Literary Adaptations and Double Indemnity

          Since the creation of the movies, scripts have been needed in order to create an engaging, successful movie. Many people chose to write original scripts while other chose to write scripts based on novels. When turning a novel into a movie, there are several key issues that need to be examined such as the process of adaptation from novel to screenplay and the faithfulness of the film to the novel.

          While it may seem like an easy process, there are many different steps needed in order to turn a novel into a film. The first step is acquiring the rights to the novel. Legally, this will allow you to write the screenplay. If this step is not followed, the novel’s author could sue you for millions of dollars for plagiarizing his novel. Purchasing rights is usually a very expensive step that can escalade into millions of dollars. However, Stephen King sold the rights to his novella, Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption to Frank Darabont for one dollar. Frank Darabont went and made The Shawshank Redemption, which is the highest rated movie of all time on IMDb.com. This shows that it doesn’t necessarily take a lot of money to secure the rights to a good film.

          After securing the rights, the next step is to write the script and have it approved by a producer, a director, and a studio. Not only does it have to meet their expectations, but it also has to meet the expectations of the fans and the author. In 2005, author Clive Cussler sued Crusader Entertainment for not consulting him on the revised final draft of the script and for allegedly causing the film to flop in the box office. Once the screenplay is approved, it gets put into production where the movie is created.

          The 1944 film Double Indemnity, was originally a novel of the same name written by James M. Cain.  This film is an incredible example of how the novel adaptation process should go. First, Paramount Pictures purchased the rights to Double Indemnity from Cain for $15,000. Billy Wilder took the next step and decided to write the screenplay. Nevertheless, the novel was considered to be impossible to film. The characters and the double suicide ending were considered too immoral to film according to the Hay’s Production Code. To make the script film-able, the characters were toned down and the ending was changed. After watching the film several times, author James M. Cain said, "It's the only picture I ever saw made from my books that had things in it I wish I had thought of. Wilder's ending was much better than my ending, and his device for letting the guy tell the story by taking out the office dictating machine — I would have done it if I had thought of it." Wilder had received one of the highest praises a screenwriter can receive, a commendation from the original writer. Wilder’s successful adaptation is one of the reasons Double Indemnity was so widely praised.

          Overall, the plot of Double Indemnity is the same in the novel, the screenplay, and the film. An insurance salesmen decides to help a client’s wife kill her husband to receive the insurance money. Also, the characters, the setting, and most of the character’s actions and relationships are the same in all three mediums. It is important to the story to keep the movie as faithful as possible to the original novel. If any characters were changed too much, the film may have flopped.

          While they both have to do with creative writing, novels and screenplays are very different pieces of literature. Novels can span hundreds of pages while screenplays usually stay around 110 pages. Screenwriters must condense the novel, which can include erasing and combining characters, plot lines, and entire scenes. For example, the relationship between Walter and Lola remains friendly in the movie Double Indemnity, while in the book, they become romantic. This subplot may have been removed to cut down the movie’s time or to make the film seem more believable.

          Not all changes are necessarily bad. Having the escape car stall on the train tracks was not important to the storyline, but it added tension that was not there in the book. The same applies to the scene when Phyllis almost gets caught by Keys at Walter’s apartment. Some scenes were changed in order to increase the believability of the film. In the novel, Walter sneaks into Phyllis’ car to kill her husband in broad daylight, but in the screenplay and film, Walter sneaks into their car when it is parked in the garage at night. If this had not happened, the story may have seemed less convincing. In addition, the “little man in the chest” was added to Keys’ character in order to describe his detective-like intuition about murder cases. If these few lines of dialogue were omitted from the film, nothing drastic would have changed. However, adding the “little man in the chest” created more of a personality and believability to Keys’ character.

          Because novels, screenplays, and films are all different mediums, they need to be examined and created differently. Adapting a novel into a film is difficult because the writer needs to acquire the rights to the novel, have their screenplay approved, while remaining faithful to the original medium. If time and effort are put into this adaptation process, then successful films such as Double Indemnity are able to be created. 

Chariots of Fire

          Chariots of Fire provides the world with an inspiring Christian world view, a healthy moral compass, and a refreshing religious perspective. Also, the two main characters, Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams have opposite stances when it comes to their motivation, competitiveness, faith, racial pride, and guileless sincerity. This enhances the story and helps make the story world changing.

          Chariots of Fire is a movie with one of the most inspiring Christian world views. It won 4 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Writing, and was nominated for 3 more. In 2006, The American Film Institute placed Chariots of Fire in a list of the top 100 most inspiring films of all time called AFI’s 100 Years...100 Cheers. This goes to show that the film has had a major cultural impact and has received high praise. Very few movies that have strong Christian themes make such an impact on the world. Because of its strong Christian themes, Christian websites highly recommend Chariots of Fire to teens and adults.

          While the story of Chariots of Fire is incredibly inspirational, it also provides the audience with a healthy moral compass. Eric Liddell, a Scottish missionary and runner, receives one of the highest honors an athlete can achieve: a chance to participate in the Olympics. However, Eric finds out that he must race on a Sunday which contradicts his beliefs in keeping the Sabbath holy. Even though he may never get this chance again, Eric does not compromise his values for his personal desires. He chooses not to compete and receives a lot of criticism for it. Members of the English government try to persuade him otherwise, but Eric Liddell says, “God made countries, God makes kings, and the rules by which they govern. And those rules say that the Sabbath is His. And I for one intend to keep it that way.”

 Eric’s beliefs and motives are pure which makes him the perfect moral compass for the film. 

          Not only does Eric Liddell in Chariots of Fire provide the audience with a healthy moral compass, but he also has a unique religious perspective. Eric is an extremely committed Christian. He served as a missionary in China but also serves God through his running. He doesn’t think that God will make him faster and be able to win, but wants to praise God through his actions. One of the best moments in the film is when Eric Liddell says, “I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run I feel His pleasure.” This shows that Eric runs for God because God is the one who gave him the gift of running fast. Eric’s dedication to his faith is tested when he has to compete on a Sunday. Instead of thinking of himself on the Sabbath, he honors God and does not compete.

          Liddell and Abrahams are both incredibly motivated individuals. However, they are motivated for different reasons. Liddell runs for God as an act of worship because God made him fast. Liddell feels that he would be wasting a gift that God has given him if he did not run. On the other hand, Abrahams runs to win and to fit into Anglo-Saxon society. As a Jew, Abrahams feels persecuted and shamed by the world. In order to fit in with society, he must win his races. This begins when he attempts to beat a sprinting record at Cambridge. After he succeeds, he feels like he fits into society. Winning becomes everything to Abrahams. Eventually he says, “If I can’t win, I won’t run,” which perfect shows the motivation of Abrahams.

          Along with their motivations, Liddell and Abrahams are competitive in different ways. Liddell is a good sport while Abrahams will do anything to win. Before each race, Eric Liddell walks up to each of his opponents and shakes their hands. He wants everyone to run their bests and to be fair. Later on, Eric is pushed down and out of the race. Instead of easily giving up, Liddell gets back up, perseveres and continues racing. A similar instance happens in the film Cool Runnings. In the end of Cool Runnings, the Jamaican bobsled team crashes at the bottom of the bobsled run. Slowly, the team crawls out of their bobsled and carries it across the finish line as an act of perseverance, determination, and good sportsmanship. While Abrahams is not a bad sport, he is not a good sport either. After Liddell beats him for the first time, Abrahams is terrified of losing. He focuses all of his energy on how he can beat Eric Liddell and fails to consider that maybe Liddell is a better athlete than him. 

          The faiths of the two main competitors are very interesting and unique. Abrahams is Jew who views running as a weapon against his past and his faith. He places his faith not within Judaism but within his own talents. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Eric Liddell. Liddell is a dedicated Christian who stands up for his beliefs, will not back down, and is not embarrassed of his views. Unlike Abrahams, Eric is at peace and in harmony with who he is. At one point in Chariots of Fire, the Prince of Wales tries to convince and reason with Eric to compete on a Sunday, but Eric refuses. A similar occurrence happens in the movie 300. In 300, King Leonidas is reasoned with by King Xerxes to stop fighting and pledge allegiance to Xerxes. Even when he is offered wealth and power beyond all measure, King Leonidas refuses and stands for his beliefs. The refusal of a higher authority proves that Eric Liddell’s faith means a lot to him and is extremely strong.

          Eric “The Flying Scotsman” Liddell is very proud of is heritage. As an Olympic athlete and gold medal winner, Eric has a sense of pride for his country that few can relate to. While Olympians represent themselves, they also represent their country. Scotland chose both Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams to compete for them in the 1924 Olympics. After Liddell refused to race on a Sunday, the Prince of Wales questioned Liddell’s allegiances to England and Scotland. Liddell responded perfectly and said that God comes before his country and not the other way around. On the other hand, Harold Abrahams has very little racial pride. Abrahams is a Jew who wants to hide his heritage by competing and winning races in the Olympics. Embarrassed of who he is, Abrahams races to victory, hoping people will overlook his heritage and consider him normal. Because of this, Harold Abrahams is a very bad example of racial pride.

          When talking about guileless sincerity, Eric Liddell is the most genuine person in Chariots of Fire. Eric does not change anything about himself in order to fit in with society. He stands up for his beliefs and truly cares for others. This is also shown in the scene when he shakes his opponents hands. On the other hand, Abrahams is exactly opposite Liddell. Abrahams wants to change his heritage by winning medals and races. He is running in order to be someone else while Liddell runs in order to be himself.

          Chariots of Fire is one of the few Christian themed movies that has become a major success in the secular world. People everywhere know of Eric Liddell and his dedication to his beliefs. Chariots of Fire provides the world with an inspiring Christian world view, a healthy moral compass, and an amazing religious perspective. Furthermore, Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams are two characters worth examining because of their motivations, competitiveness, faiths, racial pride, and guileless sincerity. It is for these reasons that Chariots of Fire is one of the greatest and most inspiring movies of all time.

Casablanca

          Over the course of history, films have always had mixed reviews. However, I think I have found one movie that is the exception: Casablanca. I have scoured the internet for negative reviews of this movie and came up almost completely empty handed. Almost everyone views Casablanca as one of the best films of all time. After all, it is ranked #3 on AFI’s 100 Years... 100 Movies - 10th Anniversary Edition list. I am now taking on the impossible task of arguing why Casablanca should not be regarded as one of the greatest movies of all time.

          In summary, Casablanca is about a man named Rick (Humphrey Bogart) who runs a popular gin joint in Casablanca, Morocco during World War II. One day, a former lover of his, Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) shows up in his bar with her husband Victor (Paul Henreid). The couple asks Rick to provide them with safe passage from Nazi controlled Europe to America. Rick must decide if he wants to help the couple escape, attempt to rekindle his relationship with his old lover, or let the couple die in Casablanca.

          Overall, the plot of the film is mediocre. Because Casablanca was created in another era, the style of writing, acting, and directing was completely different from today. The writing is very dialogue heavy and very boring. Aaron Sorkin, writer of The Newsroom, Moneyball, The Social Network, The West Wing, and A Few Good Men, writes extremely dialogue heavy screenplays, but he manages to make them fast paced and interesting. 

          One of the most important features in creating a successful drama is making the audience care about the characters. Blake Snyder, author of the book “Save The Cat!,” says, “...liking the person we go on a journey with is the single most important element in drawing us into the story.” One way to do this is through a “save the cat” scene. Snyder says, “It’s the scene where we meet the hero and the hero does something -- like saving a cat -- that defines who he is and makes us, the audience, like him.”

          One of my biggest problems with Casablanca is that I feel absolutely no emotional connection to Rick. There is no moment in the film where I feel like rooting for him. Rick has a broken heart over a girl, but I am unable to sympathize with his emotions because the relationship between the character and the audience never began. Casablanca had the chance to fix this problem early on in the movie, but the “save the cat” scene happened about half way into the film. By not including a “save the cat” scene early on, the movie failed to emotionally connect the characters with the audience.

          For example, a young couple is trying to acquire visa’s to leave Casablanca, but they have run out of money. They go to Rick for help who tells them to place all of their chips on the roulette table on 22 black. The croupier hears Rick say this, and lets the couple win twice in a row. This simple scene shows that Rick truly has compassion for others. If this scene happened within the first few minutes of Casablanca I may have felt more connected to Rick and thus enjoyed the movie more.

          Casablanca has been said to be perfectly cast, but I couldn’t disagree more. Bogart and Bergman play their parts adequately, but I find it hard to enjoy watching Bogart’s acting. Bogart felt stiff when playing Rick; his lines seemed a little forced, and his performance felt fake. Casting great actors such as Ronald Reagan (who was almost casted) or Jimmy Stewart could have fixed this problem.

          Along with mediocre acting comes mediocre directing. Casablanca’s director, Michael Curtiz has been criticized for only focusing on the visual aspect of a film, while overlooking the story and characters. Aljean Harmetz has quoted Curtiz saying, "Who cares about character? I make it go so fast nobody notices," in Harmetz’s book, Round Up The Usual Suspects: The Making of “Casablanca”. This clearly shows that Michael Curtiz was an ignorant, amateur director. On the other hand, director Howard Hawks perfectly described his job when he said, “I'm a storyteller, that's the chief function of a director. And they're moving pictures, let's make 'em move!”

          The only positive thing that Casablanca has, is its cultural relevance. Released in the middle of World War II, the film was able to connect with many audiences. If the film were released a few years earlier or later, I am certain that its overall success would have been poor. During this period of time, the German Expressionism Era, Siegfried Kracauer and mise-en-scene became more popular. Kracauer wrote the book, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film, which helped create the foundation of modern film criticism. Also, Casablanca used many examples of film-noir which enhanced many of the emotions in the film, making it more popular. Mise-en-scene, or “what is in the frame,” became more popular with this film. The placement of the lights, actors, and objects in the film made it more dramatic along with creating more of an artistic atmosphere.

          For the most part, Casablanca is loved by everyone and is not criticized for any reason. However, the writing, acting, and directing are mediocre at best and the film is incredibly outdated. In the future, I hope I will learn to appreciate Casablanca, despite my grievances toward the film.

Dexter Season 7 Episode 2 "Sunshine & Frosty Swirl"

          Well episode two starts directly after the conclusion of episode one where Dexter tells Deb he is a serial killer. Dexter follows Deb after she runs from his apartment to vomit in the street. What a perfect reaction. I first noticed that once they started talking to each other, Deb was disgusted by Dexter. She was absolutely horrified that her father taught her adoptive brother how to kill people. This scene must have taken forever to write because it is absolutely flawless. Deb punching Dexter was the perfect reaction to Dexter’s sassy, “well what are you going to do now,” question. It was definitely something Deborah would do.

          I was pleasantly surprised when Deb brought up the topic of rehab. I didn’t expect the episode to head in this direction to happen which made it even more enjoyable. While Harry tried to channel Dexter’s killing toward evil people, Deb is trying to stop it all together. This is perfectly seen when Deb asks Dexter, “If you can channel your urges, why can’t you control them?” We have seen Dexter attempt to stop killing in the past, but he didn’t try hard enough. Now that he has Deb to keep him accountable, maybe he’ll succeed. However, forcing Dexter to enter Deb’s rehab could backfire. Addicts need to enter rehab for themselves otherwise its a lot harder to stay clean. 

          What probably stuck out to me the most was when Deb said she still loved Dexter. She is a Lieutenant at Miami Metro Homicide that loves her serial killer brother. Can you think of anything more genuine and ironic? Sibling love: nothing is better.

          LaGuerta is getting dangerously close to finding out that Travis was murdered. It seems like this happens almost every season. I’m starting to wish that LaGuerta was killed in season one like in the books.

          Deb seems to be replacing Harry and his teachings. The “Code of Deb” has already started with the first two rules: be honest and tell Deb when the Dark Passenger is tempting him.

          I’m not 100% sure what Louis’ role is in the show but he is definitely creepy. I’m pretty sure he knows Dexter’s secret and he’s not afraid of him. Maybe because he’s a serial killer too! Anyway, I hope that LaGuerta will catch onto Dexter but Louis will get caught instead. Its basically the exact same situation that Doakes was in.

          Dexter has taken it upon himself to stop Louis. Instead, he should be honest with Deb and Deb will stop him. Then all of his bases will be covered. However, this obviously wont happen because its the easy way out and it won’t thrilling.

          Well Dexter obviously didn’t choose to go that route after he drugged his sister. Not a smart move dude. Somehow, you managed to not kill Louis and called your drugged up sister for help. I’ve got to say I’m proud. I’m rarely (if ever) proud of Dexter but I am excited that I am. I would say that Dexter is changing but in reality, I highly doubt it. Throughout the whole show, Dexter has barely changed. The code is the same, his method and routines are the same, the only thing that changed was in season four when he realized he could have a family and be a serial killer. Well that ended well didn’t it? I thought Dexter might become religious in season six, but Brother Sam was killed off halfway into the season and things went back to normal. It is a little late to see a radical change in Dexter, but I am completely open to the idea.

          For the first time, we see Ray Stevenson as the main antagonist. He’s charming, business oriented, charismatic, a great actor (unlike Colin Hanks), and a brutal killer. I can’t wait to see where his character goes and how he becomes more evil.

          Overall, Randall the prisoner seemed to hold a lot of the core beliefs and values of this episode. Dexter thought Randall was able to change from being a killer to a normal human being. However, we learned that he just wanted to have a few days of happiness before he killed himself. This could be foreshadowing the ending of Dexter, but it could also be a false ending. Either way, I am excited for this season and what it will bring.

Looper

          When it comes to time travel movies, Looper was one of best. The film had a fantastic plot with solid writing. Overall, it was an entertaining film that I would watch again. 
          Like most movies, I have a few problems and critiques. The concept of Loopers was extraordinary, but I felt that this main aspect of the movie dropped off within the second act. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) went from being an active character to a reactive character. In the first act, he failed to “close the loop” by killing his future self and began to hunt his future self down. When the second act rolls around, Joe sits around at a farmhouse and waits for Old Joe (Bruce Willis) to come to him. While it made sense for Joe to do this, it wasn’t entertaining to watch.
          I have got to say, the first act was phenomenal. There was so much information given and the movie was done so well that I believed all of it. This can be really hard to do with science fiction, things happening in the future, or using time travel.
          In the second act, a lot of the focus is taken away from Old Joe and directed toward Sara and Cid. While these characters are important, Old Joe holds a higher rank in important characters and deserves more screen time. Because Bruce Willis’ character was not focused on enough, I began to not care what happened to him. Not caring about the characters is the biggest mistake a writer can make. 
          One thing that I found to be incredibly fascinating was the use of telekinesis. So many dots connected in my head when we found out that Cid could kill people with his telekinesis while the other 10% of the population could only lift quarters. I then realized how Cid became the one man army that the Rainman was said to be. 
          The fact that Joseph Gordon-Levitt figured out that letting Old Joe kill Sara would result in the eventual “closed loop,” was brilliant. It was so eloquently written and it made perfect sense that Joe had to kill himself. My first thought was, “couldn’t he just blow his (and Old Joe’s) gun holding arm off? That way he would survive and be able to live a happy life. 
          The ending was satisfying because Old Joe kept Cid from becoming the Rainmaker, Joe kept Old Joe from killing Cid, and Sara was able to teach Cid to use his powers for good. However, killing off the 2 main characters was kind of unsatisfying. I at least wanted to see one of them end up happy.
          Also, I realized that all of the sex, drugs, and nudity was absolutely unnecessary. The story could have functioned efficiently without any of those aspects. Also, if the blood and gore were edited out, Looper could have achieved a PG-13 rating, making it higher grossing and more viewable.

          Overall, Looper was entertaining, but I expected more character development and action. The acting, makeup, story, and dialogue were all great, but I expected there to be more interaction between Joe and Old Joe. Turning Looper into a ‘buddy movie’ probably wouldn’t have worked out too well, but I felt like they at least deserved more screen time together. I was so interested to see what they could talk about with each other. I would definitely recommend Looper to people and am interested in discussing similar or different opinions regarding the movie.

The "Classics"

I would like to start by defining the word “classic.” Using Dictionary.com, I received 20 different definitions. The first definition of the word “classic” said: “Of the first or highest quality, class, or rank.” This definition without a doubt applies to many films that are referred to as “classic” like 12 Angry Men, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Psycho. Because these are some of the earliest films made, they are referred to as “the best.” While they were revolutionary for their time, they simply cannot compete with the most up to date films. 

  Imagine watching the news on a black and white television from the 1950’s. Now compare that to watching Avatar in 3D IMAX. Which one is better? Quality wise, IMAX is immensely better than a 1950’s black and white TV. Both forms of entertainment were incredibly revolutionary for their time. Mass producing TV’s and being able to put them in every home in the 1950‘s was amazing, but so is the 3D motion capture technology specifically created for Avatar. While our modern day technology beats the 1950’s in quality, both are examples of radical change within the entertainment industry. 

In 1895, the Lumiere brothers created one of the first films, which showed people exiting a factory at the end of the day. They showed the film, Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory, to an audience and those who viewed it were absolutely amazed. If this same black and white film were shown to an audience today, they would say, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a bunch of people walking.” The difference between these two situations is exposure. In 1895 when the Lumiere Brothers created the first films, a person’s exposure to film was absolutely zero, but now, a person has seen dozens, if not hundreds, of movies. This principle of exposure shows that early films such as 12 Angry Men, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Psycho are partially thought of as “the best films ever” because there were very few films before then. 

  While this first definition of “classic” is good, I prefer to look at other definitions. These definitions include words such as “basic,” “fundamental,” “traditional,” “typical,” and “standard.” These “classic” movies are here to serve as a guide. They are important to the overall industry of filmmaking only because they represent the start of the industry. For example, I absolutely love Apple products. They are efficient, reliable, and high quality, but I wouldn’t say that the first Apple computer from 1976 is one of the best computers made.

  While some old films are good, I find that most of them are incredibly boring. They were experimenting with what audiences enjoyed watching, and that process took a long time. Movies like The Godfather are horribly painful to watch because of their incredible length and lack of compelling storytelling. Some of the few movies, at that length, that are worth watching are The Lord Of The Rings movies, The Green Mile, Titanic, and the Director’s Cut of Kingdom Of Heaven. While these are all incredibly long films, they actually have interesting stories unlike The Godfather.

  Are old films so great because the directors were brilliant, the first of their kind, or because they’re dead? Once a person dies, their art usually skyrockets in value. Maybe these directors weren’t actually all that good to begin with. Now that they are dead, nobody would be able to interview, scrutinize, or ridicule them. It’s a lot like the Founding Fathers. They were the catalyst of something great, which is the reason why they are so respected. If someone duplicated their work now, they probably wouldn’t amount to much. Some idiot directors have had decent careers copying other “classic” idiot directors.

One of my favorite series is the James Bond series. While I enjoy watching all of the films, I prefer to watch the more recent ones because they are higher in visual quality, they’re more relatable to me, and they (usually) have more entertaining stories. I understand that the old films were the beginning, but they simply do not compare to the more recent films.

  In almost every situation, the word “classic” should be avoided at all costs. If it needs to be used, it should only reference the “basic,” “fundamental,” “traditional,” “typical,” and “standard” definition. Most people would agree that the old films are important. They are a part of our history and should be respected. However, it is time to move on, look toward the future, and embrace the films that we have today.

Dexter Season 7 Episode 1 "Are You...?"

  Ok so I enjoyed the beginning but I figured that there would be a lot more screaming and confusion from Deb. Dexter did a really good job at playing the “I’ll lose my job, life, and Harrison” card in order to get Deb on his side. And just like Dexter always does, he wiggles his way out of impossible situations through lying and manipulation. 

   I’m so happy the writers included Dexter’s getaway pack. Every smart person in this situation has got to have one. The fact that he hid it in the drywall shows just how much he wanted to keep his apartment in season 4.
  I found it kind of strange that the writers killed off Mike Anderson. There was no emotional connection to the character and I don't understand why he was killed instead of a random cop. Maybe we will find out later.

  So right in the heat of this episode, Dexter decides to go hunt for another victim. Really? Of all the times to hunt for another killer, its after your sister caught you murdering the last one? Its when your sister is constantly digging in your past and questioning you on how and why you killed him? Yes, I understand the need to kill is strong, but you’re going to need to hold off for a while.

  At first I thought Dexter was crazy to fly to Budapest to catch some random guy, but then I saw that he hadn’t even left the boarded the plane yet.  Also, I’m pretty sure that you can’t just walk through airport security with syringes. Well maybe you can considering a woman accidentally brought a concealed gun on a plane without the TSA noticing last week. For some crazy reason, Dexter decides to kill a man in one of the most watched public places in America. Either he’s insane or reckless.

  One of my biggest problems with seasons 5, 6, and now 7 is that Astor and Cody aren’t in the show. Two major supporting characters are poorly written off of the show and are never mentioned by their Aunt Deb or Step Father Dexter? Disappointing.

  While I have criticized and torn this episode apart, I believe that everyone deserves forgiveness and a second chance. This season is going to be amazing. The last scene of this episode has redeemed all of my hard feelings. Dexter. I’m sorry I doubted you. I was wrong and you were brilliantly right... Again.

The Newsroom "The Greater Fool"

          Filled to the brim with heartwarming scenes and emotional tension, episode 10 The Greater Fool, became one of the best episodes yet. I know I say this after every episode, but I promise I mean it this time. Beware, if you have not seen this episode, I will be spoiling everything. 

          Well to start off, Will mixed too many anti-depressants with bourbon which created an ulcer in his stomach. Last time Jeff Daniels and an ulcer appeared in the same room, he was in Dumb and Dumber. Amazing how time flies. Anyway, Will was admitted into the hospital and considered not coming back to ACN. Obviously, this didn’t turn out to be true because the editing of this episode was not chronological and showed Will a week later back at the news desk. So this turned out to be a devious ploy Aaron Sorkin (creator and writer) devised to raise my blood pressure.

          And the stress just kept piling on. Nina Howard (the tabloid reporter) somehow found out that Will high while reporting the death of Osama Bin Laden. Later, Will, Mackenzie, and Charlie Skinner all go to Leona Lancing’s office to discuss this matter. Will ends ups admitting to being high on the air and almost gets fired, Reece is found out for hacking Mackenzie’s phone, the two sides come to an agreement, and much of the tension is dissolved.

          I also think that the emotional tension in this episode trumped every previous episode for various reasons. First, Solomon Hancock provided a heartbreaking scene where he talked about how he has no friends and his family won’t talk to him. To make things worse, he ends up committing suicide and also provides “critical information” about the Reece Lancing ordering hacks on people’s phones. Later, Lisa and Maggie get into a fight over Jim which causes Maggie to run into the street and accidentally confess the crush she has on Jim. To make the cute moment even better, Jim chases Maggie around the city which ends with a passionate kiss between the two of them. The moment is precious, but is quickly destroyed when Maggie decides to move in with Don. To make this love triangle even more complicated, Jim lies to Lisa and says that she was the reason he came by that night, not Maggie. Also, we learn that Sloan is only single because Don never asked her out. I’m pretty sure everyone knows that Sloan and Don should be together, Jim and Maggie should start dating, and Lisa can find someone else.

          As always, Will and Mackenzie have their cute fights which only compile onto the emotional tension between them. I cannot wait for the day when they just forget about the past and get back together. Mackenzie finally tells Will that she actually did hold up the signs in the pilot episode. What could have been an emotional kiss, turned into a small little fight which added some needed comic relief. 

          Finally, Will recognized a girl in the newsroom who is applying for an internship. She turns out to be the sorority girl from the pilot episode who was the catalyst for all of Will’s problems. Will decides to hire her and one more intriguing cast member is now added to this already fantastic show. The Newsroom is easily one of my favorite shows and will be renewed for a second season which is scheduled to premiere in June 2013.

Movie Trailers: To Watch Or Not To Watch

          As an aspiring filmmaker, I tend to notice certain aspects of movies and TV shows relating to the production of the show or movie that the general public may disregard. I happen to pay particular attention to movie trailers. As we all know, trailers parade beautiful women, cars, and action scenes in front of the audience to make the film that it advertises more desirable. While this effort is a noble one, some trailers tend to ruin some of the intensity and adventure of a movie. Much of the time, the most thrilling action scenes occur toward the climax of the film, and these scenes are often placed in trailers to attract attention. I see this as a bad thing because, in my opinion, it takes a lot of the "wow factor" out of the film.

          Let me give you an example. A few months ago, I was eagerly awaiting the film Prometheus to come out. I watched all of the trailers, making me even more excited. By watching all of the trailers (multiple times I must admit), however, I ruined some of the movie for myself. WARNING PROMETHEUS SPOILERS AHEAD. I knew that the film was going to have some correlation with the Alien franchise (no spoiler there). Also, the trailer shows that an alien ship would take off and end up crashing back into the planet nearly killing two characters. We witness an Engineer standing above Shaw's death,  and even see Fifield's death. As I watched Prometheus, I kept mentally checking off scenes that I had seen in the trailer, and waiting for others to come. Knowing certain scenes, like the Engineer standing above Shaw, ruined some of the climactic experience for me because, as the film progressed, I knew that this scene would be at the end.
           I recently saw a trailer for Paranormal Activity 4, which was quite scary. However, having seen the clip beforehand, I realized that when I watched the actual movie I wasn't as shocked or scared because I had already seen it. The same theory applies to other trailers. Mind-blowing action scenes are fun to watch in trailers, but would be more captivating to see for the first time on the big screen. It is for these reasons that I try to refrain from over watching movie trailers for films that I am very excited about.  Hopefully this method will help maintain some level of innocence and make the film even more exciting to watch in the theaters.

The Newsroom "I'll Try to Fix You"

          Once again, Aaron Sorkin (the writer and creator of The Newsroom) delivered a fabulous episode. The fourth episode, "I'll Try to Fix You", was perfectly titled because it dealt with fixing people up for dates, fixing relationships, and fixing the news industry.
          While at a New Years Eve office party, Will McAvoy decided to take a risk and talk to a beautiful woman.  Little did he know, that she was a gossip columnist intent on writing a 'takedown piece' on a celebrity. Will tries to convince her that she it being cruel but fails because he insults her. She throws her drink in his face which lands him in a tabloid the following day. Several similar situations happen all with the same outcome. By the end of the episode, Will is on the front page of a gossip magazine. Its ironic yet beautiful that Will tried to save a celebrity from the wrath of a gossip columnist, but ended up the victim himself.
          While I love every episode of The Newsroom, this episode stands out above the rest because Aaron Sorkin criticized the cruel world of tabloid news. After watching this episode, I started thinking about how insensitive the news can be. Many people fail to realize that their entertainment (tabloids) is at the expense of other people's lives. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes announced that they were getting divorce a few days ago, which has given Extra and TMZ a lot to talk about.  As soon as I heard about the divorce, I pitied them nobody wants to have a broken heart, especially when its broadcasted across the world within minutes. According to the Holmes and Rahe stress scale, divorce is the second highest cause of illness after the death of a spouse. That being said, its pathetic and cruel use these stranger's relationship as a form of amusement. Luckily, I believe Aaron Sorkin and I share the same views on entertainment news which contributed to my praise of this episode.

The Newsroom "Pilot"

          Aaron Sorkin, writer and creator of The West Wing, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, and writer for The Social Network, has created another masterpiece called The Newsroom.  Sorkin has written an unbelievable script with immensely complex characters that makes The Newsroom a highly compelling television show.

          I can easily say that the pilot episode of The Newsroom was practically flawless. The purpose of the pilot episode is to make viewers want to watch more of the show.  This means, that the pilot episode must be stunning and highly captivating.  I have seen many shows succeed and fail when it comes to a compelling pilot episode and I have realized the two keys to success. The most important part to a pilot episode is the first few minutes because that is when it is easiest to change the channel. The Newsroom, created not only an impecable first scene, but one of my favorite scenes in all of television. If that scene were moved a few minutes later in the show, I don't believe I would have finished the episode. The second most important part of a pilot episode is the ending. It seems obvious that these would be the two most important parts, but Sorkin did a phenomenal job at connecting the ending with the beginning, while creating enough questions and drama that make the viewer want to continue into episode two. 

          While I only seen one episode of The West Wing, I can easily say that The Newsroom has a lot in common with the political drama. Both shows are focused on dialogue, which is extremely hard to due because the dialogue has to be interesting enough to keep the viewers attention. One way that Sorkin effectively creates tension with dialogue is with the 'walk and talk'.  Made famous by Thomas Schlamme in Sports Night and The West Wing, the 'walk and talk' is where a few characters will have a conversation and are joined by other characters to show how busy the characters are. 

          Not only is The Newsroom incredibly well written, but it also doesn't have too many political affiliations.  If it was about a liberal news team, the conservatives would be less inclined to watch, and vice versa. The show focuses on 'doing what is right' which should satisfy most people.

          With a phenomenal pilot episode, and immaculate writing thanks to creator and writer Aaron Sorkin, I can see The Newsroom becoming incredibly popular.

          

Game of Thrones Pilot Episode

          Set in the mythical land of Westeros, seven families fight for control of the Iron Throne as threats arise from the snow covered region of the North and the barbarians from the East. 

          The story, based on the A Song of Fire and Ice novels written by George R. R. Martin, is extremely interesting and original. Based on what I have read in the past, fantasy novels are usually very similar because there is some noble quest, a king or princess in danger, and strange mythical beasts. Within the first 5 minutes of the pilot episode, we are introduced to some of these mythical beasts. These White Walkers have been known to be extinct for thousands of years which is why their arrival is so intense. This scene is incredibly unique because it added a mixed the genre of horror into the fantasy based television show.

          The second thing about Game of Thrones that immediately grabbed my attention was the opening title sequence. The mythical land of Westeros is shown like a traditional map. The camera moves to and from various several cities and towns from above. As the camera moves in closer, we see that these towns are rising from nothing, into their current state much like a robot or Transformer. This provides the viewer with an quick overview of the land and setting. Much of the landscape is small and not very detailed, much like a map would be. Finally, the camera moves up and focuses on the sun which has several metal rings rotating around it, one of which says Game of Thrones. While these rings aren’t really rotating around the sun, they add an intriguing effect. The visual effects are mind blowing and have already won an Emmy for Outstanding Main Title Design.  

          Based on the first episode alone, the characters do not have any unique traits that make them stand out. Lord Eddard Stark, played by Sean Bean, is probably the most interesting character. Father of 5 and one bastard child, he is the Lord of the Northern Kingdom. He and his family live in the peaceful town of Winterfell. The most attractive quality about Lord Eddard Stark is his loyalty to his family. He never takes the easy way out with his family and always will fix a matter himself because it is his duty (as the father and Lord) to do so.

          I should have expected that this HBO show would have questionable content but I thought it wouldn’t because it falls in the fantasy genre. I knew there would be blood and violence but did not anticipate the nudity and language. There were probably about 5 scenes with nudity in them. Some of these were more graphic than others but almost all of them were unnecessary to the basic plot of the story.  Probably the worst instance of this were when a teenage prince takes the clothes off of his sister to convince her to flaunt her body more. While this treads on the line of incest, it could have easily been removed from the story without notice. Various sex scenes within brothels and barbarian camps showed female nudity and would have been a bit harder to avoid, but still could have been done

          Along with excessive nudity, the language was surprising. There were a 2 or 3 instances where characters used “fuck” in a sexually explicit way. Minor curse words were also used which wasn’t surprising.

          Based on the explicit content of the show, I probably shouldn’t advise anyone to watch Game of Thrones. Dead animals, full beheadings, guts, and gore are all shown within the first episode. I only expect the violent content to get worse over the course of the season. This being said, if you are over 18 years old, I think you would be able to handle the violence and the language.

          The nudity is a bit over the tip and could easily be cut down. Personally, I hate nudity in TV shows and movies because I think it is a distraction from the plot. Also, it is only used to reel men into watching the show. The nudity is the only reason why I wouldn’t recommend the show to someone, but I feel that the positive elements of the show (the characters, setting, plot, and themes) outweigh the nudity.

          While Game of Thrones has its share of explicit material, it is constantly winning awards and is becoming quite popular. After the first 5 minutes, I can easily say that I became addicted and didn’t expect my addiction to stop any time soon.

I Love You Phillip Morris

          One of the main reasons why I love the movie I Love You Phillip Morris is because of the storyline. I have always been drawn to films that deal with con men and thieves because of their performance and dedication to their “job”. Some of my favorites (along with I Love You Phillip Morris) are 21, Catch Me If You Can, Ocean’s Eleven, and The Town.

          Along with Catch Me If You Can, I Love You Phillip Morris is actually a true story. Steven Jay Russell (Jim Carrey) was an honest man until a car accident forced him to reevaluate his life. It was at this point that he came out as a homosexual and becomes a con man to support his expensive gay lifestyle. Russell ends up in prison where he falls madly in love with a fellow inmate Phillip Morris. Their romance blossoms and the two are released from prison. However Steven falls back into his stealing routine and ends up back in prison. In order to be with Phillip, Steven breaks out of prison multiple times and always ends up back where he started. 

          In addition to the amazing story, the dialogue is absolutely hilarious. Every time I watch I Love You Phillip Morris, I catch new lines that I hadn’t noticed before that are hysterical. Luckily, a lot of the humor fits Jim Carrey’s style. Sadly, most of my favorite lines are not appropriate so I probably shouldn’t repeat them.

          While the real Steven Jay Russell is a chubby, bald man, Jim Carrey played the character perfectly. Carrey and McGregor were consulted by Russell (who was still in prison) about personality traits and how to act. When watching the film later, Russell said, “They’ve got it down. The way they speak, the mannerisms, the clothes - everything. Its surreal.” 

          According to the MPAA, (Motion Picture Association of America) I Love You Phillip Morris is rated R for sexual content including strong dialogue, and language. Within the film, there are a few heterosexual and homosexual sex scenes, but there is no nudity shown. The only nudity is labeled as “non-sexual,” which occurs during a prison shower scene revealing the backsides of a few men. 

          I expected the language of I Love You Phillip Morris to be like many other prison/heist movies. Depending on how you define “swear words,” there were between 75 and 100 explicit words used in the film. About 50 of these were the f-word which is almost never appropriate.

          Surprisingly, there was very little violence in the film, despite a large portion taking place in prison. There is only one remotely violent prison scene where a prisoner is beaten up by an inmate. This scene could easily be in a PG-13 movie because it is not graphic. Additionally, there is a car accident and a man accidentally falls off of a building. Both of these scenes imply some brutality but show none.

          While the film is a bit inappropriate, it definitely has its positive elements. Due to the amazing writing, dialogue, and actors, we begin to love the characters and appreciate the love that they have for each other, despite the fact that they are homosexuals. Seeing a homosexual relationship in a positive light is a wonderful change from the hating, judgmental, people by whom I am usually surrounded.

          Other than the homosexual nature of the film, the only content worthy of discretion is the language. Most of the explicit language is used comedically, but is not really justified in its use. That being said, the film would not be the same if the language was cut out. Imagine what The Hangover would be like if all the swearing was removed. The comedic atmosphere of the film would be nonexistent, thus making the film more of a drama. 

          I can think of many people who would not watch I Love You Phillip Morris because it is about homosexuals, but the film is more than that. It is about two people who meet in prison, fall in love, and do anything to stay together.  Not only is this dramatic comedy incredibly entertaining, but it is also a true story. Anyone who has ever loved, lost, or connected with another person in any way should find this movie both entertaining and relatable. 

The Grey

          To be rather blunt, I found The Grey to be an entertaining waste of my time. I had gone into the film with a friend without knowing much about it which proved to be a grave mistake. What I learned later, is that the premise is that of many other movies such as Buried, The Blair Witch Project, and Apocalypto.  For most films, there is a healthy balance of the pieces of the dramatic structure. Usually, there is an introduction, rising action, a climax, falling action, and a resolution, but The Grey consisted of all rising action. This can make for an entertaining film, but I have realized that these types of movies are only fun to watch once or maybe twice.

          Along with the structure, I found the plot to be unoriginal. The Grey shared a similar plot to many wilderness, plane crash, thriller films. SPOILER ALERT!!! One by one, the characters get picked off by the vicious wolves and Liam Nesson is left alone. Some of the deaths are rather brutal, but none of them are very sad. 

          The main reason I disliked The Grey is because it has an unnecessarily depressing ending. As I said, one by one, the characters get eaten or ripped to shreds by wolves, freeze in the horrific conditions, or drown. Ottway (Liam Nesson) is left screaming at God to show him a sign that He exists, but no sign comes. A few minutes later, it is implied that Nesson gets mauled to death by the alpha wolf and the movie ends. I am not saying that he should have lived, but rather that the ending should be more satisfying. This could have easily been accomplished by having God give Ottway a sign of His existence right before his death. Disappointing to say the least.

          I highly doubt that I will ever watch this movie again because of the ending. However, the rest of the movie was incredibly entertaining!  I regret seeing The Grey in theaters because it seems only worthy of a $1 rental.

Hitch

          Easily one of the most well written romantic comedies that I have ever seen. While the basic storyline is incredibly creative and unique, the dialogue is also phenomenal. Will Smith delivers his bold flirtatious lines flawlessly which makes his character both likable and believable. Kevin James does the exact same thing, but for the completely opposite character. His awkward stuttering and physical demeanor make his character quite lovable.

          However, I must say that the story was a bit cliche in the classic romantic comedy way.  Two single people meet, become a couple, have a terrible break-up where the girl won’t listen to the guy’s perspective, than she finally listens, they get back together and live happily ever after. Sorry if I just ruined the movie for you, but its expected from any Rom-Com. That being said, Hitch did is in a unique way which made the story more interesting than most.  

          One of the key factors to enjoying a movie is having realistic expectations.  For Hitch, I wasn’t expecting an Academy Award winning performance, I wanting to be entertained with a creative flow of comedy and romance. In this sense, Hitch did a wonderful job and on my “Favorite Romantic Comedy” list.

Notting Hill

          Being a person who was born in the 90’s, I was surprised to find that I thoroughly enjoyed Notting Hill. Unlike movies such as Hitch, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, and (500) Days of Summer, Notting Hill felt like a pure romance movie instead of a blockbuster, teenage, romantic comedy; not that I have anything against romantic comedies. That being said, Notting Hill successfully delivered its heart-wrenching drama like most romance films. The reason for this is because the film was aimed at an older, more mature audience who would enjoy “classic” films such as Sleepless in Seattle, What Women Want, and When Harry Met Sally. 

          Along with the film in general, the writing was superb. The writer, Richard Curtis, has written other successful films like War Horse, Pirate Radio (The Boat that Rocked), and Four Weddings and A Funeral.  Because of Hugh Grant, Rhys Ifans, and Julia Roberts, the dialogue was a perfect mix between British and American Humor.

          Because of its immense popularity, I feel like I should mention the classic line said by Julia Roberts to Hugh Grant.  After Grant rejects her relationship proposal, she says, “After all... I'm just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her.” While this quote is spectacularly written, it would be nothing without the stellar acting of Julia Roberts.  Her character, Anna Scott, becomes completely vulnerable to pursue the man she loves and still gets rejected. The reason I love this quote so much is because of her face as she is delivering the line. On the verge of tears, she produces an awkward smile, in order to respect his decision and to keep looking classy. This scene is absolutely heart breaking but it makes the ending even more satisfying.

Alcatraz Season 1 Episode 2 "Ernest Cobb"

          While the Alcatraz’s storyline is progressing smoothly, I am feeling emotionally disconnected from the characters. This is because there has been little to no history on these characters. I believe that it is a character’s past that makes them interesting, defines their actions, and makes you enjoy the overall story. This was successfully done with the show Lost because each character had at least an entire episode devoted to their past. Because it is only the second episode, I cannot judge too harshly, but I would like to see more character development in upcoming episodes. 

          The show’s premise is intriguing, but I feel that in the future, the show will become mundane because each episode is the same. This is the way House and Bones have become. People don’t watch the show for the repetitive storyline, they watch it for the characters whom they love. Each episode in Alcatraz is devoted toward a specific inmate. So far, they are found to be alive at the same age they disappeared, than the prisoner murders a few people, and finally is caught and thrown back in the new Alcatraz. Hopefully, the writers will find a way to keep the show fresh and original in future episodes.

Alcatraz Pilot

          While I had not seen very many trailers or articles about the new show Alcatraz, I was drawn in by the setting (Alcatraz) and J.J. Abrams who is one of the Executive Producers. Because I had little knowledge before watching the pilot, I found myself surprised by storyline which is... SPOILER ALERT... about 302 missing prisoners and guards that vanished on the island in the 60’s. However, they haven’t totally vanished because the inmates seem to be coming back the same age as when they disappeared.  Becuase J.J. Abrams has a hand in this, I figured it would be satisfyingly confusing just like Lost. 

          I must admit that I was a bit skeptical up until half way through the episode when minor plot twists, and intriguing character histories came forward. Now that I finished the  Pilot episode, I found myself craving more which is usually a good sign. 

          The cast seems a little weak due to my unfamiliarity with many of the actors. Although, Jorge Garcia (Hugo “Hurley” Reyes from Lost) seems to be one of the main driving points for watching the show. He plays a character that is once again nerdy and extremely lovable with a sense of humor that has had me laughing multiple times already.  Garcia seems to be playing his role quite well especially during stressful or dramatic moments. 

          The actual island of Alcatraz has been having some problems since the show began. Multiple tourists have been caught trespassing during public tours because the show depicts hidden rooms located on the island. The situation has become so frustrating that signs have been posted saying, “The TV show Alcatraz is fictional, many areas it depicts are not real.” Too bad because for a second there I was hoping they were real.

          They say not to judge a book by its cover, but I found the pilot episode to be successful in creating a desire to watch the show.

Hesher

          I am pleased to say that I found Hesher hilarious and incredibly enjoyable. The character Hesher is a metal-head who does whatever he wants and seems to not care about others. However, Hesher always stands up for his young friend T.J. 

          When I first saw Hesher, I thought that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character acted much like Tyler Durden from Fight Club. By destroying things in his friends' life, he ends up making their lives better. Along with Tyler Durden, Hesher is hilariously addicting due to his rebellious personality and his comedic dialogue. 

          I thought that the movie was wonderful despite the forced sentimental ending. I personally would have changed the ending to suit the rest of the rebellious themed movie. But overall, I would definitely recommend Hesher to others. The film is a little over an hour and a half but it seems to fly by due to the entertainment.