the studio, as people were drawn back into the films rather than being distracted by the parks and television shows. 101 Dalmatians not only adapted a contemporary way of animating, but it also features many contemporary elements in it. Let’s explore what else 101 Dalmatians introduced to the Disney universe.
Something that Walt really prided himself on was his ability to keep his imagination alive even as he grew older. His desire to recreate century-old fairytales is what put him on the map in the first place with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The use of fantasy in his storytelling is what made Disney stand out from all other film studios in the early days. Pinocchio, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, and all of Disney’s first few films were all set in a fantasy world. 101 Dalmatians was the first ever Disney animated film to be set in the real world, with real situations that could occur. The only thing that made it fantasy was the fact that the dogs could speak. 101 Dalmatians was set in London, with Roger and Anita living in a quaint, eclectic home. There are no castles, no fairies, and no curses. This is the first time the studio really played with reality over fantasy. I would argue that the next time after this film that they based a story in reality is The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996).
Though we have witnessed sweet true love’s kisses since Snow White, until 101 Dalmatians, we had not seen a couple show much physicality and flirtatiousness until Roger and Anita. There wasn’t any romance between the stories of Snow White and Cinderella, in which both portray one kiss at the end, and one dance in Cinderella. Roger and Anita first meet BECAUSE they become close to each other when Pongo and Perdita tie them together with their leashes. They are shown hugging, dancing, holding hands, and placing their arms around each other throughout the movie. It really brings a sense of warmth and reality that had never been seen before in a Disney movie. Milt Kahl, one of the Nine Old Men, was responsible for designing both Roger and Anita.
The first time a television set is shown in a Disney film is in the scene where Pongo, Perdita, and all of their puppies are shown sitting around the living room watching it together. In contrast to Lady and the Tramp (1955), where the story is based several decades earlier in 1909, 101 Dalmatians takes place in 1958, just 3 years before it was released. Television became a huge phenomenon throughout the 1950s with sitcoms and branded commercials, that it only made sense to feature it in this film. According to an article by Michael Stephens, “the number of television sets in use rose from 6,000 in 1946 to some 12 million by 1951”.
The commercial shown in 101 Dalmatians, Kanine Krunchies, followed what similar real-world commercials were like in the late 1950s. The black-and-white commercial featured a slogan, a jingle, and a cute animation to close out the commercial.
Though the image of Pinocchio smoking a cigar was burned into the mind’s of a generation that was terrified of Pleasure Island, cigarettes and smoking had not been depicted in any other Disney film until 101 Dalmatians. Both a cigarette, held by Cruella de Vil, and a pipe, smoked by Roger, were featured in the film. According to an article titled “The Changing Public Image of Smoking in the United States: 1964–2014” by K. Michael Cummings and Robert N. Proctor, by 1953 47% of adults were smoking cigarettes, and it wasn’t until 1957 that the US Public Health Service stated that smoking could be linked to lung cancer. Though the film is set a year later, cigarettes were still highly used at the time and would reach it’s peak in the early 1960s.
In 2007, Disney banned smoking cigarettes on-screen from all of their movies. Disney then put out another press release in 2015 stating that the ban would be extended to all of their other studios, including Marvel and Lucasfilm Ltd. It was only allowed if it depicted a historical figure who did smoke, or if smoking was shown in a negative light. Disney also added smoking warnings to the beginning of their DVDs.
Something the animators really focused on was their attention to detail. Each character was sketched with care, and each expression was carefully modeled after live action references and the animator’s own faces. Disney really brought forward their attention to detail with their backgrounds beginning with Sleeping Beauty in 1959. Artist Eyvind Earle was responsible for creating the incredible backgrounds we see throughout the film, it was the first time Disney really experimented with their style. The difference with 101 Dalmatians, was that it was the first time clean lines weren’t prioritized due to the nature of the sketchy look with the xerox process. Ken Anderson, an art director for both Disney films and Disney parks for over 40 years, was responsible for the abstract backgrounds shown in 101 Dalmatians. He really liked the idea of colors not staying within the lines, and playing with the faded neutral blues, greens, and browns.
Walt on the other hand, wasn’t a fan of the abstract look with the asymmetry and angular shapes. He loved Dodie Smith’s story of the dalmatians, and was disappointed with some of the artistic aspects in the end. Ken Anderson held that on his shoulders for a while, until a few days leading up to Walt’s death, Ken explained that he knew Walt had forgiven him for it.
The modern elements in 101 Dalmatians has made it into a film that anyone of any age could watch and relate to. Roger and Anita’s relationship, their love for their puppies, and Pongo and Perdita’s adventure remains a significant part in animation history. This film opened up modern opportunities that the studio had not explored yet. It allowed the animators to be progressive and move forward with their stories rather than setting them in a past time.
The Impact of Tinker Bell on the Walt Disney Company
The Original Voices of the Winnie the Pooh Characters
Disney's First Contemporary Film: 101 Dalmatians
The Struggle for the Rights of Winnie the Pooh
The Impact of Jiminy Cricket on the Walt Disney Company
Alice in Wonderland Character Origins
Snow White, As Told By the Brothers Grimm
The Ballad of Mulan
101dalmatians, films, movie, vintage, history, disneyhistory, disneymovies, disneyfilm, animation, cartoon, kenanderson, miltkahl, waltdisney, contemporary, modern, xerox, xerography, disneyclassicsfilmstories


I thoroughly enjoyed the time I spent learning with Andrew. His knowledge of screenwriting is vast and he recommended several interesting texts to me, which enabled me to improve my craft. Andrew is a generous teacher, able to challenge and bring out the best in his students. With his support and guidance, I was able to develop a piece into a short film script, an area I had never dared venture into before. I would happily recommend Andrew as a teacher and am sure others will get a lot out of his classes, as I did! Gemma.
Andrew's tutelage and guidance significantly built my confidence in my own filmic ability, allowing me the creative freedom to make my own films with the technical and artistic grounding granted by a comprehensive film education. Thanks to Andrew, I learnt how to make films the best way one can - by making films. Tom
The knowledge and skill of the highest standards gained under Andrew’s dedicated guidance, fuelled our son’s passion in Film and Television and paved the way for his continued studies at tertiary level. Fiona
I met Andrew Pheasant in 2016. He inspired me to love film and media. I have now enrolled in full time TAFE to study a Diploma of Screen and Media. Without the help of Mr Pheasant I wouldn't be doing what I love.


The Bottom Line
- Wonderful adaptation of the book by Stieg Larsson
- Brilliant cast portray their characters accurately
- Very few details omitted
- Edge-of-your-seat suspense and action film; enjoyable even if you haven't read the book
- A few minor omissions and inaccuracies compared with the book
- You basically get four stories in one, the first being the story of Mikael Blomkvist, a journalist who makes a critical mistake and faces jail time for it.
- The second story is of Lisbeth Salander, a brilliant computer hacker/sociopath whose "guardian", Nils Bjurman, dominates and violates her until she exacts her revenge.
- The third story is of the well-known Vanger family, which holds a dark and disturbing secret. Mikael Blomkvist is hired to discover which family member murdered Harriet Vanger.
- The fourth story is how Blomkvist and Salander end up working together on the Vanger case and then find themselves in mortal danger the closer they get to discovering the truth.
Guide Review - Foreign Film Review - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Oftentimes, when you see a film that’s based on a favorite book, the results are disappointing. They cut out a lot of important details, take certain liberties with the plot lines, choose horrible actors, and basically mutilate something you love in print. I’m happy to say that this was not the case with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
Casting: The most important character, Lisbeth Salander, was brilliantly portrayed by Noomi Rapace. She pulled off the genius/sociopath role with perfection, teetering between calculated reasoning and complete loss of control and conscience. The second most important character, Mikael Blomkvist, was also skillfully portrayed by actor Michael Nyqvist. He was the perfect example of, as my best friend says, someone who was “ridden hard and put away wet!” And even the evil Nils Bjurman, played by Peter Andersson, was portrayed as the disgusting, foul pig that he was with no apologies. The rest of the actors and actresses that took part in this movie were almost all equally well-chosen for the roles they played, apart from Lena Endre who played Erika Berger, Blomkvist’s business partner and lover. More on that in a bit.
Plot and Details: The creators of this movie clearly read the book and took painstaking care to follow the storyline as closely as possible. There were times that even full quotes by certain characters matched the text from the book itself. I honestly spotted only a few minor discrepancies between the film and the book – one was the omission of the polyamorous relationship between Mikael, Erika, and Erika’s husband (who didn’t appear in the film at all) and the fact that Mikael was quite the tramp throughout the story line, spending considerable mattress time with a variety of women whose paths were crossed with his during the development of the story. But I suppose those slight discrepancies didn’t taint the overall picture – for the most part, everything I would consider ultimately central to the plot-line were included. Because of this, the run time of the movie was 152 minutes, which in no way created drag and was completely appropriate in order to do the story justice, a concept that Hollywood can’t seem to grasp.