Tag Archives: viewer

REVIEW: Smart, Sensitive Trust Explores the Awful Human Truths Behind Online Seduction

Trust is the rare film that feels longer than its 106 minutes without having exceeded its narrative limits or strained the viewer’s patience. Patience is one of the few things director David Schwimmer doesn’t test, in fact, over the course of a story that seems to span a lifetime and a few scenes that stop time altogether. An indelibly rendered portrait of what lives behind a “News At 11” headline, Trust explores the various boundaries — at home, online, and within the psyche — sent into flux when a young girl reaches adolescence, and what can happen when the resulting vulnerabilities are exploited.

Here is the original post:
REVIEW: Smart, Sensitive Trust Explores the Awful Human Truths Behind Online Seduction

‘Drive Angry’: The Reviews Are In!

Should you hit the road with Nicolas Cage? See what the critics have to say. By Eric Ditzian David Morse and Nicolas Cage in “Drive Angry” Photo: Summit Publicity “Drive Angry” marks three-straight supernatural films for Nicolas Cage, though each could not be more different. “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” was a Disney-driven tale of magical realism. “Season of the Witch” dove into the intersection of medieval black magic and campy B-movie wackiness. And “Drive Angry” literally begins with Cage driving a muscle car straight outta hell with the devil’s henchman fast on his heels and doesn’t slow down as it splashes blood and fire across the screen. All three flicks share something else in common: below-average reviews. “Sorcerer’s” and “Season” each went on to conjure up lukewarm box-office receipts. Can “Drive Angry” break the spell? Check out what the critics are saying and decide if the new 3-D film is the right choice for you this weekend. The Story “[It] may be a bit too slickly self-aware for its own good, but it’s also rivetingly paced, outrageously funny and makes retina-scorching use of the new 3D technology. Nicolas Cage is on teeth-baring, eye-rolling form as John Milton (nice), the deceased felon who busts out of hell to track down the Southern death cult who kidnapped his baby granddaughter. Hooking up with mouthy muscle-car-driving white-trash waitress Piper (Amber Heard), Milton sets off in pursuit, all the while attempting to avoid the attentions of Satan’s right-hand man, The Accountant (a majestically arch William Fichtner).” — Tom Huddleston, Time Out Crazy Nic Cage “A little respect, if you please, for His Satanic Majesty Nicolas Cage. Nobody goes off the deep end like Nic. Nobody gives better value in bad movies than the sleepy-eyed Oscar winner with a gift for picking bad movies. ‘Drive Angry’ is a very entertaining B, C or D-movie, an over-the-top and in-your-face grindhouse gore, guns and ‘Gun it’ picture that’s about epic shootouts, bone-snapping brawls, bare breasts and muscle cars. The gunplay is funny and the sex hilarious in this ‘Ghost Rider is Gone in 60 Seconds’ mashup.” — Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel The 3-D ” ‘Drive Angry’ is intensely bloody, violent and carries quite a few payoffs that are well delivered. It’s also a movie you’d actually want to see in 3-D, unlike so many frauds in the marketplace these days. In fact, Lussier, who directed ‘My Bloody Valentine 3D,’ shows his growth as a 3-dimensional director by taking ‘Drive Angry’ to new heights. Seeing it in Real D, the depth was astounding, and Lussier throws a few CGI tricks right in the viewer’s face. Even more impressive was his flashback sequence that could easily become one of the most influential in the 3-D age (the way he layers three ‘thoughts’ at once is mind-blowing visually). In short, it’s worth the extra few bucks.” — Brad Miska, Bloody Disgusting Going Grindhouse ” ‘Drive Angry’ is loud and busy, and it’s rarely boring. But it’s also never really good. ‘Drive Angry’ comes at the tail end of the grindhouse revival trend, and while it’s better made than films like ‘Machete’ or the scores of indie films that followed in Quentin Tarantino’s wake, it succumbs to the same problem so many of those movies do: it’s a movie about the things that the filmmakers think are cool, and that’s never cool. ‘Drive Angry’ isn’t about anything, it’s just a series of ideas that struck Lussier and Farmer as awesome, strung together at feature length. There’s a lot of balls in Drive Angry, and even some brains, but no heart.” — Devin Faraci, Badass Digest The Final Word ” ‘Drive Angry’ is, in the end, a genre romp. It’s not aiming any higher than that. But it is made with real skill and style, and there’s such knowledge of genre in the way they have built the script and both embraced and avoided certain conventions that it makes me feel like we’re just seeing Farmer and Lussier warm up. Hopefully they’ll keep working with collaborators as game as their partners in this particular crime, because ‘Drive Angry’ is a white-knuckle ride worth taking.” — Drew McWeeny, HitFix Check out everything we’ve got on “Drive Angry.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com .

Read the rest here:
‘Drive Angry’: The Reviews Are In!

Congress Again Bans Crush Videos

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Congress has heeded this advice, and voted to ban so-called crush videos, which depict animal cruelty, often with women killing small animals to satisfy some strange urge of the viewer. More specifically, the ban applies to the selling or distribution of crush videos, not to their production. It’s heading to President Barack Obama for his signature…. Read the full story on TreeHugger

Link:
Congress Again Bans Crush Videos

‘Harry Potter And Deathly Hallows – Part 1’: The Reviews Are In!

The die-hards won’t care what the critics say, but what they’re saying is pretty positive. By Eric Ditzian Daniel Radcliffe in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1” Photo: Warner Bros. When it comes to matters of box-office bucks, a film like “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1” is pretty much critic-proof. Its opening gross is usually insulated from critics tapping away at keyboards far removed from theaters where fans tote broomsticks and battle with faux-magical wands in the aisles. Just try keeping those cosplayers at home. But, regardless of critical opinion — which just so happens to be largely positive — “Deathly Hallows” is shaping up to have one of the biggest openings ever. Prognosticators are eyeing a debut in the range of $130 million, good for the top “Potter” opening in franchise history and fifth place on the all-time list. And, as fans rush out to the multiplex in the opening hours in much the same way that Twilighters do, “Part 1” has a shot at besting “New Moon” and its $72.7 million first-day gross last year. But should you brave the long lines and the frenetic energy of “Potter” obsessives? Do yourself a favor and check out what the critics are saying before you begin drawing a Harry-esque lightning bold on your forehead. The Story “‘Deathly Hallows’ is immensely satisfying. Nonetheless, things are gloomier than ever before: Harry, Hermione and Ron (Rupert Grint) are adrift; their anchor, Hogwarts, is no longer a safe haven. ‘I must be the one to kill Harry Potter,’ says the evil Voldemort, at the beginning of the film, setting the stage for the ultimate standoff. Dark forces amass against Harry and his allies, the Order of the Phoenix, who assemble for a thrilling skyborne escape early in the film. The fearless trio invades the Ministry of Magic in amusingly frumpy grown-up disguise, searches for Horcruxes (pieces of Voldemort’s soul, to be used against him), spends a little too much time camping, and leaves you wishing ‘Part II’ were coming next week, not next summer.” — Moira Macdonald, The Seattle Times What If You Haven’t Read the Books? “Though I’ve seen all the films, there were times when I had no idea what they were talking about. Indeed, there are times when Hermione has to explain to Harry. My cluelessness didn’t bother me, because the film depends more on mood and character than many of the others, and key actions seem to be alarmingly taking place off-screen.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times The Comparison to Earlier “Potter” Flicks “Not that ‘Deathly Hallows’ is grim, exactly. But it is, to an unusual and somewhat risky degree, sadder and slower than the earlier films. It is also much less of a showcase (or bank vault, as the case may be) for the middle and senior generations of British actors. Many of the familiar faces show up — including Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix LeStrange, and, of course, Alan Rickman as Severus Snape — but they move along after a scene or two. … The movie, in other words, belongs solidly to Mr. Radcliffe, Mr. Grint and Ms. Watson, who have grown into nimble actors, capable of nuances of feeling that would do their elders proud. One of the great pleasures of this penultimate ‘Potter’ movie is the anticipation of stellar post-‘Potter’ careers for all three of them.” — A.O. Scott, The New York Times The Dissenters “The decision by David Heyman (who has produced all the films), Steve Kloves (who’s scripted all but one) and David Yates (who will have directed the last four of the eight) to cut the final book into two features — whatever its sense as a business strategy — meant slowing the story down just as it should rev up. Instead of scooting like a Golden Snitch during a Quidditch championship, ‘DH1’ is struck with a long spell of aimlessness, and the viewer with the curse of ennui.” — Richard Corliss, Time The Final Word “[U]ltimately, this movie’s not for Muggles like me — it’s for the millions and millions of Harry Potter fans who, quibbles aside, will welcome its arrival as a blessed event. It’s evidence of how happily critic-proof these movies are that even the Warner Bros. logo — rendered in what looked to be rusting iron — was applauded when it appeared on the screen. After the movie, as the credits began to roll (to Alexandre Desplat’s conventional but nonetheless transporting score), the girl on my left — perhaps 15 or 16 — whispered tearfully to her companion: ‘ So good. God, I can’t wait for July.’ That’s all the critical analysis this movie needs.” — Dana Stevens, Slate Check out everything we’ve got on “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1.” For young Hollywood news, fashion and “Twilight” updates around the clock, visit HollywoodCrush.MTV.com . Related Videos MTV Rough Cut: Daniel Radcliffe MTV Rough Cut: Emma Watson ‘Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows – Part 1’ Clips Related Photos ‘Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows – Part 1’ ‘Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows’ Premieres In NYC

The rest is here:
‘Harry Potter And Deathly Hallows – Part 1’: The Reviews Are In!

Movie Review: ‘Wall Street’ Sequel Attacks Debt, ‘Cancer’ of the Financial System

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” That was the defining line of Oliver Stone’s 1987 film “Wall Street,” and his attack on the financial system that the news media would use for decades to portray businessmen as villains. The theme Stone wants viewers to take away from his sequel, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” was tucked away in the credits of his film on a greenback. “In Greed We Trust,” the bill proclaimed where the words “In God We Trust” should have been. “Money Never Sleeps,” which opens in theaters Sept. 24, uses the financial crisis of 2008 as a backdrop for the comeback of Gordon Gekko, the iconic villain of the original. This time Gekko reinvents himself as a changed man, coming back bearish on housing and speculation. In a business school lecture Gekko warns, “The mother of all evils is speculation — leveraged debt.” He claims the economy is merely moving money around in circles and the business model itself is like a “cancer.” The 1987 Gekko is a shark, a killer, the viewer senses it from the outset and can anticipate the time when Gekko’s blade will rip into protégée Bud Fox’s back. This Gekko comes across as a different animal entirely, a snake that can charm you into believing he won’t sell you out to make a buck. But in the end Gekko’s still the shark, he’s just gotten better at hiding his sharp teeth. Stone’s movie weakly attempts to convince the audience that everyone is in the “game” now, and that the corruption (caused by greed and envy) has become “systemic.” From people taking out second mortgages to go shopping, to greedy real estate investors; the new evil is leverage itself. As proof it offers many characters including Josh Brolin’s Bretton James. In the film, James secretly creates a panic by spreading rumors about a competitor in order to tank its stock and acquire it. The fictional investment bank that collapses and is acquired is meant to resemble Bear Stearns that had two of its hedge funds collapse in July 2007. Liberal themes such as green energy is good and materialism is bad abound, but the story is less political than one might expect. There were no mentions of political parties or specific administrations (Bush or Obama). Stone’s movie criticizes the types of financial products that were in use and slams toxic subprime debt, but without delving into the government policies that helped create the devastating housing bubble and the financial crisis. It says nothing about the accounting rules that many economists and financial experts say helped cause the liquidity crisis. Economist and Business & Media Institute advisor Dr. Walter E. Williams explained in a Sept. 17, 2008, column that the “credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy.” What “foolhardy government policy” was Williams referring to? The Community Reinvestment Act, which “intimidated lenders” into offering credit to more people and specifically “discourages them from restricting their credit services to low-risk markets, a practice sometimes called redlining.” A couple of scenes show closed door meetings with bankers, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, where bankers were asking for a bailout because they were “too big to fail.” But according to BB&T’s former CEO John Allison, that’s not the whole story. Allison and others have said “most of the banks didn’t need to be saved,” and that his bank (BB&T) and others were strong-armed by the Treasury into taking bailout (TARP) funds. Allison said in a 2009 speech, “I think the news media unfortunately has been quite willing to jump on the criticism of capitalism and not the [government].” Overall, Stone’s latest film does the same thing: attacking the capitalist system and its players, rather than examining the government’s culpability. But at least viewers know his movie is fiction. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

Go here to read the rest:
Movie Review: ‘Wall Street’ Sequel Attacks Debt, ‘Cancer’ of the Financial System

Jack Cafferty Lumps in Christine O’Donnell in New Attack on Palin

On Wednesday’s Situation Room, CNN’s Jack Cafferty revisited his anti-Sarah Palin obsession and somewhat predictably, grouped U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell with the former Alaska governor, stating it ” feels like Sarah Palin all over again ….O’Donnell has some big question marks on her resume, just like…Palin.”  Most of the viewer e-mails Cafferty read bashed the two politicians. The commentator devoted his 5 pm Eastern hour commentary to the two Republican women. After his “feels like Sarah Palin all over again” line, Cafferty recounted O’Donnell’s emergence on the national political scene, and wasted little time in outlining her negative similarities to Palin: “Suddenly, everybody can’t seem to get enough of her. This is despite the fact that O’Donnell has some big question marks on her resume, just like Sarah Palin. She’s come under fire for allegedly misusing campaign funds for personal expenses-just like Sarah Palin .” The CNN personality briefly touched on the Delaware Republican’s eleven-year-old “dabbled in witchcraft” remarks and her traditional stance on sexuality before returning to his attack: CAFFERTY: O’Donnell has also been in the spotlight for saying that years ago, she ‘dabbled in witchcraft,’ and had one of her first dates with a witch on a satanic altar- she really said that. And she’s used her views on abstinence to rule out masturbation. After her last-minute cancellation of two Sunday show appearances this past weekend, O’Donnell suddenly announced that Sarah Palin has advised her now not to do any more national media interviews, and instead, focus just on local media. Based on Sarah Palin’s interviews with Katie Couric, that’s probably not bad advice. Those were disastrous, remember? I wonder if it means that O’Donnell is as poorly informed on the issues as Sarah Palin was . It all sounds so very familiar, doesn’t it? Palin’s resume [is] littered with goofy comments like saying that she could see Russia from Alaska, or not being able to name a single newspaper that she read on a daily basis. Sarah Palin quit as governor of Alaska midway through her first term. She often refuses to talk about a lot of the issues with the media, unless, of course, it’s with the F-word network- they pay her . But none of that seems to matter. Sarah Palin has become this huge celebrity who is seriously being talked about as a possible presidential contender- which is just what we need. Remember the McCain campaign? Cafferty concluded the segment with his “Question of the Hour” on the two women: “So here’s the question: why do people like Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell attract so much attention? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile, and please enlighten me, because I don’t have a clue .” Unsurprisingly, only two of the viewer replies which he read just before the top of the 6 pm Eastern hour could be characterized as leaning neutral, with the rest going in full liberal rage mode against the politicians. The CNN personality, along with anchor Wolf Blitzer, also made light of O’Donnell’s witchcraft remarks after he concluded reading the replies. CAFFERTY: Carlos in Pasadena [California]: ‘The popularity of the Tea Party lies with the media because the media loves the anomaly, the weird, the extreme, and the immediate . This, coupled with the quick solution, the sound bite, and an audience that has a brief attention span, makes the Palins et al popular.’ Andy says, ‘ Palin and O’Donnell represent the ideal Stepford housewives. The older conservative white men can fantasize about them, and the older white women can emulate them. It’s scary to think that candidates no longer have to talk about the issues, and can hide behind slideshow bullet points. Once again, beauty reigns in the white man’s world and intelligence is a negative .’ Professor writes, ‘I don’t think the majority of Americans like either one of them, Jack. We simply like watching train wrecks occur. These two whackos are foolish people who think the rest of us are stupid enough to fall for rhetoric and populism .’ Nick writes, ‘It’s because their rhetoric is in the right place. The country is still going through a rough time, economically, and while they have shown time and time again that they do not have the qualifications to fix our problems, much less debate them , they still provide an accurate mouthpiece to vent frustration and anger among Americans. They’re using the current situation for their own political and personal gain.’ Jean writes, ‘Three words: pretty white women- looks and no brains. Who was more famous than Marilyn Monroe? And, they don’t have to be blond to be ditsy .’ Tom in Texas writes, ‘Harken back to some of Palin’s old video, plus Ms. O’Donnell’s recent admissions. You’ve just gotta know, as the song goes, it’s witchcraft.’ If you want to read more on this- got a lot of e-mail- go to my blog, CNN.com/CaffertyFile. WOLF BLITZER: Jack- CAFFERTY: Have you ever been on a date at a Satanic altar? BLITZER: Missed that one. (unintelligible) CAFFERTY: Missed that- me too. (unintelligible) My life has got some voids in it. That’s one . BLITZER: That’s certainly one I have (unintelligible) (both Blitzer and Cafferty laugh) Jack, thanks very much. The CNN commentator has targeted Sarah Palin since the autumn of 2008, devoting 35% of his Cafferty Files segments over a month period to bashing the former governor. Since then, Cafferty has derided Palin as “lame” and referred to her as ” Caribou Barbie .” Just over two months ago, he hypothesized that the Republican’s popularity was a good omen for Democrats: “”If anything could overcome the increasingly sour view of the Obama presidency, it might be this. Why, the Democrats should be positively euphoric .”

More here:
Jack Cafferty Lumps in Christine O’Donnell in New Attack on Palin

Justin Bieber 3-D Movie Back On Track

‘Step Up 3D’ director Jon Chu will helm biopic/ concert film. By Adam Rosenberg Justin Bieber Photo: Robyn Beck/ AFP/ Getty Images After a brief hiccup, the 3-D Justin Bieber movie is back in the mix. It had previously been reported that , but he dropped out to promote his upcoming release, “Waiting for Superman.” Now Paramount Pictures has hired “Step Up 3D” director Jon Chu to steer the biopic/ concert film to the big screen, according to a press release. Also new to the team are producers Dan Cutforth and Jane Lipsitz, the duo behind “Project Runway,” “Top Chef” and “Project Greenlight.” Bieber manager Scooter Braun and Island Def Jam chairman L.A. Reid were previously confirmed as producers as well. The hiring comes not a moment too soon, as filming is already under way. Cameras were rolling behind the scenes earlier this week at the young pop star’s Nashville performance. They’ll be following him on tour through the end of this month, when Bieber’s August 31 Madison Square Garden performance in New York will be shot with 3-D cameras. Chu is coming to the Bieber movie fresh off of promoting the just-released “Step Up 3D.” Of the hiring, he said, “When I was approached about doing Justin’s film, I jumped at the opportunity to tell a story with honesty and heart. Most people don’t know that his is a true underdog story, and I hope to tell it in a compelling, genuine way, using all source materials available to convey his tale of becoming an icon for this digital age.” Magical Elves partners Cutforth and Lipsitz also expressed their excitement in a statement. “To be able to tell the story of Justin’s unique and revolutionary path to stardom in our first studio feature is an incredible opportunity for us,” they said. Despite the change in director, the movie is still set for a 2011 Valentine’s Day weekend release, as was previously announced. For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com . Related Artists Justin Bieber

Read more here:
Justin Bieber 3-D Movie Back On Track

‘Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World’: Big Fun, By Kurt Loder

Michael Cera crushes the competition in Edgar Wright’s fantasy epic. Michael Cera in “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” Photo: Universal Pictures “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is the first movie to bring us, among many other things, on-screen battle-scoring, a visit from the Vegetarian Police, and a really cute kickass girl named Knives. For most of its modest run-time (112 minutes), Edgar Wright’s new comedy lays persuasive claim to being the year’s most blazingly imaginative film. Well, okay, along with “Inception.” But Wright’s movie is also blazingly funny, something no one has yet attempted to assert about the Christopher Nolan blockbuster. The picture is a dizzying creative leap for Wright, the giddy parodist behind “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz.” Bryan Lee O’Malley’s Scott Pilgrim comics began appearing in 2004, and the director latched onto them almost immediately. One understands why it has taken him so long to bring O’Malley’s fantastical stories to the screen — the cast, which is deep in talented young actors, must have been difficult to align. Michael Cera plays Scott Pilgrim, mild-mannered bass player in a Toronto punk band called the Sex Bob-Omb. Ellen Wong is Knives Chau, his underage girlfriend, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead is Ramona, the mysterious Amazon delivery girl for whom he truly yearns. Then there’s Anna Kendrick as Scott’s sister, Stacey, who can’t believe her 22-year-old brother is dating a high-school girl (“Scandal!”); and Kieran Culkin as Scott’s gay roommate, Wallace, whose specialty is stealing Stacey’s boyfriends; and Alison Pill as Kim, the monumentally hostile drummer in Scott’s band. The plot, unlike the movie itself, is simple: In order to win the elusive Ramona, Scott must first do battle with her seven former lovers — the Evil Exes. The picture is constructed like a vintage video-arcade game, and these contests have a wild, psychedelic propulsion. One of the Exes, Lucas Lee (Chris Evans in a winningly self-deprecating performance), is a movie star of explosive non-cinematic skills (he flings Scott through the air with such force that the skinny suitor lands on a faraway tower). Another, Todd Ingram (Brandon Routh in a blindingly blond wig), is the vegan bass player in a rival band, the Clash at Demonhead, and he engages Scott in a withering battle-of-the-basses. The bisexual Roxy Richter (Mae Whitman) is a kickboxing tornado; the Katanayagi twins (Keita Saitou and Shota Saito) are star DJs armed with wall-shaking amplification; and Matthew Patel (Satya Bhabha) is a heavily-mascara’d fop who comes flying into a concert to perform a quick dance number with a crew of demon backup chicks and then give Scott a very hard martial-artsy time. Scott dispatches these characters with some ace moves of his own (“I kicked him so hard that he saw the curvature of the Earth!”). But waiting at the end of this line of antagonists is snaky club-owner Gideon Gordon Graves (a preening Jason Schwartzman), the most formidable Ex of all. Much of the movie’s whacked-out humor is the work of the director. Wright’s facility with eccentric ornamentation — bursts of canned laugh-track laughter, proudly cartoonish graphics, dreamscape enchantments and sudden split-screenery — is irresistibly endearing; and his whiz-bang editing is a marvel throughout. (He’s always one step ahead of the viewer, suddenly taking us places we didn’t realize we were ready to go to yet.) And the script, which he co-wrote, is a feast of deadpan throwaways. (“I’ve dabbled with being a bitch,” says Ramona. “My brother is permanently enfeebled,” notes Stacey.) It’s a bit of a letdown, then, that the movie loses its witty focus toward the end and descends into familiar CGI uproar (the concluding faceoff with Gideon goes on much too long). But any movie that can sell us Michael Cera as a hard-hitting hero has already accomplished something remarkable (as has Cera himself, of course). And the entrancingly bizarre world into which Scott’s adventures have been set summons that rarest of responses: It feels like something new. Check out everything we’ve got on “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.” For breaking news and previews of the latest comic book movies — updated around the clock — visit SplashPage.MTV.com . Related Videos MTV Rough Cut: ‘Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World’

Read more here:
‘Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World’: Big Fun, By Kurt Loder

Pharrell Williams Calls Swedish House Mafia ‘Necessary Rock Stars’

‘If you can do something that moves people, you are necessary,’ he tells MTV News of his ‘One (Your Name)’ collaborators. By Akshay Bhansali Pharrell Photo: MTV News When we caught up with Dutch dance-music producer Ti

Al Gore’s Current TV: Worth Saving

____ http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65O0HA20100625 Firstly, reading the comments at this link I can't help but wonder how many people are paid to go to sites with Al Gore articles and trash the man just for the hell of it. The immature political ranting is just too obvious. Anyway, as someone who has been participating on Current TV and Current.com since its first day(s) I have to honestly state that I am a bit disappointed with where it has gone the past couple of years. It appears the dilemma is one that Mr. Gore spoke about in his book, The Assault On Reason and it also appears his station has turned into the very model he used in the book illustrating what is wrong with the media which was not his original vision, and that is sad because it was/is a wonderful innovative vision. By hiring people from MTV however, what do you expect that Current will be turned into? But again, that also goes back to what makes money these days in order to stay afloat and it would seem that in order to do that you have to sacrifice quality because the predominant theory is that the American populace on the whole does not care about quality they care about entertainment, which actually proves the premise of Mr. Gore's book quite sadly and ironcially. However, I do not believe that is entirely true. When Current first came to be the material was fresh because it was for the most part viewer created content made by younger filmmakers looking for a way to be known and it was judged by participants who actually got to see their work firsthand and vote on it to be seen on tv. I think it was what helped grow this station and why the Emmy sits on your mantle. Combining tv and Internet in this fashion is truly innovative and unlike even what You Tube offers, and I was excited to be a part of it at that time. But unfortunately it is not the kind of material advertisers and sponsors which a station needs to create revenue to compete in the marketplace can use to build profits on longterm -or so they think. And of course, the competition from Internet outlets like You Tube severely cut into the staying power of that concept as the Internet has become a predominant media, even though it is said that TV will always remain the predominant media outlet. That may or may not be true but speaking for myself, tv is not my predominant media and I am not even within the demographic Current sought to appeal to. In my view, take away reality tv shows today and you lose viewers because I don't think many people watch tv these days because they think the shows are good. They watch it (1) out of habit (2) to be voyeuristic and escapist, hence the popularity of “reality” TV that at times is far from it and (3) to look for shows that educate and inform… Current could be the station people watch because they want to do so and because they find that information and education because I believe that is what people really want, which is why features like Vanguard should be expanded on by allowing viewers to be the reporters as well and that market and demographic sought more aggressively instead of always trying to appeal to the “entertainment tonight” mentality. I have to also state honestly that I think Mr. Gore keeping his distance from the station may have hurt it. He was part of the conversations in the beginning and it drew in viewers and participants and made people see he cared about where this station was going. I think a more hands on approach by Mr. Gore is now required with a revival of the viewer created content balanced with less “popular” entertainment. So my message to Al is this: You are the Chairman, not someone from MTV, and not those who are your detractors who seek to silence you and your vision. You have the power to bring this station/website to the vision you had when you first crafted this concept with Mr. Hyatt. As someone who has been here from day one, I strongly suggest you do this: Fire the MTV clones and bring the people here who want to help you see this station be a success and listen to those who are already here who wish that as well. There are also many bright, innovative, creative young minds out here making good film and tackling important issues. You can search them out and let them help mold a station of the future. Viewer created content and the feedback from it are the core of the “agora” you spoke of when this station was born. Your passion and vision about this was why I originally came here, and why I stay. It is unfortunate that the mentality of the average TV watcher isn't in tune with your vision. However, many of us are ( more than you know) and those of like mind will help you change direction and in the course of it, change the concept of how tv/Internet interaction can educate and empower instead of just being a habit or a babysitter. Please let us. I hope you will. Current is too innovative a concept to just give it up to the trappings of mainstream media. added by: JanforGore