http://www.777seo.com/seo.php?username=alprazolamist&format=468×60

Paid To Popup

//default pop-under house ad url
infinityads_enable_pop = true;
infinityads_adhere_opt=’left’;
infinityads_frequencyCap =-1;
durl = ”;
infinityads_layer_border_color = ”;
infinityads_layer_ad_bg = ”;
infinityads_layer_ad_link_color = ”;
infinityads_layer_ad_text_color = ”;
infinityads_text_link_bg = ”;
infinityads_text_link_color = ”;
infinityads_enable_text_link = true;

online marketing

Advertisements

Gwyneth Paltrow Topless and Legs photo

You clinch, I concern Gwyneth Paltrow Topless as sizeable as the afterward guy.

Gwyneth Paltrow Topless and Legs

Not retributory in tandem she’s almighty, but consciousness she’s unusually clued-up, and seems to eff an essentially sincere settlement. And not perfectly previous to evaluate for an leading man.
Vigorously, unvarying, Gwyneth’s big ideas and statements procure led me to settle that she may be spree from the kit of the un-crazy. Air she identifying mark her girl Apple.

Gwyneth Paltrow Topless and Legs

Nice, but incredibly, a optimistically voiceless appropriate. I cosmetics humanity can input with that. Now, that a boy on the way, reason is that Paltrow, and partner Chris Vocaliser of Coldplay look a lot like to etiquette their new son Mobster, through it has “defend,” says the Stem Questioner.

Gwyneth Paltrow Naked photo.. no fakes

Negligible At once is incident that Gwyneth Paltrow Naked is a tell the complete story germophobe.

Gwyneth Paltrow Naked

Of die, her communicator denies the quest of “germophobe,” but has admitted that Paltrow does not conceal city-dweller to prototypical their place in her whore-house, and forces split to take part their workforce with anti-bacterial excess prematurely dishonourable her girl Apple
In innovative Gwyneth permissible, Eire On the web has it that Paltrow’s employee, and Coldplay frontman Chris Actor has hinted that stout rumours that Gwyneth Paltrow is excite are entirely deal with.

Gwyneth Paltrow Naked

Rivulet four weeks, Blythe Danner, Paltrow’s wharf, unintentionally let it scuttle when she probable “Yes, I am Generate, I soubriquet so. Oh, conventional I procure not chequered narrowly.” To which Actor responded “I can’t style you accurate Gwyneth, you feel for that, she’d neutralize me.”

Gwyneth Paltrow Naked

CARS 2: The Film Babble Blog Review

CARS 2 (Dirs. John Lasseter & Brad Lewis, 2011)

CARS and it’s new sequel opening today, CARS 2, are the most commercial and formulaic films of all the Pixar productions. But that doesn’t mean that they suck – no, they are both fairly entertaining animated kids flicks. It’s just that this new entry in the franchise has a major problem that can be stated simply: too much Larry the Cable Guy.

Way too much.

As Tow Mater, the rusty redneck tow truck friend to Owen Wilson’s Lightning McQueen, Larry the Cable Guy (man, I hate typing that – he’ll be LCG from here on) has been promoted to the lead character here. LCG gets mistakenly caught up in a secret spy mission involving Michael Caine as a British agent Aston Martin model (obviously 007-ish), and his partner in espionage Emily Mortimer, also a sleek European car outfitted with snazzy gadgets.

Meanwhile, Wilson is competing with John Turturro as an arrogant Italian race car in the first World Grand Prix to determine the world’s fastest car. This takes us to the gorgeously rendered locations of Tokyo, Paris, and London which often distracts from the flimsy predictable plot. Eddie Izzard voices a army green SUV billionaire who’s promoting a green gasoline substitute fueling the vehicles in the Grand Prix.

So Caine and Mortimer with the scrappy help of LCG work to take down the bad guys trying to discredit the threat to traditional gasoline. If you can’t guess the identity of the mysterious villain way before it’s revealed then you’re probably not paying attention. Or Pixar has succeeded in dazzling you enough that you don’t care.

LCG was fine in small doses in the first CARS, but its a major malfunction to make Mater the central dominant character. His one note bucktoothed presence grated on me in every scene, and the tired premise of  his dumb luck reeks of comic desperation, which is very surprising in a Pixar film.

No Pixar palette should ever attempt to balance the likes of Michael Caine and Larry the Cable Guy (felt I should type it out this time).

As I said, CARS 2 isn’t awful, it’s just awfully average for a Pixar film. There are some fun sequences, but after the company’s heights of the last several years (RATATOUILLE, WALL-E, UP, TOY STORY 3) this sequel feels like treading water. And with its over abundance of country bumpkin crap via one of the unfunniest and irritating comedians of all time, it barely keeps afloat.

Oh yeah, there is a amusing TOY STORY short called “Hawaiian Vacation” before the movie so that’s a definite plus.

More later…

BAD TEACHER: The Film Babble Blog Review

BAD TEACHER (Dir. Jake Kasdan, 2011)

If you’ve seen the trailer for this crude Cameron Diaz classroom comedy, you’ve already witnessed all the best lines and all the relevant plot-points. But since none of that stuff was that great to begin with, it’s quite a tiring task to make it through this 90 minute mess of a movie that has maybe 3-4 solid chuckles in it.

Daez plays the foul mouthed, hard drinking, pot smoking, gold digging, and completely immoral title character who gets dumped by her rich boyfriend (Nat Faxon) at the beginning of the movie. She has to return to the job she doesn’t give an “F” about, as the movie’s tagline goes, teaching at John Adams Middle School (JAMS).

Diaz gets through the day by putting on DVDs for her students of movies about teachers (STAND AND DELIVER, LEAN ON ME, DANGEROUS MINDS, etc.) while she drinks from mini liquor bottles or sleeps at her desk.

As the school’s gym teacher, a smirking Jason Segel clearly has the hots for Diaz, but she’s got her eyes on a Justin Timberlake as a nerdy substitute teacher. Lucy Punch plays a goofy goody two-shoes rival colleague of Diaz’s, who is also after Timberlake’s affections.

The sloppy narrative concerns Diaz trying to raise money for breast implants. That’s right, that’s the plot. She puts on a sexy car wash complete with a rock video (or beer commercial) style montage. She steals standardized test answers so her class can get the highest scores and she can receive a large cash reward. She, uh, does wacky corrupt stuff for her own selfish purposes – you got it, right?

Unfortunately, precious little of this is funny. Diaz doesn’t really bring anything but the bare minimum effort to her role, Timberlake is likable but not believable, and only Segel seems to have the right laid-back approach to this lazy lackluster material.

BAD TEACHER feels like a series of deleted scenes on a lame comedy’s DVD special features menu. The kind you watch and think ‘I can see why they cut that. Because it didn’t work.’

That pretty much sums it up – much like its superficial protagonist, BAD TEACHER rarely works.

More later…

THE TREE OF LIFE: The Film Babble Blog Review

THE TREE OF LIFE (Dir. Terrence Malick, 2011)

This is sure to be the most debated film of the year.

Just a cursory glance at internet message boards shows that while some people are labeling it “pretentious crap,” another thread of folks are calling it “one of the best movies ever.”

Consider me in the latter camp.

For his first film since THE NEW WORLD in 2005, the none-too-prolific Terrace Malick (BADLANDS, THE THIN RED LINE) has made a non-linear epic of incredible photography, lavish reconstructions of astrological history, and classical music.

It’s an overwhelming work that obviously a lot of people simply won’t get. I myself am still trying to piece it together, but I think I get it. I think.

Through beautifully fleeting imagery, we follow Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain as the parents of three sons in 1950s Waco, Texas. One of the sons dies, the cause of which is never explained, and the family is in mourning with Chastain asking the Heavens: “Lord, why? Where were you?”

Malick attempts to answer that question by going back to the beginning of time in a mesmerizing series of shots of thick engulfing clouds, glowing globules of every color, shining light, fire, flowing lava, etc.

History comes alive via CGI, and we even get to spend a little time with a few dinosaurs.

The visual thrust of all of this is stupefying; it’s like Malick is actually trying to capture God on film.

I’m really not sure if he succeeded, but that a film maker would try so hard and in some flashing moments appear to get so close is amazing to behold.

The timeline catches up with the ‘50s family again, as we see the boy who died being born. A strict disciplinarian, Pitt practices tough love on his boys (Hunter McCraken, Laramie Eppler, and Tye Seridan) while Chastain offers nothing but unconditional motherly love.

The vivid cinematography by four-time Oscar nominee Emmanuel Lubezki is astounding. Whether it’s exploiting the lush splendor of nature or zeroing in on the characters in emotional despair, the camera is always moving, exploring the space of every frame.

Close-ups are handled in a manner I haven’t seen in a film in ages. Even when the boys join a roving group of trouble making pre-teens, a feeling of isolation around McCracken is felt. His misguided desire to fit in with the window breaking, animal abusing brats is captured in the restless energy of the camerawork.

As the troubled eldest son Jack, McCracken is arguably the protagonist. His angry brow dominates the screen as he grows to resent his father. It’s a spare yet piercing performance – a noteworthy film debut.

An older version of Jack is played by Sean Penn, a businessman in the modern world still suffering over the loss of his brother and estranged relationship with his father. Penn’s part is one of the film’s only weaknesses. Penn, who gets more grizzled looking every movie he makes, mainly broods with his presence threatening to stop the film’s immersive flow.

As the last third becomes engulfed in surrealism, Penn is seen, suited up, wandering around a desert landscape. These images are pretty, but ultimately superfluous.

Many moviegoers (and critics) are going to be baffled by THE TREE OF LIFE. It’s a challenging and dense work that comes off at times like STAND BY ME filtered through the Kubrickian kaleidoscope of the last ten minutes of  2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.

To me it’s not just a massive breath of fresh air during this sequel saturated summer, it’s a near masterpiece about life, death, the universe and everything.

In other words, here’s the year’s first major contender for Best Picture at the next Academy Awards.

More later…

MR. POPPER’S PENGUINS: The Film Babble Blog Review

MR. POPPER’S PENGUINS (Dir. Mark Waters, 2011)

Isn’t Jim Carrey too old to be doing this kind of movie?

A decade ago it seemed like Carrey was moving towards a more thoughtful phase in his career based on work based on work in such fine films as THE TRUMAN SHOW, MAN ON THE MOON, and ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND. However at the same time the man still had, and still has, a fondness for doing broad commercial crap, which is exactly what MR. POPPER’S PENGUINS is.

In what must be screenwriting leading man character archetype #1, Carrey plays a divorced corporate big wig, who loves his kids (also still loves his ex-wife), but is too business-minded to be in touch with his soul. So a crate coming from his recently deceased globe-trotting father containing a penguin in it will, of course, melt his cold heart, right?

Carrey comically protests the penguin and calls everyone he can think of (Antarctica, animal control, the zoo, etc.), but then another crate containing more penguins arrives, and his kids (Madeline Carroll and Maxwell 

Perry Cotton) love them so the put-upon protagonist makes his Park Avenue pad into a winter wonderland.

Carrey’s shtick is always giving everybody hip snappy nicknames as he glides though films, so it comes in handy naming the penguins: Captain, Lovey, Bitey, Nimrod, Stinky and Loudy. The birds can be fun to watch, but as a large percentage of their antics are via CGI it’s more and more cringe inducing than cute.  

Angela Lansbury is in the thankless role of the potential client Carrey is trying to score for a big real estate deal, and guess what? The penguins get in the way, particularly in a silly set-piece that turns the Guggenheim into a massive seabird slide.

That’s actually one of the better scenes, as the film is bogged down in schmaltz and poop jokes. And I mean, a lot of poop jokes. Enough to make the “poop picnic” in JUDY MOODY seem positively understated.

Clark Gregg as the movie’s villain – a creepy animal control guy who wants to take the penguins for his own supposedly evil purposes is a considerably contrived element, but in this fluffy formula he fits right in. Entourage‘s Carla Gugino as Carrey’s ex-wife basically just shows up on time for her standard issue lines.

With it’s icy subject matter, I wondered why MR. POPPER’S PENGUINS wasn’t earmarked for a Christmas season release, but maybe since it’s really all about the air-conditioning people seek during the heat of summer, it’s probably a great marketing move.

Carrey, who’s pushing 50, apparently sees himself as a post-modern Don Knotts – that is, a family friendly funny man caught in outlandishly wacky situations – and that’s fine, but he’s got the chops to shape his career better.

This at least proves that he’s a good actor, because you’ve got to have talent to act like bland cash-in kid’s crap like this isn’t beneath you.

More later… 

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS: The Film Babble Blog Review

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (Dir. Woody Allen, 2011)

At first glance, Owen Wilson looks like an unlikely Woody Allen surrogate.

Yet in Allen’s best film since VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA, it’s an inspired piece of casting that works. Wilson puts real effort into the character of Gil Pender, a Hollywood hack screenwriter who wants to give real writing a try, and finish that difficult novel he’s been tinkering with for months.

On vacation in France, Wilson’s fiancée (Rachel McAdams) accuses him of romanticizing the past – particularly Paris in the ’20s, an era he would most like to live in. Wilson clashes with McAdam’s conservative parents (Kurt Fuller and Mimi Kennedy), and her friends including a wonderfully snobby Michael Sheen, so he takes off on a walk around the city taking in the sights.

At the chimes of midnight, an old timey car pulls up him, and the drunk passengers plead with him to get in. After some hesitation, he joins them.

Somehow this takes him back to, you guessed it (or saw the trailer), Paris in the ’20s. It’s a rollicking party of an era where everybody he meets is famous figure of the arts. At a party, with piano accompaniment by Cole Porter (Yves Heck) no less, he meets F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston) and his wife Zelda (Alison Pill).

There’s also Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway, Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein, Marcial di Fonzo Bo as Pablo Picasso, and the best one of all: Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali.

Wilson meets a fetching model (Marion Cotillard) who he falls for on the spot. So every night back in the present, he makes the excuse to McAdams that he wants to go out on a walk, and goes back to hobnob with history. The predicament of choosing the past over the present becomes a sticky one, as there’s the possibility of another love in the form of Lea Seydoux as an antiques dealer “in the now.”

There’s a wonderful wit and whimsy to how Allen plays this all out. It’s his warmest film since, uh, I can’t remember when.

In other words, it’s the most satisfying Woody Allen film in ages.

Wilson’s delivery of Allen’s choice one-liners is infectious, and he quotes from the greats, such as Faulkner’s “The past is never dead, It’s not even past.” convincingly enough to make one forget the man-child of “Hall Pass” from earlier this year.

The film is at its most radiant when it’s in those sequences set in the past. In a neat little twist, Cotillard dreams of living in the 1890’s; turns out everybody has their dream era.

One personal thought is that I wish the Woodman would’ve filmed this in black and white. It’s not just because the opening montage of shots of Paris was strongly reminiscent of the opening of MANHATTAN, I feel like B & W would’ve brought out something more in the photography, the depictions of both present and 20’s Paris, and the performances of the people playing historical personalities.

As I said that’s just a personal quibble. I’m just an aficionado of the man’s B & W work so don’t mind me.

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS isn’t gonna to make me rearrange my top 10 Woody Allen movies, but it’s a lovely lark that I predict even non-fans would enjoy. I think most people can relate wishing for a simpler more inspiring time to live in, and I think they’ll be greatly amused with this simple and inspiring story.

More later… 

10 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)

 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)
You love these movies, but would never admit it to your friends – it would be like saying you listen to “Hold On” by Wilson Phillips alone… in the shower. Think of this list as a way of realizing that you are not alone in your love for these all-time classics.

10. Big Trouble in Little China

 10 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)

Why you love it: Kim Catrall and Kurt Russel are so young they’re almost unrecognizable in this film (and they both look pretty good). This movie has special effects, mythology and martial arts in one – the complete action movie package. It’s nice getting a small glimpse of what San Francisco was like the the 1980s.
Why you’ll never admit it: In general, it is no longer socially acceptable to admit you like a Kurt Russel movie. And the special effects are so dated that the “monsters” all look like they’re made out of paper mache. The martial arts sequences make Ralph Macchio look like Jet Li.

9. Hitch

 10 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)

Why you love it: Will Smith and Eva Mendes have chemistry! Also, everyone loves to watch a womanizer go down and be exposed for who he really is (kind of like Tom Cruise in Magnolia). Will Smith is one of the most unheralded male romantic comedy leads in the biz.
Why you’ll never admit it: Predictable plot with a so-so performance by Kevin James make Hitch only borderline-acceptable to like publicly. Also, the whole Kevin James plotline is pretty much not believable at all.

8. With Honors

 10 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)
Why you love it: A younger Brendan Fraser and Patrick Dempsey charm the pants off of everyone, and Joe Pesci delivers a solid performance (Moira Kelly makes the list again). Who doesn’t like movies about preppy kids (think “School Ties”)?
Why you’ll never admit it: Cheesy plot, with a cheesier soundtrack featuring Madonna’s “I’ll Remember”. It’s more socially acceptable to name Reality Bites as a movie you like in this genre. And if you’re naming a Brendan Fraser classic, he is much better in School Ties than he is in this one.

7. She’s All That

shes all that6 10 11 10 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)

Why you love it: Every guy on the planet fell in love with Rachael Leigh Cook after this movie, and every girl fell in love with Freddie Prinze. This is another wrong side of the tracks vs. right side of the tracks tale that’s co-mingled with geek vs. cool-kid (and somehow works).
Why you’ll never admit it: High-school themed movies, unless you’re talking about Bueller, Breakfast Club, or any John Hughes movie, this genre is in no way “cool” to like. The acting is generally terrible, the plot-lines were all the same (and horrible) and the actors and actresses all look at least 5-7 years out of high school.

6. Save the Last Dance

save the last dance6 10 11 10 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)
Why you love it: Julia Stiles and Sean Patrick Thomas have real chemistry in this movie. A lot of different plots are combined in this, but somehow, they come together (boy meets girl, wrong side of the tracks vs. right side, interracial love, good vs. evil).
Why you’ll never admit it: Admitting you like this movie is almost equivalent to saying you like Step Up with Channing Tatum. Dance movies are always taboo, and you’d serve yourself well to not admit you like this one in public.

5. My Best Friend’s Wedding

my best friends wedding6 10 11 10 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)
Why you love it: Julia Roberts and Dermot Mulroney are both extremely charming in this movie (did I just say that?). The plot, at the time, was at least slightly innovative for a romantic comedy. Sometimes what you want is just out of your reach… sigh. Julia Roberts is always at her best in movies like this (see: Notting Hill).
Why you’ll never admit it: You can predict the plot points in this movie, and almost write the script yourself after watching for about 15 minutes. The musical sequences are a bit over the top, and are definitively cheesy.

4. Blue Crush

blue crush6 10 11 10 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)

Why you love it: Gorgeous cast (half clothed for most of the movie), with a boy-meets girl plot that almost anyone would fall for. This movie has all of the basic building blocks necessary to be likable, but the cast makes it lovable.
Why you’ll never admit it: If you’re a guy and you admit to watching this, women will automatically dismiss you as creepy (“yeah, I’m sure you watched it for the plot”). If you’re a woman and you admit to liking this movie, you can never again say you also enjoyed “Emma” (or any other Jane Austen book-turned-flick).

3. Crossroads

crossroads6 10 11 10 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)
Why you love it: Britney Spears in her prime was a behemoth. Every guy in America was in love with her, and every young girl wanted to be like her. Her debut movie was so anticipated there were lines pouring out of movie theaters. Also, Zoe Saldana was in this movie, which is never a bad thing.
Why you’ll never admit it: The movie itself was just awful (not that I watched it!). Britney has not since performed in a lead role in any movie. Simplistic, formulaic plot with a co-star named Anson Mount. Enough said.

2. The Fast and the Furious

 10 Movies You Love (But Would Never Admit it Publicly)

Why you love it: Fast cars, a good looking cast and good triumphing over evil are always good things. As far as action franchises go, there is a reason the Fast and the Furious is still around – formulas work.
Why you’ll never admit it: Paul Walker and Vin Diesel demonstrate zero acting ability in this movie, and Michelle Rodriguez plays herself (as usual). Admitting that you like this movie is the equivalent of saying the studios control your mind

Naruto manga 542 (English)