Earthlings found themselves on planet X something just behind Jupiter but the trip getting there was as sterile as the landing and encounter with another race of humanoids. I asked myself how the producer would have released a film where his characters are so cardboard stiff with such a meagre dialogue that the spectator on this part of the globe is likely to be disappointed. The earthlings were kidnapped and brought along a darkened corridor as if that was an essential element in the plot. From then on I expected to see more of the same shallow acting as these humans were given a weak argument over the need for their captures to take some monsters from Earth and bring them back to save themselves from a multithreaded flying dragon.

The humanoids must have had another agenda when they were found taking Rodan and Godzilla from their hiding places to bring them back to their planet without having informed the Japanese. Naturally all this lack of forethought was probably quite normal for the Japanese director who made sure that his characters showed the minimum of emotion. One would have liked to see the see the humans being visually upset over the invasion of their space but the viewer is only given recited lines.

As a child one can marvel at the effects it took to get the submarine animal to bulldoze its way through the town, today the sluggishness makes that action all too ridiculous.

How one could possibly believe that a machine, which removes oxygen from water, would kill an animal that had otherwise been able to resurface, is beyond me. One can appreciate some of the Japanese acting among the secondary actor like the actress in love with the scientist who decided to give his life up to science over the failure to be have protected Tokyo from the monster.

Raymond played a reporter who gave a point-by-point coverage on the monster's entry into the town until he was hit by a crumbling building.

What I have been able to learn from this film is that poor dialogues need to be revamped especially when the film editing is inferior. I suppose there are many lovers of cheesy films as this who appreciate the lack of acting ability, poor script and editing.

Art dealing might have something to do with the underworld but the movie has a way of drawing in the lives of someone who is indirectly involved with the corruption. Here one of the contacts, living in what looks like Italy is a frame maker and has probably framed some of the prints that his "boss" gets. Let's face it the way that this person is involved into the sequenced murders in an effort to save his family is realistic enough that viewers want to see where the tension will lead.

One may continue to ask what the point of the game is in the movie by Liliana Cavani but it stands to reason that the reason lies in the need not to get directly control in eliminating your opponent and in finding someone weak enough that he will follow his sadistic mentor's instructions. One never knows whether the accomplish will ever set himself free and one can compare that bind to that of his terminal illness which is in remission. To Ridley killing his opponents is just another job, he has come into contact with the Russian mafia probably regarding the control of obtaining valuable pieces of artwork.

He is able to change thoughts and forget what he done quite quickly unlike his weaker assistant but the tension between them continues to a violent end for one of them. Then Ridley returns to his everyday appreciation of his girlfriend's musical practice on an antique piano. This is a nicely contrasted scene with an often-repeated theme that under the veil of well being something far more sinister lurks.

So a simple train skit does not have to be something super-intensive on an actor playing with a toy train it can also be about his anticipation of something about to happen before it actually occurs. One could mount a simple circular track on a cardboard base made to look like a piece of property by coloring in homes that are drawn along the route or one can go all out and put together papier-mâché homes if there is time. The actor could play with the train and move it along, or he could also run up to obstacles that appear out of the blue like a cow the crosses the tracks. Comic elements occur when by he frantically tries to remove the toy farm animal from the track. This scene can be extended further to add tension.

We all wait for public transport vehicles so why not consider have him look attentive trying to decipher a familiar whistle sound that he hears in the distance. I am then suggesting not just working with visuals but also acoustics to show that the train is arriving as if the player's thoughts have materialized. There could be the added element of mounting a flashlight in a make believe tunnel to give the effect of a train about to emerge but now with special effect on the web, one can obtain visual effects such as this.

The train may disappear back into the make believe tunnel and actor can attempt to locate it desperately. Here is where the actor comes to terms with facing his own imaginary world. That too may make a good comical ending.

All this happened at the turn of the last century when people were beginning to see the use of prospecting for oil on land that had hitherto been used for farming. The book and the film it inspired are about greed and faith and the clash between the two.

It all started with the purchase of an oil-saturated property. There would be the passage of a pipeline through his land if he cleansed his soul.

Daniel's brother humiliates him in front of a congregation and the audience can witness the tension that Daniel is willing to take on so as to have his material wealth.

There are other conflicts which come to the surface fueled by the greed of exploration and set against a conservative background, such as between father and son and the turmoil caused when hope is lost in "saving" the community from speculative exploration.

Daniel Day Lewis is an intense and expressive actor who gets into his roles much as a method actor would, by being very much "in character". He deserved the nomination for best actor in 2008.

When the novice filmmaker starts he has to see what professional people he is going to work with unless of course this is a student film and there is no budget for professional staffing or the filmmaker decides to work with his classmates to produce a project for a term project. Professional or not, ideally the filmmaker should respect the people he is going to work with in order to get moving smoothly.

I once found myself on a set equipped with a volunteer and then the producer decided to throw shit at the staff for having kept the production going into the wee hours of the morning. That negative discourse was counterproductive because it created resentment among the actors too who were required to stay awake longer than planned. So the filmmaker should keep to his schedule even if that means spending the extra money to keep the location for another day.

Dick and Jane is an example of the modern suburban: the guy does not want to give up his shot at being a vice-president and the girl wants her husband to be rational about his expectations.

The story begins with the couple living in a wealthy home Dick is not far from his promotion but does not see his boss's escape scheme behind it. Soon enough he has to present a report on company spending but that turns out as an investor bailout; investors cancel their stock. Dick gets home and tells his wife, who just quit her job, that there are no worries as he will find something soon. Whatever the couple finds leads to a desperate rush for some stability as the value of their property drops; they cannot hold down any work and end up selling their belongings. It is all treated humoristically with the couple discussing their downfall in a pit outside their emptied home. Stealing becomes the only answer and even there, there is the humour of a couple pretending they can become mean over night.

This is a nice light comedy that one may introduce to language classes in order for the learner to try to follow the action without looking at the subtitles.

Emma does not seem the type of woman I would like to meet even thought the author is supposed to love all her characters. Masterpiece theatre did a good job of showing her absence of forethought. When a simple girl like Harriet was dissuaded to fall further in love with a farmer. Mr. Martin this apparently was Emma's first mistake. She could have allowed her friend make up her own decision without interfering. Mr McKnight, who was landed gentry, criticized her for her meddlesome behaviour although one might wonder how he could have voiced his opinion so blatantly. This is where the telefilm could have improved: by having McKnight talking with Emma earlier and then build up a conflict between them.

As it stood, this gentleman would always be confrontational with Emma and one wondered what his relationship was in the first place. We know from the film and book this was no brother, sister relationship and he looked after her when she was small. It appeared that he had no romantic interest in any single lady there if all he was after was supervision of public parties, or so it seemed.

Emma would show a lack of wit regarding her opinions and even her popularity even further by criticizing Bates for being a chatterbox. She was then made aware of the role the older lady had in helping her in life.

The film lacks in showing several other essential developments that the story might have better touched on such as the relationship between other couples. Mr. Churchill and Miss Fairfax were actually engaged and yet that gentleman came across as a total stranger. The film story gradually gets to a point where Emma reaches a moment of looking inside and sees that Harriet could determine her own future and that happens just at the turning point where she meets McKnight again. One wonders if she is going to refuse his overtures but happily she does not. Here is your classic "happily ever after" ending as all is not lost.

There are changes of character I was able to appreciate more such as the old pharaoh coming to terms with Moses' treachery when he was treated as part of the Egyptian court. Yul Brenner was not always the hot-tempered Ramses that I took him for especially when he was challenged by the plagues.

Even the lesser roles such as that of Edward Robinson as an overseer stood out in all his arrogance as he informed Moses treason and became a favorite controller. Was all the grandeur of Moses forcefully leaving Goshen necessary? I still think the trek was exaggerated; mind you this is a bible film. So I care less about Moses squeezing what little water when he walks across the Sinai and care less about the flame on the mount that never consumed the holy "bush" according to legend.

The acting of the Israelites seems more flowing than it did years ago, compared to how the Egyptians performed. Perhaps it had to do with how they were meant to carry themselves. Besides the Hebrews were in Egypt as brick makers and not required to show any regal behavior. One thing that I thought was over done was the way the starlets would be hanging around Moses' neck. There was the romantic balance to the quest for truth and the exodus that must have been added to lighten the seriousness of Moses' return. I thought his change of character after having seen the object of his belief was needlessly exaggerated. Was Ramses' queen so hooked to him as to think that his view on freedom was secondary to her beauty? One can only speculate.

1. The actor should come to an audition with a head shot and resume even if that has been sent via email because there is always the likelihood that his material was not printed out prior to the interview
2. The actor should always have a monologue prepared in case he is asked to audition for a theater role. He should have looked at his sides if he has to audition for a film part. The English system in Canada does not require the actor to know his lines off by heart but it is common for French directors to expect actors to know their lines.
3. The actor should be polite and not inquisitive. He is not there to interview the director or producer who has a list of people to test.
4. The actor should not expect a call back just because he has come to the audition and a no call means that the actor has not been selected. If the actor represents himself he could call the production company and try to get some feedback within a reasonable amount of time.
5. The actor should be as relaxed as possible and adapt to the situation at hand. If asked to give a range of emotions then he should try to make then as distinct as possible one from the next.
6. The director will know whether the actor is inexperienced by looking into the camera lens, so the resume should reflect what the actor knows
7. Some roles may continue on indefinitely when a film is cast. It is up to the actor to keep in touch with the director to find when the next shooting date is, in order to be informed. The world would be to good a place to live if all directors informed actors spontaneously.
8. Actors might have to run after production companies for a video clip of their role. They should allow the company time for the product to be marketed and should supply an address where their demo can be mailed.
9. An actor who is versatile is more likely to get work. If he can sing and dance as well as act those are pluses and the director might value that. This information and other information, which would set him apart from the next, should be on the resume.
10. The resume should be updated at least once a year, the head shot can go unchanged for a little longer but the actor should keep in mind that a change of look should be a signal for him to have a new photo shoot or for him to have new pictures