Jhola

Nepali movie ‘Jhola’ is a movie made on a popular book by the same name by literary figure, Krishna Dharabasi. The plot set on the Nepali society of the time about a century ago. The movie directed by Yadav Kumar Bhattarai features Garima Pant, Desh Bhakta Khanal, Deepak Chhetri,Laxmi Giri, Pralhad Khatiwada etc. in main roles.The movie presents the height of violence against women in ancient Nepal – Sati tradition. In ‘Jhola’ an young woman (Garima Pant) is married to a man 40 years senior to her. When her husband dies, Garima is burned alive with the dead body of her husband. She escaped the fire and hides in a cave. 

The story was written by Dharabasi based on a story he found written in leaf booklet in a bag (Jhola) left at his home by an elderly man who had come from Manipur, India. Hence the name ‘Jhola’. The event shown in the movie happened in a remote village of Bhojpur district. The shooting however was done in Dhading after reviewing various other locations in Sindhuli, Bhojpur, Ilam, Therathum, Panchthar, Sindhupalanchowk, Rolpa, Taplejung, Khaptad, Doti, Achham, Bajhang, and Bajura.


By: Suja Sigdel
Reference: http://xnepali.net/movies/jhola-movie-review/

Jumanji

 

"Jumanji" is a movie that mixes of fantasy and adventure. The movie released in America in 1995 and directed by Joe Johnston. Jumanji is based on Chris Van Allsburg’s famous 1981 picture book of the same name. The movie is about a board game that makes wild animals and other jungle hazards materialise upon each player’s move.

In 1969, Alan is trapped in Jumanji while playing the game with his friend Sarah. Thus Alan lives 26 years in the jungle. After 26 years, Judy and Peter move into the Alan’s house with their aunt after they lost their parents because of skiing accident. Judy and Peter hear Jumanji’s drumbeats so that they find the game and play together.

26 years later, when Judy and Peter playing the game, Alan came back to the life who became an adult Alan. Alan watches Judy and Peter continue to play the game and he realises that Judy and Peter are playing the same game as he and Sarah played in the past. Therefore, Alan realised that he has to join with them to finish the game. Sarah suffered mental trauma because of Alan’s disappearance during the game, Sarah does not want to join the game, but for finishing the game, Sarah has to join the game as well.

The movie is happy ending that Alan and Sarah going back in 1969 with full memories of events that they had in the future. Alan and Sarah decide to throw away the board game to protect themselves and future that they do not have same experience again. I like this movie because it is an adventure movie so that it makes people interesting to travel future and past by watching the movie. Also, this movie shows family’s love and care. Thus, I recommend people to watch this movie especially watch with their family.

@Kelly

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumanji

Slumdog Millionaire

Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire" hits the ground running. This is a breathless, exciting story, heartbreaking and exhilarating at the same time, about a Mumbai orphan who rises from rags to riches on the strength of his lively intelligence. The film's universal appeal will present the real India to millions of moviegoers for the first time.

The real India, supercharged with a plot as reliable and eternal as the hills. The film's surface is so dazzling that you hardly realize how traditional it is underneath. But it's the buried structure that pulls us through the story like a big engine on a short train.

By the real India, I don't mean an unblinking documentary like Louis Malle's "Calcutta" or the recent "Born Into Brothels." I mean the real India of social levels that seem to be separated by centuries. What do people think of when they think of India? On the one hand, Mother Teresa, "Salaam Bombay!" and the wretched of the earth. On the other, the "Masterpiece Theater"-style images of "A Passage to India," "Gandhi" and "The Jewel in the Crown."
The India of Mother Teresa still exists. Because it is side-by-side with the new India, it is easily seen. People living in the streets. A woman crawling from a cardboard box. Men bathing at a fire hydrant. Men relieving themselves by the roadside. You stand on one side of the Hooghly River, a branch of the Ganges that runs through Kolkuta, and your friend tells you, "On the other bank millions of people live without a single sewer line."

On the other hand, the world's largest middle class, mostly lower-middle, but all the more admirable. The India of "Monsoon Wedding." Millionaires. Mercedes-Benzes and Audis. Traffic like Demo Derby. Luxury condos. Exploding education. A booming computer segment. A fountain of medical professionals. Some of the most exciting modern English literature. A Bollywood to rival Hollywood.

"Slumdog Millionaire" bridges these two Indias by cutting between a world of poverty and the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." It tells the story of an orphan from the slums of Mumbai who is born into a brutal existence. A petty thief, impostor and survivor, mired in dire poverty, he improvises his way up through the world and remembers everything he has learned.

His name is Jamel (played as a teenager by Dev Patel). He is Oliver Twist. High-spirited and defiant in the worst of times, he survives. He scrapes out a living at the Taj Mahal, which he did not know about but discovers by being thrown off a train. He pretends to be a guide, invents "facts" out of thin air, advises tourists to remove their shoes and then steals them. He finds a bit part in the Mumbai underworld, and even falls in idealized romantic love, that most elusive of conditions for a slumdog.

His life until he's 20 is told in flashbacks intercut with his appearance as a quiz show contestant. Pitched as a slumdog, he supplies the correct answer to question after question and becomes a national hero. The flashbacks show why he knows the answers. He doesn't volunteer this information. It is beaten out of him by the show's security staff. They are sure he must be cheating.

The film uses dazzling cinematography, breathless editing, driving music and headlong momentum to explode with narrative force, stirring in a romance at the same time. For Danny Boyle, it is a personal triumph. He combines the suspense of a game show with the vision and energy of "City of God" and never stops sprinting.

When I saw "Slumdog Millionaire" at Toronto, I was witnessing a phenomenon: dramatic proof that a movie is about how it tells itself. I walked out of the theater and flatly predicted it would win the Audience Award. Seven days later, it did. And that it could land a best picture Oscar nomination. We will see. It is one of those miraculous entertainments that achieves its immediate goals and keeps climbing toward a higher summit.

Reference：http://www.metacritic.com/movie/slumdog-millionaire
@Bruce Wei

Guarding Tess

How many different spins have their been on the "buddy film"? From The Odd Couple to Lethal Weapon, it seems that just about every angle has been covered. Then along comes a movie like Guarding Tess that thinks it has a unique twist to this tried-and-true theme. However, an unusual pairing doesn't equate to a noteworthy picture.

Since the death of her late husband the President, former First Lady Tess Carlisle (Shirley MacLaine) has been living in a house in Sommersville, Ohio, under the watchful eye of Secret Service agent Doug Chesnick (Nicolas Cage) and his team of six. Just when Doug thinks his term of duty is over, Tess requests that he return for another three years, and what Tess wants, Tess gets. So, against his will (his alternative is the unemployment line), Doug remains in Sommersville, where his already-brittle relationship with the aging widow turns into an open contest of wills.

Driving Miss Daisy did it much better, but there are some shared themes between the 1989 Academy Award winning film and Hugh Wilson's Guarding Tess. Both are about two mismatched people coming to know and appreciate each other, and eventually realizing how important their relationship is. This, the central theme of every "buddy film", lies at the core of Guarding Tess. Only the details surrounding it have changed to fit the situation.

The story is not especially original. Mostly predictable, Guarding Tess is light on surprises, but that's a given for any film that falls even loosely into a formula category. Despite a slow start, the movie eventually slips into a congenial flow. Unfortunately, Guarding Tess ends up derailing because of a ill-conceived ending that has something to do with a silly kidnapping subplot.

The comedy is mostly low-key, and much of it works. Coming from writer/director Hugh Wilson, the man behind the original Police Academy, it's surprising to find a motion picture whose laugh-to-joke ratio is relatively high. Guarding Tess relies far more on verbal jousting and body language than on slapstick and other ridiculous gags.

Nicolas Cage carries the movie. Normally know for his manic on-screen antics, it's interesting to see Cage in a restrained performance. The harnessed emotion is always there, just beneath the surface, waiting to break free. Shirley MacLaine does a reasonable job as Tess, and holds her own in scenes with her co-star, although her magnetism isn't as palpable. The rest of the cast, including such familiar names as Austin Pendleton and James Rebhorn, provide adequate support.

Ultimately, while Guarding Tess is genial and amusing, it lacks any semblance of originality. There are a few good jokes, some solid chemistry between the leads, and a little pathos, but it all doesn't add up to very much. The ingredients are there, but the final product hasn't been prepared to its best advantage.

Reference：http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/review/guarding-tess

@Bruce Wei

The Yes Men Fix the World

The Yes Men are a New York political action cooperative specializing in hoaxes that embarrass corporations by dramatizing their evils and excesses. They put up phony Web sites, print fake business cards and pose as representatives from the companies that are their targets. It's amazing what they get away with. Maybe not so amazing, if you study the faces in some of their audiences. These are people so accustomed to sitting through corporate twaddle that they fail to question the most preposterous presentations.

Consider the "SurvivaBall." This is a fake survival suit, built by the Yes Men but presented as a new product from Halliburton. This is an inflated padded globe completely containing a human body, and round as a beach ball. Obviously, if you fell over, you'd have no way to stop yourself from rolling, or be able to stand up on your own. There's a closable face opening, air filters, little extendable gloves and a port that, unless I miss my guess, is intended for extra-suit urination. It comes with the big red Halliburton trademark.

In the post-9/11 paranoia, the Yes Men seriously pitch this invention at a conference for the security industry. Study the faces in the audience. No one is laughing. People look bored or perhaps mildly curious. There isn't a look of incredulity in the room. The few questions are desultory. Not a single security "expert" seems to suspect a hoax.

Experts in the news business are no more suspicious. The Yes Men faked a BBC interview during which a "spokesman for Dow Chemical" announced a multibillion-dollar payment to the victims of a notorious 1985 explosion at a Union Carbide insecticide factory in Bhopal, India, that killed 8,000, injured many more and spread poisons that cause birth defects to this day.

Think of that. Twice as many dead as on 9/11, we know exactly who did it and Dow (which absorbed Union Carbide) has never paid a dime of reparation. At the news it was finally settling the suit, Dow Chemical's stock price plunged on Wall Street: Things like this could cost money. The Yes Men were unmasked as the hoaxers.

They were also behind a stunt that made the news recently: staging a phony press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, announcing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was reversing its stand on global warming. Some news organizations double-checked this, but not Fox News, which repeated the story all day.

Another hoax, inspiring the question: Why does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce resist the theory of global warming? What is the USCC, anyway? Is it supported by the dues of countless merchants on Main Street, or is it a front financed by energy companies? Only a month ago, Exelon, the largest U.S. electric utility, announced it would no longer pay dues to support the USCC right-wing agenda.

The Yes Men are represented in this documentary by Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonnano. You may have seen them on TV -- as themselves, or as "corporate spokesmen." It's remarkable no one recognizes them. They don't wear beards or dark glasses. They are disguised, in fact, in a way that makes them above suspicion: Why, they look and talk exactly like middle-aged white men in conservative business suits.

The film is entertaining in its own right, and thought-provoking. Why don't more people quickly see through their hoaxes? A photo of Bichlbaum and Bonnano with the SurvivaBall appears with this review. Would you believe in such a product? As head of security for your corporation, would you invest in it? It is surprising we don't look outside and see, coming down the street, a parade of emperors without any clothes.

Resource：http://theyesmenfixtheworld.com/

@Bruce Wei

Match Point

One reason for the fascination of Woody Allen's "Match Point" is that each and every character is rotten. This is a thriller not about good versus evil, but about various species of evil engaged in a struggle for survival of the fittest -- or, as the movie makes clear, the luckiest. "I'd rather be lucky than good," Chris, the tennis pro from Ireland, tells us as the movie opens, and we see a tennis ball striking the net it is pure luck which side it falls on. Chris' own good fortune depends on just such a lucky toss of a coin.

The movie, Allen's best since "Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989), involves a rich British family and two outsiders who hope to enter it by using their appeal. They are the two iest people in the movie -- their bad luck, since they are more attracted to each other than to their targets in the family. Still, as someone once said (Robert Heinlein if you must know), money is a powerful aphrodisiac. He added however, "flowers work almost as well." Not in this movie, they don't.

The movie stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Chris, a poor boy from Ireland who was on the tennis tour and now works in London as a club pro. He meets rich young Tom (Matthew Goode), who takes a lesson, likes him, and invites him to attend the opera with his family. During the opera, Tom's sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer) looks at Chris once with interest and the second time with desire. Chris does not need to have anything explained to him.

Tom's own girlfriend is Nola (Scarlett Johansson), an American who hopes to become an actress or Tom's wife, not in that order. Tom and Chloe are the children of Alec and Eleanor Hewett (Brian Cox and Penelope Wilton), who have serious money, as symbolized by the country house where the crowd assembles for the weekend. It's big enough to welcome two Merchant-Ivory productions at the same time.

Chloe likes Chris. She wants Chris. Her parents want Chloe to have what she wants. Alec offers Chris a job in "one of my companies" -- always a nice touch, that. Tom likes Nola, but to what degree, and do his parents approve? All is decided in the fullness of time, and now I am going to become maddeningly vague in order not to spoil the movie's twists and turns, which are ingenious and difficult to anticipate.

Let us talk instead in terms of the underlying philosophical issues. To what degree are we prepared to set aside our moral qualms in order to indulge in greed and selfishness? I have just finished re-reading The Wings of the Dove, by Henry James, in which a young man struggles heroically with just such a question. He is in love with a young woman he cannot afford to marry, and a rich young heiress is under the impression he is in love with her. The heiress is dying. Everyone advises him he would do her a great favor by marrying her, and after her death, inheriting her wealth, he could afford to marry the woman he loves. But isn't this unethical? No one has such moral qualms in Allen's film, not even sweet Chloe, who essentially has her daddy buy Chris for her. The key question facing the major players is: Greed, or lust? How tiresome to have to choose.

Without saying why, let me say that fear also enters into the equation. In a moral universe, it would be joined by guilt, but not here. The fear is that in trying to satisfy both greed and lust, a character may have to lose both, which would be a great inconvenience. At one point this character sees a ghost, but this is not Hamlet's father, crying for revenge; this ghost drops by to discuss loopholes in a "perfect crime."

When "Match Point" premiered at Cannes last May, the critics agreed it was "not a typical Woody Allen film." This assumes there is such a thing. Allen has worked in a broad range of genres and has struck a lot of different notes, although often he uses a Woody Figure (preferably played by himself) as the hero. "Match Point" contains no one like Woody Allen; is his first film set in London; is constructed with a devious clockwork plot that would distinguish a film noir, and causes us to identify with some bad people. In an early scene, a character is reading Crime and Punishment, and during the movie, as during the novel, we are inside the character's thoughts.

The movie is more about plot and moral vacancy than about characters, and so Allen uses type-casting to quickly establish the characters and set them to their tasks of seduction, deception, lying and worse. Meyers has a face that can express crafty desire, which is not pure lust but more like lust transformed by quick strategic calculations. Matthew Goode, as his rich friend, is clueless almost as an occupation. Emily Mortimer plays a character incapable of questioning her own happiness, no matter how miserable it should make her. Scarlett Johansson's visiting American has been around the block a few times, but like all those poor American girls in Henry James, she is helpless when the Brits go to work on her. She has some good dialogue in the process.

"Men think I may be something special," she tells Chris.

"Are you?"

"No one's ever asked for their money back."

"Match Point," which deserves to be ranked with Allen's "Annie Hall," "Hannah and Her Sisters," "Manhattan," "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and "Everyone Says I Love You," has a terrible fascination that lasts all the way through. We can see a little way ahead, we can anticipate some of the mistakes and hazards, but the movie is too clever for us, too cynical. We expect the kinds of compromises and patented endings that most thrillers provide, and this one goes right to the wall. There are cops hanging around trying to figure out what, if anything, anyone in the movie might have been up to, but they're too smart and logical to figure this one out. 

Reference：http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Point

@Bruce Wei

The Dark Knight

Consequences. In real life, these ramifications emanate from every action like ripples from a stone thrown into a pond. Often in movies, especially those that feature characters who don't play by the rules, such penalties are suspended. However, in Christopher Nolan's Batman universe, decisions and actions have consequences. The Dark Knight, arguably the moodiest and most adult superhero motion picture ever to reach the screen, illustrates this lesson in ways that are startling and painful. This is a tough, uncompromising motion picture - one that defies the common notions of what is expected from a "superhero" film. While there are plenty of action sequences and instances of derring-do, The Dark Knight's subtext has a tragic underpinning that would intrigue Shakespeare or the Greeks. It's about power and impotence, sanity and madness, image and reality, selfishness and sacrifice, and - yes - consequences.

It has often been said that Tim Burton's vision of Batman was the darkest representation we were ever likely to see of a superhero. Compared to how Nolan sees the character, Burton's version was a pantomime. For many long-running franchises, Burton's included, the second volume stands tallest. Nolan has followed up on his gritty and successful Batman Begins with one of the best all-time sequels, and perhaps the most impressive mainstream entertainment experience since 2003's The Return of the King. The Dark Knight builds upon the themes and premises founded three years ago. With the introductions and origins dispensed with in Batman Begins, Nolan uses this opportunity to expand upon his portrait of Batman as a haunted individual who, driven by forces rooted deep in his psyche, must dispense justice according to his own strict code.

Following his defeat of Ra's Al Ghul at the end of Batman Begins, Batman (Christian Bale) has become a mythical figure in Gotham City. The Caped Crusader, as he is now known, is the city's great hope, although the debate rages as to whether he is more hero or menace. There are copycat "Batmen," as well - vigilantes who wear similar costumes but whose methods are crude. Batman's nocturnal activities are taking a heavy toll on Gotham's organized crime syndicates, and things take a turn for the worse when the new D.A., Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), decides to take them on rather than turn a blind eye or take a payment. Abetted by incorruptible police lieutenant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Dent meets with Batman and the two come to an understanding about how to proceed in this war against crime. But a new threat is rising in the form of a sadistic lunatic called The Joker (Heath Ledger), who offers to become the mob's enforcer in the pursuit of a single goal: chaos. And this brings him squarely into conflict with the city's black-costumed guardian. To Batman, he makes one demand: remove the mask and turn himself in or the streets will run red with blood. When Bruce Wayne's identity remains secret, The Joker makes good on his word.

Often in superhero movies, there's a sense that, no matter what challenges the protagonist must face, all will be right in the end. That certainty is missing here, and its absence may represent Nolan's most impressive accomplishment. Batman is fallible and his world is dangerous. No character, no matter how well-established in Batman lore, is safe. This director's Gotham City may be less garish and gothic than Burton's, but it is in many ways a bleaker and more oppressive place. It's a joyless venue and the hero takes his demeanor from his city. Batman is a grim, brooding superhero. He rarely speaks while in costume and, when he does, his voice quivers with menace and his words are devoid of the quips and one-liners audiences have come to associate with action heroes.

The survivors of Batman Begins are all back. Christian Bale has become the first Batman where it matters which actor is under the cowl. Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney were all interchangeable when wearing the Bat-suit. Not so with Bale, who owns the role. His presence in the costume is forceful in a way that none of his predecessors achieved. Michael Caine's Alfred acts not only as Bruce Wayne's butler but as his conscience. Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) is Batman's version of "Q." Indeed, there's a scene in The Dark Knight that could have been lifted from one of many James Bond films. Gary Oldman's Jim Gordon, who wasn't too sure about Batman for much of the first film, is now fully on board as his unofficial liaison to the police force. Assistant D.A. Rachel Dawes remains the girl who got away, the woman whose promise of a normal, happy life provides Wayne with hope for the future. For The Dark Knight, Maggie Gyllenhaal has replaced Katie Holmes, but the change in actress isn't a detriment. Gyllenhaal is a better actress and makes the character her own from her first scene.

Of the newcomers, the Joker is the biggest addition. One could argue that it's impossible to make a Batman series without facing the main character against the Joker at some point. No superhero and villain are more inextricably linked. Yet this Joker is unlike any we have previously encountered. Cesar Romero's interpretation of the character (in the '60s TV series) was that of a deadly prankster. Jack Nicholson's over-the-top performance made 1989's Batman all about the bad guy. The late Heath Ledger, however, gives us something darker and more twisted - a role that would have been no less memorable had it not been his last and most grueling. There's nothing humorous about this freak. No flowery lines like "You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?" This is no caricature - The Joker is a frighteningly vicious and intelligent monster who represents a legitimate match for the title character.

The other major character to join the ensemble is Aaron Eckhart as Gotham's charismatic, photogenic D.A. Harvey Dent is Gotham's Knight in Shining Armor, and that's how Eckhart plays him - an individual with a pure heart who makes his own luck. Those even passingly familiar with Batman lore know Dent's fate, and it plays out here as one might suspect, although Nolan puts a different spin on things than did Joel Schumacher.

For all of the heavy lifting done by the movie's screenplay, dealing as it does with substantive issues and existential questions, there's still plenty of the meat-and-potatoes content of any superhero movie: action sequences. There are numerous fights, chases, and races. The Batmobile gets its share of screen time as does a new Bat-cycle. Batman takes on bad guys singly and in bunches. And there's a heart-pounding sequence in which the Caped Crusader must race against time to save a life, where the price is almost as terrible if he succeeds as if he fails. Nolan's inherent sense of how to transform a relatively mundane fight scene into something involving is in evidence here, much as was the case in Batman Begins. He avoids flash editing and allows the action to evolve in a coherent manner, drawing the viewer in rather than keeping him guessing what's going on.

2008 may be the year that the superhero movie comes of age. Iron Man represents the best screen adventure of a Marvel hero. Now, D.C. has answered with The Dark Knight, a film so impressive in every significant facet that it makes one wonder why it took so long for the genre to reach this high level. Christopher Nolan has provided movie-goers with the best superhero movie to-date, outclassing previous titles both mediocre and excellent, and giving this franchise its The Empire Strikes Back.

             

             

Resource: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-dark-knight

@Bruce Wei

The Perfect Holiday

A cute little girl Emily (Kyle Bryant decoration) is thought to give day hard busy mother's Christmas gift. Indeed, Emily's mother Nancy (Gabriel Union decorated) as a with three children of single mothers, in addition to stop work to make money, the rest of the time to three underage children. Seeing the Christmas is coming, the mall Santa Claus also lively, young children to distribute gifts and accept their wishes. Be clever and sensible little Emily had seen the mother's thoughts, alone she was in fact very looking forward to getting a good man's perfect love, together constitute a complete. So, when Emily's mother, Nancy in shopping malls, alone ran to the small friends photographic Santa Claus, made a wish: Santa Claus can bring a new husband for my mother.
This desire was possible. Emily found, part-time Santa guy Benjamin (Morris Chisnat decoration) has actually begun to children's mother favors, and the talented but frustrated young musicians are for their career and family in the future actively fight. After much communication date, the relationship between two people seem to have positive Emily way. Christmas gift to mum coming at Christmas Eve temporarily become a reality. However, Emily's two naughty brother doesn't think so, mischievous they only hope mom can soon and their biological father complex, so, two bad guys will make every attempt to start the "Santa Claus" constantly create all sorts of obstacles even tricky.

Resource:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0841032/
@suja

Taking Woodstock Movie

The film plot mainly around Elliot Tiber after 60 years to Woodstock, New York Greenwich Village (Greenwich Village) gay community life, and lead out psychological struggle. It is reported, the film is only one actor, plays Elliot Tiber will head to tail bear, and a large supporting role as excellent green leaves. Because the film based on Elliot Tiber's memoir "[Taking Woodstock: a commotion, concerts and the real life story" adaptation, so there is no doubt, the background story is the famous 1969 Woodstock Music Festival, but this film directed by Ang Lee's line is not a famous music festival, the hero of the story is one of the founders of Elliot Tiber of woodstock. When the interior designer Elliot Tiberben is a Autolodge as a helper in her parents run a small role, he became the president of the chamber of Commerce, Bessel, New York, during his tenure, he signed an outdoor music festival in the area plan, a influenced a whole generation of American of the legendary music festival in the birth of.

Resource：http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20300271,00.html
@Yujia XU

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

Mammoth Manny (voice of Ray Romano), saber toothed tiger Diego (Denis Riley dubbing) and irritating but had to admit that he is a clown's Sid (John Leijizhamo dubbing), after three people to come with sb. group has experienced two times of melting glaciers, collapse of the crisis, can finally rest temporarily down the. Anton good three people have the busy, busy and Manny Ai Li (Quinn Latifah dubbing) into the marriage of the sacred temple, saber toothed tiger is the guard of the entire cluster, and Sid was the idle about as in the past, this time it is not know from where to hold back a few large egg, originally thought he picked up a big Sid cheap, but he never imagined myself how much trouble -- that egg mother but Tyrannosaurus rex! Ancient times to the overlord of the earth, how could a tiny tree Rex is his opponent? News dinosaur find their children to teach uppity SID, the SID Diao away.
Sid One's whereabouts is a mystery., several of his friends also sit not to live, therefore embarked on a search for his journey. In the face of parturient predelivery Allie, Manny will be back as soon as possible, Sid, and then go home to take care of my baby. And always suspect that I cannot be a saber toothed tiger Diego, is determined to use the trip to prove that he is still a majestic-looking knight. Along the way, Manny and Diego again meet a lot of trouble, but they can always change danger into safety, and when they find Sid when, but found that Sid is with the dinosaur be on terms of intimacy, even when small dinosaurs to the nurse. But he also led them to a magical underground world, here with the outside of the stormy formed different contrast. In the face of this piece of land of idyllic beauty of the ice age, the group of three again experienced various adventures, and that only a lifetime to oak fruit as the goal of the Quint, also can finally have got one's wish......

@Yujia XU
Resource：http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age:_Dawn_of_the_Dinosaurs

The Reader

The crucial decision in "The Reader" is made by a 24-year-old youth, who has information that might help a woman about to be sentenced to life in prison, but withholds it. He is ashamed to reveal his affair with this woman. By making this decision, he shifts the film's focus from the subject of German guilt about the Holocaust and turns it on the human race in general. The film intends his decision as the key to its meaning, but most viewers may conclude that "The Reader" is only about the Nazis' crimes and the response to them by post-war German generations.

The film centers on a ual relationship between Hanna (Kate Winslet), a woman in her mid-30s, and Michael (David Kross), a boy of 15. That such things are wrong is beside the point; they happen, and the story is about how it connected with her earlier life and his later one. It is powerfully, if sometimes confusingly, told in a flashback framework and powerfully acted by Winslet and Kross, with Ralph Fiennes coldly enigmatic as the elder Michael.

The story begins with the cold, withdrawn Michael in middle age (Fiennes), and moves back to the late 1950s on a day when young Michael is found sick and feverish in the street and taken back to Hanna's apartment to be cared for. This day, and all their days together, will be obsessed with . Hanna makes little pretense of genuinely loving Michael, who she calls "kid," and although Michael has a helpless crush on Hanna, it should not be confused with love. He is swept away by the discovery of his own uality.

What does she get from their affair? Sex, certainly, but it seems more important that he read aloud to her: "Reading first. Sex afterwards." The director, Stephen Daldry, portrays them with a great deal of nudity and sensuality, which is correct, because for those hours, in that place, they are about nothing else.

One day Hanna disappears. Michael finds her apartment deserted, with no hint or warning. His unformed ego is unprepared for this blow. Eight years later, as a law student, he enters a courtroom and discovers Hanna in a group of Nazi prison guards being tried for murder. Something during this trial suddenly makes another of her secrets clear to him and might help explain why she became a prison guard. His discovery does not excuse her unforgivable guilt. Still, it might affect her sentencing. Michael remains silent.

The adult Michael has sentenced himself to a lonely, isolated existence. We see him after a night with a woman, treating her with remote politeness. He has never recovered from the wound he received from Hanna, nor from the one he inflicted on himself eight years after. She hurt him, he hurt her. She was isolated and secretive after the war, he became so after the trial. The enormity of her sin far outweighs his, but they are both guilty of allowing harm because they reject the choice to do good.

At the film's end, Michael encounters a Jewish woman in New York (Lena Olin), who eviscerates him with her moral outrage. She should. But she thinks he seeks understanding for Hanna. Not so. He cannot forgive Hanna's crimes. He seeks understanding for himself, although perhaps he doesn't realize that. In the courtroom, he withheld moral witness and remained silent, as she did, as most Germans did. And as many of us have done or might be capable of doing.

There are enormous pressures in all human societies to go along. Many figures involved in the recent Wall Street meltdown have used the excuse, "I was only doing my job. I didn't know what was going on." President Bush led us into war on mistaken premises, and now says he was betrayed by faulty intelligence. U.S. military personnel became torturers because they were ordered to. Detroit says it was only giving us the cars we wanted. The Soviet Union functioned for years because people went along. China still does.

Many of the critics of "The Reader" seem to believe it is all about Hanna's shameful secret. No, not her past as a Nazi guard. The earlier secret that she essentially became a guard to conceal. Others think the movie is an excuse for soft-core porn disguised as a sermon. Still others say it asks us to pity Hanna. Some complain we don't need yet another "Holocaust movie." None of them think the movie may have anything to say about them. I believe the movie may be demonstrating a fact of human nature: Most people, most of the time, all over the world, choose to go along. We vote with the tribe.

What would we have done during the rise of Hitler? If we had been Jews, we would have fled or been killed. But if we were one of the rest of the Germans? Can we guess, on the basis of how most white Americans, from the North and South, knew about racial discrimination but didn't go out on a limb to oppose it? Philip Roth's great novel The Plot Against America imagines a Nazi takeover here. It is painfully thought-provoking and probably not unfair. "The Reader" suggests that many people are like Michael and Hanna, and possess secrets that we would do shameful things to conceal.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reader
@Bruce Wei

This Is It

"This Is it," Michael Jackson told his fans in London, announcing his forthcoming concert tour. "This is the final curtain call." The curtain fell sooner than expected. What is left is this extraordinary documentary, nothing at all like what I was expecting to see. Here is not a sick and drugged man forcing himself through grueling rehearsals, but a spirit embodied by music. Michael Jackson was something else.

The film has been assembled from rehearsals from April through June 2009 for a concert tour scheduled for this summer. The footage was "captured by a few cameras," an opening screen tells us, but they were professional high-def cameras and the sound track is full-range stereo. The result is one of the most revealing music documentaries I've seen.

And it's more than that. It's a portrait of Michael Jackson that belies all the rumors that he would have been too weak to tour. That shows not the slightest trace of a spoiled prima donna. That benefits from the limited number of cameras by allowing us to experience his work in something closer to realistic time, instead of fracturing it into quick cuts. That provides both a good idea of what the final concert would have looked like, and a portrait of the artist at work.

Never raising his voice, never showing anger, always soft-spoken and courteous to his cast and crew, Michael with his director, Kenny Ortega, micro-manages the production. He corrects timing, refines cues, talks about details of music and dance. Seeing him always from a distance, I thought of him as the instrument of his producing operation. Here we see that he was the auteur of his shows.

We know now that Michael was subjected to a cocktail of drugs in the time leading up to his fatal overdose, including the last straw, a drug so dangerous it should only be administered by an anesthesiologist in an operating room. That knowledge makes it hard to understand how he appears to be in superb physical condition. His choreography, built from such precise, abrupt and perfectly-timed movements, is exhausting, but he never shows a sign of tiring. His movements are so well synchronized with the other dancers on stage, who are much younger and highly-trained, that he seems one with them. This is a man in such command of his physical instrument that he makes spinning in place seem as natural as blinking his eye.

He has always been a dancer first, and then a singer. He doesn't specialize in solos. With the exception of a sweet love ballad, his songs all incorporate four backup singers and probably supplementary tracks prerecorded by himself. It is the whole effect he has in mind.  www.130q.com

It might have been a hell of a show. Ortega and special effects wizards coordinate pre-filmed sequences with the stage work. There's a horror-movie sequence with ghouls rising from a cemetery (and ghosts that were planned to fly above the audience). Michael is inserted into scenes from Rita Hayworth and Humphrey Bogart movies, and through clever f/x even has a machine-gun battle with Bogie. His environmental pitch is backed by rain forest footage. He rides a cherry-picker high above the audience.

His audience in this case consists entirely of stagehands, gaffers, technicians, and so on. These are working people who have seen it all. They love him. They're not pretending. They love him for his music, and perhaps even more for his attitude. Big stars in rehearsal are not infrequently pains in the ass. Michael plunges in with the spirit of a co-worker, prepared to do the job and go the distance.

How was that possible? Even if he had the body for it, which he obviously did, how did he muster the mental strength? When you have a doctor on duty around the clock to administer the prescription medications you desire, when your idea of a good sleep is reportedly to be unconscious for 24 hours, how do you wake up into such a state of keen alertness? Uppers? I don't think it quite works that way. I was watching like a hawk for any hint of the effects of drug abuse, but couldn't see any. Perhaps it's significant that of all the people in the rehearsal space, he is the only one whose arms are covered at all times by long sleeves.

Well, we don't know how he did it. "This Is It" is proof that he did do it. He didn't let down his investors and colleagues. He was fully prepared for his opening night. He and Kenny Ortega, who also directed this film, were at the top of their game. There's a moving scene on the last day of rehearsal when Jackson and Ortega join hands in a circle with all the others, and thank them. But the concert they worked so hard on was never to be.

This is it.

Resource: http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/this-is-it

@Bruce Wei

Real Steel

"Real Steel" imagines a near future when human boxers have been replaced by robots. Well, why not? Matches between small fighting robot machines are popular enough to be on television, but in "Real Steel," these robots are towering, computer-controlled machines with nimble footwork and instinctive balance. (In the real world, 'bots can be rendered helpless on their backs, like turtles.) It also must be said that in color and design, the robots of "Real Steel" are glamorous and futuristic-retro enough to pose for the cover of Thrilling Wonder Stories.

The movie's story, however, is not from the future but from the past, cobbling together Rocky's rags-to-riches trajectory and countless movies in which estranged fathers and sons find themselves forced together and end up forging a deep bond. Hugh Jackman stars as Charlie Kenton, a former boxer who is now hanging onto the fringes of the fight game as the owner-operator of a ramshackle robot he tours with. It's no match for the competition, and when the desperate Charlie replaces it with another battered veteran, it can't even outfight a real bull.

Even during these early fight scenes, however, it's clear than the movements of the robots are superbly choreographed. My complaint about the battling Transformers of the movies series is that they resemble incomprehensible piles of auto parts thrown at each other. Fast cutting is used to disguise the lack of spatial continuity. "Real Steel," however, slows down the fight action enough so that we can actually perceive it, and the boxing makes sense.

If the movie were all robot fights it might be as unbearable as — well, a Transformers title. Drama enters in the person of Charlie's son, Max Kenton (Dakota Goyo), a smart, resilient pre-teen who, like all kids, seems to have been genetically programmed to understand computers, video games and all allied fields. Charlie is a very bad absent father, and as played by Hugh Jackman, he is actually mean toward his boy. Charlie's sister (Hope Davis) and her husband (James Rebhorn) plan to adopt the boy, but in a complicated arrangement, Charlie first has to take care of Max for a summer.

This Max is some kid. He loves robots. During a scouting expedition in a 'bot junk yard, he comes upon an ancient training robot named Atom literally covered in mud and convinces his dad this relic still has fighting potential. Amazingly, it hasn't entirely rusted away, and father and son rehab it and teach it some new tricks. One of its abilities is a "mirror mode," which allows it to mimic the motions of its controller. Since Charlie is a has-been boxer, Max has faith that Atom can win as his dad's avatar.

All of course leads up to a big match with a fearsome juggernaut named Zeus. To my amazement, this fight scene is as entertaining and involving as most human fights, and the off-screen story (involving Zeus' odious owners) adds interest. It's hard to hate a robot, but not its owners.

Curiously, however, it's easy to love Atom. With his blue eyes glowing behind a face of steel mesh and his skinny, muscular body facing off against giants, he's a likable underdog. Steven Spielberg was one of the producers of this film, and knowing of the research he put into making E. T. lovable, I wonder if screen-testing was used to help design Atom. You wouldn't say he looked cute, but there is something about him that's much more appealing that his shiny high-tech rivals.

"Real Steel" is a real movie. It has characters, it matters who they are, it makes sense of its action, it has a compelling plot. This is the sort of movie, I suspect, young viewers went to the "Transformers" movies looking for. Readers have told me they loved and identified with their Transformers toys as children. Atom must come close to representing their fantasies. Sometimes you go into a movie with low expectations and are pleasantly surprised.

@Bruce Wei
Resource: http://www.dreamworksstudios.com/films/real-steel

Superman Returns

At the end of Superman II, the producers promised "Coming Soon: Superman III." It has taken 26 years for that promise to be fulfilled. To be sure, there were movies in the 1980s called Superman III and Superman IV, but those were bad jokes masquerading as motion pictures, unimaginative stories cashing in on a pay-day. These many years later, Bryan Singer has gotten it right. In fact, Superman Returns is not only a credit to the first two Superman movies; it may be the best of the series. Its combination of romance and fantasy adventure is unparalleled in superhero comic book-to-movie sagas.

What differentiates Superman Returns from the average superhero movie is its focus on the love story between Superman (Brandon Routh) and Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth). If you think Mary Jane and Peter Parker are star crossed, they've got nothing on this couple. Of course, the Lois/Superman pairing has never been simple. Clark Kent has always been lurking around. Now, there are further complications. With Superman having been away from Earth for the better part of a half-decade, Lois has moved on in a big way. She has a son, Jason (Tristan Leabu), and a boyfriend, Richard (James Marsden), although she resolutely refuses to marry him. Maybe it has something to do with the man of her dreams. Some may not appreciate the amount of screen time devoted to these characters and their romantic interaction but, for me, it provides balance. Suddenly, Superman Returns has more to offer than a megalomaniac seeking world dominion -although it has that as well.

When last we saw Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey), he was played by Gene Hackman and was off to prison. So, like Superman, he has been out of the spotlight for a while. He's "yesterday's news." Once free, however, he is more determined than ever to make his mark on the face of the globe. He visits Superman's Fortress of Solitude and pilfers all the crystals. With these, he intends to create a new continent and destroy a few of the old ones in the process. Superman, newly returned from a futile outer space search for other survivors from Krypton, will (of course) oppose his old nemesis, but this time Luthor is ready for him. Revenge is a dish served cold, with Kryptonite icing. Superman's return to once again aid mankind may be short-lived.

Gone are Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, and Gene Hackman. It's a credit to their replacements that they're not missed, at least within the context of the film. Brandon Routh channels his predecessor, although his version of Clark is a little less gawky. Kate Bosworth provides an altogether different take on Lois - a ier, more modern view. She's prettier than Kidder, and there's more chemistry in her scenes with her co-star. Kevin Spacey's Luthor is cut from the same mold as Hackman's, except he's more cruel and less flippant. He has his share of one-liners but, when it comes down to it, he doesn't waste time with drawn-out monologues. That's when he's at his most brutal.

There are no miscasts to be found in the supporting cast, either. Parker Posey's Kitty fills the function of Miss Teschmacher - Luthor's female stooge who has a soft spot for the Man of Steel. James Marsden, following director Bryan Singer to Metropolis from Professor X's school, has the tricky role of playing the foil in Lois and Superman's romance without coming across as a jerk. Richard is a nice guy. Eva Marie Saint plays Clark's Earth mother, who gets to find her son and almost lose him again. The only returning cast member from the original Superman is Marlon Brando, with archival footage recreating his limited part as Jor-El, Superman's biological father.

For those who go to superhero movies for the action, rest assured there's plenty of that. While the extended climactic sequence is the movie's longest and most involved, I was partial to the rescue of a space shuttle and airplane, which heralds the Man of Steel's return to his adopted planet. It's a great moment, filled with tension, and topped off with top-notch special effects. Visually, Superman Returns offers the kind of upgrade one would expect after a quarter century layoff. This time, you really believe a man can fly.

Composer John Ottman puts his ego aside and gives John Williams' original music plenty of play. Singer provides us with a blast from the past with opening credits. Not only is the music 100% Williams, but the lettering nearly replicates that which was used in Superman and Superman II. There are other unobtrusive homages to the first two films, from Lois' spelling faux pas to Luthor's love of maps. Singer may not be a fan of the Superman comic books, but his affection for and knowledge of what Richard Donner brought to the screen is evident.

Superman Returns clocks in at a fat 157 minutes, but I hardly noticed the passage of time. The movie had me enthralled from opening to closing. One could easily argue that Singer used his time in the X-Men universe as an opportunity to hone his superhero movie skills. Superman Returns is near the top - if not at the top - of the superhero movie pile. It offers nearly everything: romance, action, humor, and plenty of goose bumps. For Superman, many happy returns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns

@Bruce Wei