Can Any Flat Screen Be Mounted

New Moon (2009)

Year: 2009
Length: 130
Source: U.S.
Color: C
Genre: Action , Fantasy Horror, Romance
From: novel by Stephenie Meyer
Production: Imprint Entertainment, Summit Entertainment, Troy Rodriguez Productions
Warning: N or
Director: Chris Weitz

A saga is a saga. Good or bad is when you see the first chapter is morally obliged to see all of the following. And so it was for me, yesterday, at the multiplex trust.
I sit and look around: no teenager in the throes of hormonal storms or hardened fans with banners or something. I would say that is a good step forward. And the man replies that I have to thank the brain is not the first. Right!

We go though the film itself and start talking about its relevance to the book. Well, the affinity is good, the book is respected, even if it is necessary to condense a lot of cut scenes and a lot of pieces (as has always been, with respect to transpositions of the paper). Despite this, the film comes out with his head down, winking to Meyer as if to say "hey, the second novel was Pizzos ... and the film !"... and you'd be: the single most important scenes are played without interruption and with good fidelity, but this still allows the viewer to fully understand the movie without having read the paper counterpart.

I will not dwell on the story itself, which may appeal as disgusting. What I want is to look at the film transpires as the public. I must say that the acting is bad. At least one of Edward. And I have yet to figure out if it is because the voice actor or if he had to strive to be like Pattinson at the point of being obliged to speak as if they were inside a press. The "good" as Kristen has to undertake business as usual, the usual expressions and used to do repetitive. Mr. Lautner is to keep the film afloat, with a convincing performance on average and a physicist who has ripped more than a round of applause to the women in the room and admired more than one look to their male counterparts, especially during the clashes. The good thing is the level of realism of the wolves, with a clever use of computer graphics.
But it's all here. The film is not excited, not all jump and not get bored. I was thrown into a state of apathy after the first twenty minutes, which, however, he served numerous jokes on a silver platter. The book was a mess of saccharine sentiments cheap for girls with little brains and the film follows exactly the same vein, being faithful in this.
But after all this is that the film wants to be: not a blockbuster or a cult movie, just a money-making machine and a leisure pass for two hours without much thought on his mind. A note on
however, goes to Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning. The latter (along with a packet of m & m's) really helped me to stay awake when your eyes were about to give way.

Whats The Difference Ultrahd And Minohd

The case (2):

Today I want to confront an issue that is particularly close to my heart: the horror film.
Yes, it will be another boring article that mortally bored evolution of this prolific genre. But I do not want to treat it as if it were a documentary, I'm not going to tell you, film after film, the history of horror, would be long and nerve-wracking for me too. What I want is for you to find out where this genre was born and where he now seems to be direct.

's start by saying that the first horror movies were born around the thirties, and at that time was not yet refined in the issues as it is today. So it is natural and almost obvious for us to think that the first film of this genre are those dedicated to the classic monsters of the literature of the period.
It is no coincidence that the first successful films were those from the more mundane titles like Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931) and The Mummy (1932).
is clear that these films were fully capable of frightening the young couples at the time, and with them the most brisk pioneering film buffs. They were creatures that were very popular imagination, aided also by the classical literature, and belonged to a world of "oddities" and "monstrosity" of the period such that the spectators were obliged to have fear. To this we must add the fact that it was of the first attempts to make scary movies and, as new, it is clear that they did effect.

The first evolution takes place in the fifties. The line of monsters is gradually overcome, despite the "monstrous" (yes, terrible pun) happened the same, and a new kind makes its way in the halls: science fiction. The end of the fifties is strongly influenced by the first sightings of UFOs and alien contact from the first meetings, and there is to say that Roswell, in all this, he gave a big hand.
Then you begin to see the first major productions, including I remember the Earth Stood Still (1951) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), which I think are among the pioneers (and works!) of their kind. A genre, science fiction, which has always been very successful in film, perhaps that is closely related to the same audience in some way: think Dracula or Frankenstein could be in the cinema, Well, it was absurd ... But the idea that extraterrestrials might come down to us - especially after the famous discovery dell'abusatissima Roswell - papabile was much more in terms of implementation.

then we are preparing for further change, which leads to the film noir and mystery. I think these films are considered more psychological thriller than real horror movie ... but so much so that they had the ability to petrify the viewer was impressive, and so I think that's why they are made to fall into this category. An example of this trend is undoubtedly Psycho (1960) and Hitchcock, the author, it is certainly the largest exponent. In this period it was necessary to terrorize the minds of viewers, rather than to take them due to fears of monsters and strange creatures of some kind, even to the optic of "cold war" that dawned on the world at that time.
One is the black sheep of the vintage cult movie Night of the Living Dead (1968), where George Romero stands as the pioneer of a genre that, in the years to follow, will make a fuss of unimaginable levels.

The next step takes us into a period of confusion, perhaps in part because of the many events that have rocked the company in that period. We pass on the kind occult-religious Omen - The Omen (1976) as "real" Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), in the wake of the war in Vietnam, the first film critics on the contemporary society of Cronemberg, until you get to Romero with his first sequel. In short, there were all the ingredients for a wide and varied genre from the perspective of communicative cues. The seventies were also the advent of the first and Stephen King film adaptations of his films as Carrie, Satan's gaze (1976) or the most famous Shining (1980). During the same period took hold some of the most important horror film legends such as Halloween (1978) and Alien (1979), the last of which was able to bring various kinds of monsters and the like science fiction, resulting in the perfect synergy that all we know, that allowed him to win numerous awards in many prestigious events.

The years that followed, however, were the kingdom of splatter films.
was the sub-genre that lent itself to being more common in VHS, because of its "easy" if we want to keep viewers glued to the video. And this is where you create some of the most famous of all productions time, as Friday 13 (1980), Nightmare on Elm night (1984) Child's Play or (1988). They are productions that at the time of their departure made a great success at the box office and critics, and even today remain deeply in the collective firm. The characters for which these films are remembered as nitadamente, are characterized by a characterization so strong that even now things like the famous clawed glove of Freddy Krueger in the public domain and are now popular tradition of horror cinema.
In the same period other products are destined to become a cult film of its kind, as The house (1981) and, again on the same line Ridgemont (1987). Unique, are among the pioneers of the splatter, and have the opportunity to be regarded as low-cost production (in the second case, very low). Although these traits derived from their perverse fascination.

We find ourselves then in the sequel of the saga and fair. The nineties are distinguished by this trait that, if for some it may be fascinating, for many it is just depressing: a sequel is often filmed in merely order to earn money, and not to "make movies". It is this spirit that makes this production so low that fans often can not help but be disappointed.
Also in this period ranges widely between the various sub-genres such as Splatter - The schizzacervelli (1992) for the splatter film, exactly, or Bram Stoker (1992 ) for the horror genre on monsters, we are also mindful Scream (1996) for the popular teen-marriage and death The Blair Witch Project (1999) for independent of the subgenus.

Let's finish well to the present day, where the horror is based primarily on a few themes, abusatissimi around which still managed to survive thanks to the spirit in which it is not known.
We have reached a point where you no longer have a bad first class to terrorize the public. A maniac with a knife or with a clawed glove is scary, yes, but leaves the time that is in this context of mass destruction today. So the problem is to look at other beaches, other places: the company. When the problem is only one individual, how much fear can do, it's easy to stop him. When but is all around us to be sick, well, is another story. On this line are based movies like Hostel (2005), but all those movies that are based on epidemics and viruses that cause physical changes and mutations in crature as Zombie. This is what terrifies the audience today. A spectator who has been pretending selective with regard to cinema, but after all that satisfied with cheap thrills with movies on themes already seen hundreds of times. How many films have you seen talking about Zombie? How many films on viral diseases uncontrollable? The lists are almost endless.

It is precisely at this point that I think. The real problem of the cinema horror is its repetitiveness and its generalization, but I will try to explain. The scope of the horror is so vast that it is now possible to place each paradoxically any production that is able to scuscitare just a thrill in the viewer. And too often we find films that define the film seems to me hard. We find that it is enough to unite the right "curve" (and I believe I have explained) a little 'blood and ready and you have served your movie collections billionaires. Or the alternative is to do a remake, a sequel or a prequel.
So we end up in the fall where I wanted, my reason to hate the contemporary horror movies: good ideas, you know, now scarce. Since the turn of the millennium so far - and I spent ten years - I have witnessed the decline of this genre in all its forms. Because now when a director does not know what to do comes up with the gimmick of doing a remake ( Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Omen ) where just more blood to enter the original film - or, hey! another previous remake - to sell crap to do. Others chose to resurrect the old landmarks of horror movies like vampires ( Van Helsing, Underworld ) or throw themselves on video games, often pulling out interesting films but no relevance to the game itself, or only minimally relevant ( Resident Evil , Silent Hill ).

Well, now is a bore. It's all predictable, all have seen and been through everything.
propinano I do not know what's the horror in the future but I have locked in a room ... and I have a premonition that it will be a tragedy for me deal with it, I could even scream like crazy out of my head encased in a cube ... to the point that I do not know if I want to (re) open the door.

Recipe Ruby Tuesday Crab

horror film The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

Year: 2009
Original title: The Man Who Stare At Goats
Length: 90
Source: USA, Great Britain
Color: C
Genre: Comedy , Satirist
From: novel "War of Goats by Jon Ronson
Production: Smoke House, Mandate Pictures, BBC Films
Warning: N or
Director: Grant Heslov

Some events bring the reporter Bob Wilton in Iraq, where he meets a certain Lyn Cassady, an early member of the secret U.S. Army unit that deals with the paranormal. Along the way they will learn about the history of the experimental department called New Earth Army, founded with the aim of creating psychic spies in the service the country with special powers like the walk through walls, read minds and stop the heart of a goat just fixing it. In the end, including kidnappings, grotesque situation, quotes and continuous doses of LSD, Bob will be able to go home and write the article so intensely desired.
is grotesque and irreverent vision of the American army, one that Heslov sets. Tones and citazionistici parody, the film manages to entertain without boring (and I swear that was a long time that I fell asleep at the cinema ...) and yet also provides excellent opportunities for reflection on what the war might be different when viewed from points of view we are not aware of. The cast is stellar and the acting duo of Clooney, McGregor initial manage to steal more than a laugh on several occasions: these are added then the brilliant Jeff Bridges - this version of hippie guru - and the versatile Kevin Spacey - who This also makes her role beautifully. The soundtrack is also very well maintained, and the theme More Than A Feeling of the U.S. hard-rock Boston , it goes well and the final intermission.
I must say that I was particularly persuaded to cast very promising. Yet at the end of proizione I could not call me happy: not something I liked. After a morning
university degree, a couple of hours and some exercise, I could see clearly. The basic problem is that I was prepared to see The Men Who Stare at Goats as if I went to see some kind of Scary Movie less heavy and less vulgar or easy laughs from a movie and guaranteed, without a plot worthy of note. And here I fell into the error of the rookie, I admit, but sometimes make mistakes ... and when it happens enough to admit mistakes without doing the hard. So I admitted to myself that this is a film worthy of note, without a doubt the most beautiful and meaningful that I could see for a long time now.
The director manages to juggle issues in a "difficult" with enviable acuity, providing us with the vision of an army crowds, rickety and burlesque, but not untrue: there is an unscrupulous social climber, the pacifist, the first class and the journalist got confused in the midst of a war from afar, at home, it seems another matter entirely.
Most of the smiles we are torn by the quotations from everlasting Angela Lansbury philosophy Jedi of Star Wars short, Evan McGregor hear say "Jedi? What is a Jedi?" ends up not even make you laugh whether you like it, and likewise the quote is repeated throughout the film and carries with it that pleasant aftertaste metareferenziale which unfortunately is not affordable to all directors.

A little gem, well, maybe that should be shown to those who arrogate to themselves the label of "Director" and then only produces bad work.

Which Socks Are The Warmest

at Ridgemont High (1987)

Year: 1987
Original title: Bad taste
Length: 92
Source: New Zealand
Color: C
Genre: Comedy, Sci-Fi, Horror
Production: First Int Pict
Prohibited : 14
Director: Peter Jackson


I know to be boring with these horror / splatter but you must start with bases all over to tackle the modern cinema.
And where to start if not signed by this cult-movie director Peter Jackson?
First of all we do an overview: the movie was filmed in the hometown of Mr. Jackson and is a very low production cost, about $ 25,000, which was shot in the "free time" as if it were an exercise in style. A shooting was completed, the New Zealand Film Commission to invest another large sum to make a film in all respects. This means that we see every scene and every special effect available to the author are arranged in the best possible, with the help of friends and relatives. Just watching the end credits we see that the director himself plays two roles of respect: the good Derek, a member of the squad and Robert, the alien cannibal-cult supporter of the scene in which brains dirattamente banquet at the source, with the 'using a nice spoon - in short, to him brains, I cereal. Keeping an eye on the end credits we see that the actor who plays the character of Frank has also worked on the soundtrack, a song in particular if I remember correctly (but the title of which escapes me). Well, we're at the level of "tell me what you can do and see as employees ... and if this is terribly fascinating for the viewer to imagine what effect it can have on me, avid movie buff.
But we can live in the film. The plot is a shocking stupidity, bordering on the ridiculous. A demonstration of this is a little anecdote about me: Once I told a friend the intention of create a short film with the same plot of Bad Taste (film unknown to him) and finished the explanation I laughed in his face. The next day I pointed out that the film existed and had not only launched his film to the top, but also had become a cult classic of the genre. Incredulos face, of course. Now let's go down to it, without stalling: the aliens are on earth to collect as much flesh as possible. This will be brought to their planet and served in the largest chain of fast food locally.
can well understand that this plot can only afford one like this demented splatter from the mold. The acting is very rough, "effects Special "are anything but special and also the shape of the aliens is disgusting, but it is just because of his grotesque essence of the film is so exciting. Some scenes are also very momentous: Derek ending down from the cliff and try to forgive pieces of brain splattered everywhere, the skull opened, the alien that Robert uses his head to a colleague as a cup and eats his brains out with a spoon; Barry aliens in the house cleaning the ground and when his colleagues will kill one , complained in a tone of regret, "No, I'm clean."
I look in this film means something profound implications for analysis, but it is clear that this is a real "exercise style "for the teacher Jackson, grappling with one of his early work.

So take it as it comes and enjoy its genuine air and grotesque, his reflexes and his tragicomic splatter ideas which, in my opinion, can still instruction.
After all, here, unlike the more recent horror productions, in bad taste is only the title.

Adjusting Electric Outlets For Tile

The case (1): 3D cinema

all knew that it would be the time to deal with this topic and I want to talk about it in a very carefree without bore you with anaglyph, valves and other similar amenities.
First, take off the belief People who want the cinema as a recent three-dimensional notivà in the film industry: Wrong! The first attempts to obtain three-dimensional images date back to the second half of the nineteenth century with the invention of the stereoscope , to evolve into anaglyph, polarized lenses , etc..
currently in theaters we can find two types of 3D created in the recovery phase and the one created in the process of projection. The first one we find in all those works of animation in which we have become accustomed by Dreamoworks and Pixar, and the second one is the one that was inspired by fashion lately - yes, it's always the old who returns - the glasses. First were those cardboard glasses with red and cyan, and blacks are now the ones with gray polarized lenses, but that does not change enough that the introduction of a small plastic gadget to shell out more to the viewer in the € 3 ticket ' input and a respectable box office.
What I do not go down in all this - and it is here that the article would be based - is that with this sympathetic excuse of Digital 3D, are churning out films that define these sometimes I really hard. Can I speak advisedly, having seen so many different and having accused headache.
the first on which I could lay eyes was Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D , I saw mainly for 3D - and yes, they screwed me too - and because it is an issue that I've always liked from Verne's book, going for his first film version of 1959.
generally was not bad, thanks Josh Hutcherson is also a textbook that has significantly raised the level of the film. Yet he felt already that something was wrong as well as having eyes annoyed at the end of projection, I realized that such a film was not great need for revisiting: previous work albeit made in the late sixties, it makes very good idea that Verne's book wanted to convey.
So I took my thoughts and I kept them with me, with the promise that I started to mull over after the next film I would see three-dimensional.
So after I came back to room to see the famous My Bloody Valentine 3D . To say that we are facing a bad movie could significantly raise the level of the opinion that I did on this film. Although the script is the original of 1981 (presented in Italy under the title The Valentine's Day ) this film has lost its impact. The actors are not up to repeat that fine work and I think the film suffers. Despite this almost all the critics I have read are based solely on the 3D and snubbed at the foot of the "rest" of the film that I found abhorrent, but perhaps because it has always abhorred the remake.
At this point a question was made elbowing off in my head: you see now that abuse of these three dimensions and start to flood the market with bad movies just to earn as much as possible?
For the moment I could not neither to deny nor confirm because almost all of the work is still in 3D animation world domination that, you know, about these little things can live happily without causing any problems.

That's how I feel, unfortunately, facing the current cinematic landscape. I'm afraid that the average level of the films can still get off because of this trick when I see that only as "commercial". I hope to be proven wrong in a hurry, but in the meantime I keep my healthy hesitation and refractoriness in relation to 3D movies, giving more emphasis to some classics of yore ... perhaps even on an old TV set in the same period, just not to lose such a unique atmosphere.

What Color Blush Do Tan Ppl Use

Videodrome ( 1983)

Year:
1983 Length: 81
Source: Canada
Color: C
Genre: Sci-Fi, Horror
Production: Claude Heroux Plan International Film
Warning: 14
Directed by: David Cronemberg



"Glory and life to the new flesh!" thundered the mighty Max Renn before blotting a series of horrendous crimes that brought him become the man "new" so desired by the creators of the Videodrome signal. And this phrase is the focal point of the whole thing even if it could not be heard until they have passed at least three quarters film.
I will not go in the depth of plot, a bit 'because I consider it a cult, a little' because I prefer to talk about what it takes Cronemberg tell, not the way it does.
In this case we are dealing with raw, uncompromising film: the viewer will fail to take your eyes off the screen even for a second. Indeed, perhaps some delicate stomach could do so in the scenes of the slasher film that, although not many, are very effective at a level of visual impact.
It is projected into a daily reality of classic American-style: manager, TV networks and living rooms from budding talk show. Amidst all this there is the story that sees Max Renn, member of a small television network, to discover the existence of a program called Videodrome . This program shows torture, murder and mayhem ... true! Max is fascinated (!) From the spectacle - which is quite normal considering that the network spends most of his only child pornography - and begins to investigate the origin of the signal and its creators. But Max ends up trapped in a spiral from which there is no exit, and will ultimately embody what the Videodrome signal wants: a new man, made of new flesh.
In all this we also know other characters such as the lovely Nicki Brand, the scout and the mysterious Masha Brian O 'Blivion. And it is the latter the most interesting character. This is a man who is involved in several talk shows and lounges, but you never show to person and always speaks only through a TV in the house. And to make matters worse is only and only monologues, precluding any possibility of tearing potergli an interview or even just ask him a question. He said in a television broadcast that the television is catching on to the point that what we see in it is even more real than reality itself.
Yes, it is pure paranoia. And that's why he's right. What's on TV is what we are, properly prepared, designed and installed so as to give the viewer exactly what he wants. So violence and pornography are not only subject to talk shows, are real factors and "real" in oneself and coming out more in everyday contexts outside of slaves as a moral code to which most of the time we strive to obey. And his assertion is right in this outlet, because that will eventually step forward more and more that men are ashamed to admit, but not hide, which makes them in all respects "human".
in 1983, this statement could also be seen as the usual theory that it is time to leave. But I think now and I find that after 26 years is tremendously today. Just look at what you send our local and national networks to realize that there Cronemberg was right. Its subject should be, now more than ever, discussion topics, because it seems that its Brian O 'Blivion saw us well. Violence, pornography and talk shows are now on the agenda, and even some mainstream programming schedules.
In all this you must add the interpretations of a good standard and special effects of very high quality for the period - whereas the splatter scenes can impress even the most modern and demanding - and you'll get Videodrome in all its grim, raw and naked splendor.
Someone said that this film is very good but then you lose language confusing, until you lose impact. I believe that as it may swerve from time to time, the script is pretty faithful to what Cronemberg wanted to prove they speak of a serious and important issue, but that is why it is good that its representation is at times grotesque, confused and crush, because it is the only way you catch the viewer's attention.

was so in 1983 and, guess what, so even now.