The Hobbit - unexpectedly boring

I must admit, I was extremely disappointed last year (December 2012 to be exact) when I was not able to catch up "The Hobbit" in cinema. I've been waiting it for years to arrive in the big screen so just imagine the exasperation I felt when it was finally shown and no one to go with.

Fast forward April 2013, after doing some DVD marathon and became greatly enchanted with Legend of the Seeker series, I tried to go back to the Lord of the Rings finest days by re-watching the three installments because it has something to do with my fascination towards Legend.

Legend and Lord have so many things in common. They shared the same genre - fantasy adventure. Both were filmed in the breathtaking valleys and wilderness of New Zealand, in fact when you watched it successively, you will notice the identical location of each scene. They had almost the same concept --- quest and wizardry. But the similarities ended up there.

While Lord of the Rings executed some of the finest sound and visual effects the world cinema had ever known, there's one important ingredient missing -- the magical quest of romance. Everyone loves fantasy but it is more appealing and spellbinding if two people moving on the big screen, fighting enemies, riding the thrill of spell and magic have at least some personal issues to battle on --- affairs of the heart.

You know amidst the terrible hurdles of saving the world and mankind in the fantasy world, fulfilling the mission, defeating evils and tyrants, viewers are still looking for that pang of magic sprung from the human heart -- that is to see the heroes and heroines fall in love. It makes the movie experience more exciting and memorable. 

It is what makes us relate. We cannot be like Frodo or Gandalf or Arwen or Legolas but we can at least felt love amidst the chaos in our surroundings. This important ingredient of romance in an epic adventure is what makes Legend of the Seeker different. We cannot be like Richard the seeker or Kahlan Amnell the confessor or Darken Rahl the tyrant or Cara Mason the Mord-Sith but we can at least felt love, fall in love just like them.

So after doing marathon on both shows, I remember what I had missed last December 2012 and since I am currently in the spell of magic and could not get over with the fantasy and tricks, I've decided to finally buy a copy of "The Hobbit". Its significance to my latest obsession is massive, aside from being the prequel of Lord of the Rings, the film is also shot in New Zealand.

So one lazy evening, I started watching it.

I don't know if it's for my senses, my mood at the moment, the DVD copy I bought or my obsession towards Legend of the Seeker, but after one hour I began to take a deep long breath, releasing fits of sigh and yawn, clear signal that I am slowly entering the parameter of extreme boredom.

Thirty minutes later I began hitting the "forward" button of my laptop. At first, I thought the trouble was in the DVD copy I bought so I stopped forwarding and patiently followed each scene, I even went back to the beginning of the film. But I could not really take it, not that I didn't understand the sequences of the film or scarcely grasped the adventure-of-the-elves plot but the entire thing is really tedious and awfully exasperating. 

I just can't believe it! The Hobbit, with all its glory and fantasy, is painfully boring and dull! Now I am very thankful I did not waste my money catching it in cinema.

what the story is trying to prove? It was just a simple journey of a wizard and elves in the barren mountain to reclaim a Dwarf Kingdom with dragons and goblins as nemeses, a story that can only be told in 30 minutes but stretched to almost three hours. If I am the student of that storytelling class I would be scrambling at my feet and left the room instantly.

The point of the story is just to lay a framework for Lord of the Rings so Bilbo Baggins was put into the center of the story and thrust to the scene where he must fell into the dark cave and encounter this ghastly creature named Gollum and take the ring and plunged the world into darkness, that's it no more no less.

And as if to add a little spike of history, the plot incorporated the concept where Bilbo prepared a book that chronicled his journey with the elves and obviously in finding the ring of power. His intention is to leave the book to Frodo, his nephew, so that well, maybe, when he is gone, his quest will be remembered sort of thing.

But I don't know, maybe I am too idealistic when it comes to fantasy adventure genre and I am looking for some elements which could not be provided with The Hobbit. But personally, well, I just realized there's no need to film The Hobbit to understand Lord of the Rings.

And to my shocking glory I read that the unexpected journey is just the first installment of the three film series of The Hobbit, oh my God! Please do not make it a series! What a catastrophe. One installment is enough! 

Reviews from film critics are unflattering and it scored 66% in rotten tomatoes which means The Hobbit did not live to the hype of fantasy, it did not meet expectations of a memorable film.

Legend of the Seeker

This TV series was cancelled in 2010 after only two seasons and 46 episodes, reports had it that the company that produced the show went bankrupt and no network was able to pick up the series when it ended.

I just got a DVD copy of Legend of the Seeker so I am quite late joining the "Save Our Seeker" campaign in the web organized by fans all over the world calling for the series renewal. As of April 2013, no words heard from the production whether Legend of the Seeker will come to life again.

But as a fantasy adventure genre fanatic, I am hoping the series will be renewed soon and relived the magic and fun once more, it is the only extreme adventure series I ever got interested with maybe because I find the story very enchanting and beautiful.

I did not read the book of Terry Goodkind (to which Legend of the Seeker was based) before watching the series  so I'm kinda enjoying it because if I did maybe I will be disappointed too just like other people who had read the book long before the series started.

When I watched the two seasons of Legend on DVD I was so captivated with its enormous production value, the magic, the spell, the fighting sequences and the fascinating love story of Richard and Kahlan, the seeker and the confessor respectively destined to join forces to undertake the delicate mission of seeking the truth, but in order for the seeker to be triumphant in his quest, he must pay a high prize of not falling inlove with his confessor.

According to an ancient belief, the seeker and the confessor could never consummate their romance because it would enslave the seeker and become dependent to the confessor making him ineffective in his quest. In the series, Richard and Kahlan fought hard to resist their feelings. But to my surprise when I read the synopsis of Sword of Truth of Goodkind in the net, I found out Richard and Kahlan got married!Ohh how it happened??

So now, I am more excited and eager than ever to see the series renewed to find out other big surprises unfolded in the book. In the season two finale, there was an interesting hint mentioned that after the seeker  successfully sealed the rift that divided the underworld and the world of the living, he will face another powerful enemy. The "hint" sounds very interesting.

For the meantime while waiting for its "resurrection", here are some interesting "look-back" of the series:

Legend of the Seeker, produced by Sam Raimi (Spiderman fame) is a fantasy adventure series in the tradition of Lord of the Rings with breathtaking fight scenes, visual effects, stunning production design and shot against the backdrop of New Zealand's natural wonders of rolling hills, picturesque mountain, scenic streams and valleys. It is loosely based on the book written by Terry Goodkind "Sword of Truth" and just like Lord of the Rings, Legend is entirely shot in New Zealand.

The story  follows a young and hunky woodsman, Richard Cypher, who was bound to fulfill the ancient prophecy to become the seeker of truth and restore peace and harmony in the new world. His quest brought him to many places and villages conquering obstacles and wars along the way. His mission was guided by the beautiful confessor, Kahlan Amnell and the Wizard of the First Order, Zed Zorander, who was also his grandfather.

Craig Horner and Bridget Regan played Richer Cypher, the seeker, and Kahlan Amnell, the mother confessor respectively in the Legend of the Seeker series. 

Main Characters:

Richard Cypher - played by Australian actor, Craig Horner. A simple woodsman and expert tracker of the trail, his life revolved around his father, George Cypher and brother, Michael Cypher, the head of the Hartland until one day a mysterious beautiful woman, Kahlan Amnell, came to their place in search of a seeker. One accident prompted him to go to Zed Zorander uncovering the truth of his existence that he is the child of prophecy destined to carry the sword of truth and defeat the evil tyrant, Darken Rahl. Richard traveled with Kahlan and Zed to the Midlands to fulfill this prophecy.

Kahlan Amnell - played by Bridget Regan. She belongs to an ancient order of gifted women known as confessors sworn to find the truth by unleashing magical powers through confession. Her mission was to find the seeker and protect him  to fulfill the quest, the journey brought her to Hartland. Unfortunately, her confession gift made her unable to fall in love with the seeker because this will enslave him.

Zed Zu'l Zorander - played by Bruce Spence. One of the much-loved characters in the series, Zed is the wizard of the first order who is bound to protect the seeker of truth. He often unleashed his magical power through a wizard's blaze of fire and transforming things into another. He is also a grandfather of Richard Cypher.

Cara Mason - played by Tabrett Bethell. She is a mord-sith, a deadly order of women trained to protect Darken Rahl, therefore sworn to kill the seeker, the wizard and the confessor but when the boxes of orden exploded she traveled to the future with Richard and the sorceress, Shota, told her to cooperate with Richard in defeating the master Rahl to return to the present day. Cara then joined Richard, Zed and Kahlan in their journey to find the stone of tears. As a mord-sith she is immune to magic, she can also give a breath of life to a dead person. She appeared on the last episode of the first season and went on to join the team of Richard in the second season.

Darken Lord Rahl - played by New Zealander actor, Craig Parker who also appeared in the Lord of the Rings as Haldir of Lorien (Fellowship of the Rings and Two Towers). He performed dark magic and tricked people to bend on his will, an evil leader of the House of Rahl who killed his father, he raised powerful soldiers to capture villages and vanished enemies. A prophecy was told that he will be defeated by his half-brother, Richard the seeker, his ultimate hope to conquer the whole world and enslave people is to get the three boxes of orden.

The first and second seasons were based from the first two series of Sword of Truth book: Wizard's First Rule and Stone of Tears. In season one, Richard's mission was to defeat Darken Rahl and in season two, he will have to find the stone of tears to close the rift that suddenly opened when the box of orden exploded. The rift threatened to conquer the world of the living by the keeper of the underworld sending lost souls called banelings to the earth to kill mankind.

Lots of surprises revealed and more exciting and gripping episodes were shown but when I read the synopsis of the Sword of Truth book of Terry Goodkind I was a little bit surprise with some of the diversions of the story.

In the book, Darken Rahl was the father of Richard but in the series he was Richard's half brother. In the book, Panis Rahl was the father of Darken Rahl who was killed by Zed's blaze of wizard's fire but in the series he was the father of both Darken Rahl and Richard and was killed first by Darken Rahl and second by the sisters of the dark. In the book, Cara Mason, a mord-sith who joined Richard in his quest, was a straight woman who eventually falls in love with a general in the D'Haran army and married but in the series, she was a lesbian and had a relationship with her fellow mord-sith, Dahlia and seemed stoic with emotions. In the book, Richard and Kahlan got married but in the series, it seemed they could not, due to Kahlan's power that would be unleashed the moment they will consummate their feelings.

But despite these differences, I still love to continue the series and still hoping for its renewal soon, I am not really particular of the story diversion as long as it is beautifully made into a motion picture with lots of entertainment value, surprises and magical scenes, the "unfaithfulness" of the series would be quickly forgiven. 

Well, Legend of the Seeker is a kind of series I would love to waste my precious two hours in a day because there's no boring moment! The splendid scenes are just so gratifying, in fact I could not postpone watching the succeeding episodes due to its thrilling sequences. Lots of efforts were put in every episode and I could see how the stars labored hard to do their part to make the scenes very real and convincing. The boy listener  was so cute and adorable!Bruce Spence was so perfect in his role as a wizard of the first order, Zed.

Though I was fed up with the series' inconsistency and immaterial script in the second season (for example why Richard had to be killed only to revive later? It has no significant connection to the whole episode and why they named a new seeker when the story itself revealed that Richard is the only true seeker born in over a thousand years? Totally unnecessary script) but in general it was really enchanting worthy of my time. When you watched it, you could not believe it's just a TV series due to its enormous production cost on costumes and visual effects. It was really beautiful and stunning, it's like watching a full length movie in a theater.

What I love about this series is its ability to offer total entertainment, fascination and thrills to the viewers, every scene is very exciting you could never guess what's next. It is a mix of humor, drama, surprises, displays of magic and sorcery, wisdom and discoveries about the wonders of fairytale and fantasy and of course romance.

The Legend of the Seeker team. From left, Kahlan Amnell the confessor (Bridget Regan), Richard Cypher the seeker (Craig Horner), Cara Mason (Tabett the mord-sith who sided with the seeker after she was betrayed by her fellow 

mord-sith sisters and Zed Zorander the Wizard of the First Order and Richard's grandfather 

Unlike Lord of the Rings, Legend of the Seeker presented the human side not only magic and wizardry things. A dash of romance, humor and compassion made Legend more interesting and fun, it has a balance of both worlds.

Although there were noticeable loopholes (I don't understand why a new seeker will be named and why Darken Rahl must be resurrected) and other critics said the show was not faithful to the book of Goodkind, it was nevertheless spellbinding and mesmerizing and yes, the wisdom I gained was enormous.

Wizard's first rule as mentioned by Zed Zorander: 
"People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they are afraid it might be true"

"Sometimes making the wrong choice is better than making no choice. You have the courage to go forward, that is rare. A person who stands at the fork, unable to pick, will never get anywhere".

Wizard's second rule as mentioned by Richard when he was trapped in the Palace of the Prophets: 
"The greatest harm can result from the best intentions"

I am hoping this series will be renewed soon or at least made into a movie. For the mean time while waiting for a "miracle", I'll keep my self busy re-watching the 46 episodes on DVD hehe!

Helen of Troy

Email this to a friend

Get an original DVD copy of this epic miniseries about the extraordinary beauty of Helen, Queen of Sparta, who had caused the Trojan War. Available at Amazon as low as $4.87. 

Helen of Troy is a 2003 American TV miniseries starring Sienna Guillory. I just watched it last night on DVD and quite puzzled with the run-up of the story, nevertheless, it spurred my interest to dig more on the classical Greek Tragedy plays.

I've been a passionate reader of European history and Wars and fascinated about Greek mythology and its connection to the classical Greece so every time I stumbled on TV series/Films that have something to do with Europe I wasted no time watching it.

Though I never read the full details of Illiad and Odyssey by Homer, I'd read some portion of these two poems, well, most particularly the fascinating Trojan War, maybe because I was intrigued why Helen was called the most beautiful woman in the world and the face "that could launch a thousand ships".

In Homer's Illiad, the Trojan War ignited when Paris, the second son of King Priam of Troy seduced Helen, who was already married to Melaneus, Prince of Mycenae and who became King of Sparta after Helen's step-father, King Tyndareus, abdicated. Paris and Helen became lovers and eloped to Troy which angered Melaneus and gathered other Kings, including his tyrant brother, Agamemnon who married Helen's sister, Clytemnestra, to launch war against Troy in order to take back Helen to Sparta. 

In this 2003 miniseries, I was confused with how the story presented. Some of the facts, especially on the important characters, were not told accurately. In Homer's Illiad, Helen was said to be a demigoddess as a daughter of Zeus (god of the Heaven in Greek Mythology) and Leda, the wife of Tyndareus. Helen had three half-siblings through her mother: Clytemnestra, Castor and Pollux, but in the miniseries, she had only two siblings: Clytemnestra and Pollux.

In the classical Greek tragedy story, Tyndareus accepted Helen as his own daughter and became very protective of her and was very cautious to accept a suitable princely suitor for her but in the miniseries, the King detested Helen and even condemned her for causing the death of Pollux when he rescued her from the hand of Theseus, leaving no legitimate future King for Sparta. Tyndareus then angrily announced to the visiting Princes and Kings to decide who among them would take Helen as a bride.

Other loopholes: It was not revealed in the series that Helen and Menelaus had children though in Homer's poem, the two had one daughter and two sons, in the series these facts were omitted. Hector, the Prince of Troy and older brother of Paris, was married to Andromache and had a son, he was considered as the best warrior of Troy, leader of the army and the noblest among the sons of King Priam, however, in the series, Hector was single and was depicted as a non-fighter. In Illiad, Paris was killed by Philoctetes while in the series, he was killed by Agamemnon. There was another element in Illiad that was missing, the other son of King Priam--Deiphobus, who, after the death of Paris had married Helen and was killed by Melaneus later.

Nevertheless, Helen of Troy, was an interesting miniseries retelling Homer's Illiad, it was told in a very simple  concept free from complications.

I enjoyed epic fantasy adventure and historical movies, so I watched this film four times --- last night and this morning---to understand better how the modern version of the classic Greek tragedy was presented. If you are into epic films, Helen of Troy (2003) is a good choice, very worthy of your time. 

-->

The Stepfather

A suspense/crime motion picture created by Nicholas McCormick. It is a story of a cold-blooded murderer whose mission in life is to marry a single mother in order for him to have a house and a family, he uses his charm and down-to-earth-make-believe appeal to lure single mothers to his bait, but when his position is threatened or when he noticed he could not dominate the family, his diabolic instinct start to surface.

In the opening of the film, someone called Grady Edwards (Dylan Walsh) is seen shaving and preparing to leave his house, the environment appeared quiet and relax as he was preparing his breakfast—coffee and toast bread—in the kitchen and even turned on the component and played a Christmas song.

At first I was thinking he would be going to a vacation as he was preparing two luggage and would temporarily lock his house, but the horrifying truth later on revealed when the scene of the murder was slowly shown in the background while Edwards was drinking coffee. Not far from where he was standing, three lifeless bodies scattered, a mother and her three children, the weapons used in the killing were put on each side of the body and at the kitchen sink.

Grady Edwards glanced casually at the living room where the dead were lying, then slowly picked his bags and closed the door, he left the garage with his car and roared away. Later, the Salt Lake City Police Department reported the murder and concluded the stepfather as the perpetrator of the crime but he remained at large and nobody knows where he is. The Stepfather changed identity when he arrived at Oregon. Now, Grady Edwards is looking for another victim and assumed another identity, David Harris.

Using his usual charm, he went to the grocery store and met Susan Harding (Sela Ward), a recently divorced woman with three children, she was attracted instantly and not long after, David moved to her home.  Her son, Michael, was surprised to find another man in their house. Then Michael became very suspicious with David, this doubt was intensified when one of their neighbours told his mother that America's Most Wanted ran a story about a missing serial killer that resembled David's face.

David realized he could not dominate this family. One stormy evening, Susan found David in the kitchen holding a knife and chased her, Michael, who already knew his biological father had been killed by David and kept in the basement's freezer, ran to his mother's side and rescued her. After minutes of chasing, running and fighting at the rooftop, David and Michael fall to the ground unconscious. The film's next scene revealed Michael being wheeled to the hospital. David surprisingly escaped and assumed another identity, Chris Ames, looking for another single mother to victimize again.

What puzzled me with this film is how the story ended. I mean why on earth David Harris was not arrested when the family of Susan Harding survived? They could have reported it to the police that Grady Edwards and David Harris are the same, after all Chris Ames did not change much of his physical features and looked exactly the same. I found too many inconsistencies in the film too like why Susan immediately woke up at the commotion downstairs where in fact she took up a sleeping pill?Why David was not confined in the hospital when he had a bad wound around his neck (Susan Harding stabbed him with a broken glass at the neck) and even managed to be employed in the grocery shop again? Michael did not see his father being smashed by David with crystals where in fact Michael looked down below where the body of his father was exactly located.

Well, suspense other wise, this film guarantees good entertainment and thrill never mind the loopholes.

The Lovely Bones

This film was released in 2009 and earned an Oscar nomination for Best Picture in 2010, but I just watched it  on DVD the other night, hmm so this insight might be too late. Anyway...

The movie is quite impressive at first with a startling narration of the lead character, Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), that she was only 14 years old when she was murdered on December 6, 1973, and upon hearing it well, I was more excited to finish the film.

I was expecting a hardcore drama, afterall it is a Peter Jackson film (his best known films are Lord of the Rings series and KingKong), flawless script and yes, justice at the conclusion of the film but none of it happened, and so, just like other people who expressed disappointments with the outcome of this film, me too was slightly frustrated.

The Lovely Bones retells a story of a young girl whose dreams and hopes for a bright future and whose excitement of having a first crush were cut-short drastically when at the age of 14 she was murdered by their neighbor, Mr. George Harvey, with motives I did not understand as his character as a psychopath or a murderer was never established until the credits finally shown. The film has a powerful casts: Mark Wahlberg plays Susie's father, Rachel Weisz plays her mother and Susan Sarandon as her eccentric grandmother, but the script did not do justice to their acting prowess.

It was a wonderful story if you try to look at it, you could just imagine the suspense how Susie was murdered and how her family struggled to locate her body which was locked in the vault and kept by Harvey at his house and how her parents exerted effort to seek justice, the beautiful narration by Susie herself which resonated wisdom, the after-life scenes and her soul's struggle to accept her death and how she finally let go of her pain to allow her family to move on with their lives, pumped excitement, thrill and warmth. But the development and progress of the film did not quite sets well with the logic the story tried to present. 

Saoirse Ronan plays Susie Salmon in the movie, The Lovely Bones

Most reviews say that this film concentrated more on creating visual effects, especially on the afterlife scenes, rather than on character development. It was a good movie material, but failed to justify each idea presented and its logic messed up at the finale. The only saving grace in the film is the way Susie narrated her story and how her family drifted apart trying to cope up with her loss and get back together. 

Towards the end, Susie explained that The Lovely Bones refers to the people who had helped her realized she was extremely precious and loved, people who inspired us and who gave her wisdom--her parents, her siblings and the girl who can see dead people (this girl let her body be used by Susie to be with the man Susie had fallen in love while still alive).

But the script is simply vague. I could not understand why Susie's sister, who was presented in the film as somewhat genius, did not give the strong evidence (Harvey's diary, which she got when she sneaked to his house and almost caught) to her parents and even to her grandmother to reopen the case. I could not understand also why Jackson allowed Harvey to safely leave the place, carried the vault where Susie's body was kept and thrown it somewhere. Harvey died in the end but the manner of his death was so funny that I found myself laughing.

I don't know but I found this film so illogical, futile and too many loopholes. Anyway just watch it for yourself.

Harper's Island

Harper’s Island is a 2009 murder-suspense series created for television by Ari Schlossberg. 

I had a chance to watch the full episode on DVD before the series had its finale at Studio 23 (TV channel in the Philippines) so the excitement was something different because I was able to watch it uninterrupted. This is great for people who loved suspense story. Well, in a stark contrast to other American TV series, Harper's Island is designed only for one season.

Abby Mills and Henry Dunn (Ellaine Cassidy and Christopher Gorham). Photo taken from About.com

The story has so many twists and thrills and I love the way the gruesome death of each character was presented not that I am very morbid who enjoyed seeing people being tortured to death but the story is everything I want for a suspense-thrilling drama. If your stomach and appetite could not tolerate gores and blood and heinous crime then this series is not for you, but for me who extremely adored horror and morbid film and TV series, this is really perfect!

The anxiety of who will be the next character to be sliced and diced and the identity of the killer(s), offered so much thrill. The most intriguing part of this series is the mysterious identity of the killer, though the name of John Wakefield frequently appeared in each character's dialogue, it remains a mystery who  he is. In fact, I thought he was just a ghost or a legend in the island.

The story kicks on the yacht, at the pre-wedding party of Henry Dunn (played by Christopher Gorham) and Trish Wellington (Katie Cassidy), the wedding will take place at the breathtaking Harper’s island. Sailing with them are their closest friends and family. Trish is a rich girl whose father, Thomas Wellington (Richard Burgi) a real estate mogul, is less enthusiastic on the idea of having Henry Dunn, a middle class gentleman, to be his son-in-law, and he wants to stop the wedding at all cost. Nevertheless, everything seems perfect when the boat left the dock.

Then the first murder happened.

While celebrating above the yacht, Trish's cousin, Ben Wellington, was tied up below the boat near the propeller and when the boat's engine roared, Ben was presumed dead and chopped by the propeller as the water was contaminated with blood. 


But I wondered why they did not notice his disappearance. Most of the crime in this series remained unnoticed and no traces of any footprints of the killer, the murder was perfectly executed. I was clueless also of who is the real killer since none of them appeared or looked very suspicious and there were no strangers visiting the island.


At first I attempted to analyse the behaviour of each character hoping to get some hints.

Uncle Marty Dunn, Henry’s protective uncle is presented as a man who will do anything to assure his nephew’s safety within the Wellington family, he was seen at yacht’s cabin preparing his gun with bundles of money though it was not clearly explained why such a move. Thomas Wellington is seen as a sarcastic person with selfishness rolled under his sleeves, pretending he adored his future son-in-law but secretly planned to disrupt his daughter’s wedding by dragging Hunter Jennings, Trish’s former lover, into the scene. Henry Dunn is presented as a full-fledge Knight-in-a-shining armor who will do anything just to protect his future bride and his friends. Abby Mills, who left Harper's Island when she was still a teenager and went to the U.S to overcome the trauma of her mother’s murder, is a serious girl who is still haunted with her mother’s killer. Henry’s good buddies: Malcolm, Danny, Booth and Sully are pictured with contrasted personalities but had endearing characters, through out the series, the adventure of these fun loving guys are both funny and sad as series of misfortunes dominated their happy dispositions.

Trish’s sister Shea Allen contented just to be in the background carrying a heavy baggage with her troubled marriage to Richard Allen who conducted an illicit affair with, of all people, his step mother-in-law, Katherine Wellington. Shea and Richard has a daughter Madison whose creepy annoying character sometimes bores viewers, unlike other Kids in any TV series, Madison’s role in Harper’s overshadowed her innocence that made you wished she never existed in the series at all. 


The island’s sheriff, Charles Mills (Jim Beaver), who is still grieving the death of his wife six years ago, appears calm and protective of his daughter, Abby and unlikely to be the killer. Abby  was invited by Henry to go back to Harper’s to take part of the wedding, they are childhood friends, when she came back, past seems to resurface including her old flame, the gorgeous Jimmy Mance(CJ Thomason) and the horror of remembering her mother’s brutal killing. Henry has a brother named JD, whose gothic and disturbing character and scary tattoos all over his body, made me suspect he is one of the killers.

CJ Thomason, one of the cute dudes in Harper's Island

Well, the dreadful and most surprising truth came out on the last three episodes.


The plot aims to kill one person each night or day, but for a story with one week pre-wedding celebration as a backdrop, one season looks like too long to stretch out the story without any inconsistencies. As each character was killed, it was surprising that none of them was aware that one is already rotten elsewhere unless the body is accidentally discovered. For a small island of only 26 km wide and 2 km long and with only 25 people in the entourage billeted in the hotel-like home, it is sometimes impossible to think that murders left unnoticed.

Everybody in the group was convinced that the murderer was the man named John Wakefield, a legendary killer who had been involved in the killing rampage six years ago that claimed the lives of several people including Abby Mills’s mother. Though Abby’s father, the island’s sheriff, is certain he already killed the man, the rest of the party was not convinced. Wakefield showed up in the final two episodes with a shocking revelation that Henry was his son with Abby’s mother and his ultimate accomplice.

But there are some light scenes in the series, the tender love story of Abby and Jimmy, which Schlossberg decided to save up to the last episode and let them survived the killing rampage, the great affection of Trish to her father, the Sheriff’s effort to protect his daughter Abby and Cal’s devotion to his girlfriend, Chloe.

Though in general, Harper’s Island is a fine TV series with lots of cute dudes, it carried some residue of confusion and loopholes, the common problem encountered when the story of one week is stretched to three months. Though I greatly adored how this series crafted and the scenes always made me go back to think Wez Craven’s Scream in a more sentimental way, I was nevertheless confused and disappointed why it did not emphasize the murderous behavior of Henry Dunn, because it was such an important turning point of his character and in the series. 

Although murder scenes should not be necessarily put in a vivid detail, it should be at least highlighted with importance. For instance, how Henry Dunn carried out the murders of Malcolm and his brother JD, which is downright morbid considering his close relationship to the two, it could be otherwise acceptable if the production conducted the horrible scenes through flashbacks and see how he executed his cold-blooded actions. 

The major twist of Henry Dunn's character was wasted in just a light revelation that he was the accomplice of Wakefield who turned out to be his father; it was so shallow with no traces of gross, it betrayed the real purpose of the story to leave an impression of gripping thrill and suspense. The presentation was too focused in holding viewers’ excitement on the killings that it did forget to give emphasis on Henry Dunn’s final moment of revelation about his true nature.

The reason of killings is a bit trivial; it was very futile that in the end it sounds very funny rather than sad. It could be nice if the story was woven in a more dangerous reason in such a way that viewers made to agree with Dunn and Wakefield that victims deserved to die in such gruesome ways. As casts doomed to slice, shot, hung and stabbed, the story hastened up to reach the final episode.

But the amusing thing about this series is that none of the leading casts knew they would be killed, Chris Gauthier who played Malcolm Ross, revealed that he first auditioned for the character of Booth but production switched him to Malcolm. He also said that he was clueless who among them was going to be the Killer, he first suspected Danny. He also described how he would be killed, originally according to Gauthier, he will be chopped in full view of the camera, but the writer decided to just show off his bloody hands because his screaming and the sound of chopping are enough, to avoid a gruesome scene. Malcolm Ross was killed near the incinerator when he was about to repent from taking bundles of money and left his friend, Booth, to die in the forest.

Nevertheless, Harper’s Island is a good breather for today’s boring soap operas and TV shows where everything seems settled to remakes and adaptations. It is entertaining, could throb heart beat in some instances and could shake veins of people who had low tolerance of gores, never mind if the plot is not properly written. Consequently, the murder scenes are tailored for decent public viewing and cleverly executed for entertainment purposes. Even with few lapses in the story, still, Harper’s Island is one of the best suspense series I'd ever watched in television.

This is a reposted article from my Triond blog: Read it HERE

PIRATES OF THE SILICON VALLEY

This is a 1999 film directed by Martyn Burke (but I just saw this docudrama the other night) and narrates the story how Steve Jobs and Bill Gates came into the world's consciousness as unbeatable computer geniuses and how they founded the business empires, Apple and Microsoft, respectively, which would dominate the landscape of computer technology in the new millennium.

The film actually is not an episode-type presentation because the story  was not divided into two episodes but just jumped from one scene to another, compressing the unparalleled destinies of these two billionaires into one. They shared so many comparison and contradiction, including fierce competition--how Gates gasped in awe about the magic Apple portrayed in the world of electronic gadgets and how they meet and eventually accused one another of "stealing" an idea about a certain discovery--They are indeed Silicon Valley's most formidable rivals.

Though their stories are compressed in a single film, the concept is not confusing because each scene distinguishes Jobs (played by Noah Wyle) and Gates (Anthony Michael Hall) through the narrators, Steve Wozniak (played by Joey Slotnick) for Jobs and Steve Balmer (John DiMaggio) for Gates.

The film opens with Jobs (Wyle) talking closely to the camera explaining something about electrons and the new era of computers. He was in his ecstatic mood because the crew of an advertisement company will going to create a commercial that would portray Apple as the new "charm" of technology in the 20th century by introducing a Macintosh personal computer.

Most scenes center on Steve Jobs but I don't like the way the story presented because it portrays him as someone who is obsessed about spirituality (Jobs is a Buddhist) and created the philosophy of Apple with the spiritual dimension he is in. I cringed in desperation also when I saw one episode where he put his feet on top of the table during a meeting with one of the IBM executives and blurted an offensive line "are you still a virgin?" I mean what the hell is that? Jobs is also described in the film as an arrogant boss who occasionally yell and bully employees. But during the Macworld Expo in 1999, Steve Jobs, despite so many inaccuracies in the film, revealed that he was not upset with how his story was presented, he said "Me?Upset?Hey, it's just a movie" this punchline reminded me with Mark Zuckerberg's reaction also when asked about how he felt towards "Social Network" film where he was portrayed as stubborn and ill-tempered. 

World's second richest man, Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft

On the other hand, Bill Gates is presented in the film as someone who is more like an impossible nerd buddy (Anthony Michael Hall walked like a robot and stared at the ceiling like he is a complete drifter and he wore high waist pants!). His story picks on a scene where he played poker with his Harvard classmates and Steve Balmer poked fun at his naivety stating Gates just sleep wherever he could even in a very messy room and bed, but Balmer rebounded by describing Gates as extraordinarily brilliant. While Steve Jobs and his Apple co-founders, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne are on the road of fame and fortune, Bill Gates and his Microsoft co-founders, Paul Allen and Steve Balmer, are still struggling to create a world of their own. But as the story progressed, Microsoft made a surprise leap  into the world of fortune and glory...and the rest is history.

Steve Jobs, the 42nd richest man in the world, founder of Apple Incorporated

This documentary-drama film talks more about the inside story of Apple and Microsoft inventions and how these two high technology companies contrasted with the business philosophies they created, while Microsoft entertained the idea of penetrating deeply into the world of technology, Apple remained devoted to its vision which places art above anything else than commerce (which sets Apple apart from the rest and retaining its top position as world's most admired company). The film tackles a little portion of Steve Jobs's personal life--his ex-girlfriend whom he deserted when she became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter whom Jobs's refused to recognize until the late part of 1990s--but nothing about Bill Gates and until now I am wondering why it did not include the story of Gates marrying Melinda, infact, they already had two children by that time the film came into the theaters.

Anyway, for someone like me who is quite obsessed with how Jobs and Gates came up with fantastic inventions, Pirates of the Silicon Valley is an exciting documentary film to watch. But if you are not into Apple and Microsoft, this film might be too boring. 

My only warning to you is that after watching this film, do not judge Steve Jobs as something like a monster because in real life, well based on other testimonies, he is not entirely what the film is trying to present. Unlike Bill Gates who grew up in a very comfortable and loving family, Steve Jobs was given for adoption by his young mother and grew up shuffling from different relatives, his childhood was a troubled one until he went to India to discover something about himself and became a Buddhist. Of course, this very sensitive aspect of Jobs's personal life was not shown in the film. And whatever happens, I always love Apple (especially Mac, toinkz!). Currently, Jobs is suffering a terminal illness, neuroendocrine cancer, but I am hoping he can fully recover.

By the strange twist of fate, both Jobs and Gates are college drop-outs who managed to find their fame and fortune through their extraordinary talent and intellect. Well, as what Rob Owen of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)  commented "[they are] The Geniuses who transformed not only the way we communicate, but the way we live".

But I am just wondering why they are not the best of friends in real life, Gates's best friend is Warren Buffet, the third richest man in the world while Jobs's best friend is Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle and the world's 5th richest man (according to Forbes magazine).

ROSWELL and TWILIGHT: Their similarities

While reviewing the seasons 1, 2 and 3 episodes of Roswell, my favorite American TV series in 2000, I could not help but think if Stephenie Meyer created her Twilight saga based on the concept of Roswell,  because the similarities of the plot and concept are just so obvious.

ROSWELL

This TV series, which run from 1999 to 2002, is developed and produced by Jason Katims and based on the book series, Roswell High. It retells the story of the UFO who had thought to be seen around Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.

The series starred Jason Behr, Shuri Appleby, Katherine Heigl and Brendan Fehr. The four are students of the Roswell High. Max(Behr), Michael (Fehr) and Isabel (Heigl) knew all too well they are aliens, they had kept their origins secret even to their parents to avoid being turned over to FBI. They assured each other to guard the secret, thus, Isabel strictly reminded Max and Michael not to fall in love with humans. But one day, a fateful accident happened which would forever change the course of their lives.

When Max and Michael took a sandwich break at Crashdown owned by Liz Parker's parents, a shoot out took place and Liz  was shot in the stomach, watching her drenched in blood, Max could not just let her die, his first instinct was to save her, but Michael prevented him because it would expose their real existence, but Max rushed to her side and healed her wounds using his extraordinary alien-power.

Some people in the shop did not notice it but Liz remembered it too well. When they met at their biology class, Liz was curious to find out Max's unlikely existence, so when they performed a scientific experiment in the laboratory, she secretly secured a sample of Max's saliva and put it in the microscope and found a shocking evidence, that he, after all is half-human. She badgered Max to tell her the truth and pursued him---in the school's vacant room-- until the latter told him his secret, after few more episode, of course, they eventually fall in love.

TWILIGHT

The Twilight saga, which made into a blockbuster movie series since 2008, is divided into four installments: Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse and Breaking Dawn. The opening story tells us that the Cullens are vampires who chose to live in the county of Fork because the gloomy weather would help them hide their secret.

Bella (Kristine Stewart) had just tranferred to the Fork High School, soon Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) found himself romantically drawn with this beautiful, innocent teenager. But there's something mysterious about Edward that Bella wanted to find out.

Soon, she would uncover the mystery of Edward's changeable eye colors, pale skin and disappearance during day time when the heat of the sun penetrated the surroundings of Fork high school. Edward slowly drawn with this woman's unique charm and innocence. But he is aware he has a secret to protect so he planned to avoid her, but one incident changed everything. When a speeding car almost hit Bella he run to her side and saved her. Bella was curious with his extraordinary strength that she conducted a research and confronted him---they went to the wooded area of Forks High and Edward finally told her his secret. Well, of course, soon, they eventually fall in love.

Alas! These two stories breathed in the same platform: Star-crossed lovers drawn to each other and despite circumstances of their existence, bound to end up together. They would also fight adversities along the way, that would threaten them to drift apart, but in the end, well, as the fairytale story goes...and they lived happily ever-after. Same plot, same concept, same target audience (teens and young adults), same character building.

If you are not yet convince, read the following similarities...

CONCEPT:

Roswell: Alien-based concept with principal characters, who came from two different world, found themselves deeply in love and would soon fight odds to be together. One is alien, the other is human. The alien tried hard to hide his origin, but soon yield to his feelings, confided his secret to the woman he cannot resist. His co-aliens warned him to avoid her because being romantically link to a human would be too dangerous for their secret , but he just cannot resist his emotion, he would soon fall in love to this human through one incident---an almost fatal accident in the coffee shop where she was shot. He saved her.

Twilight: Vampire-based concept with principal characters, who came from two different world, found themselves deeply in love and would soon fight odds to be together. One is vampire, the other is human. The Vampire tried hard to hide his origin by avoiding this human whom he knew he cannot resist. His co-vampires warned him to stay out of her, but his emotion is too hard to ignore, he would soon fall in love with this human through one incident---an almost fatal accident in the parking lot where she was almost hit by a speeding car. He saved her.

In seasons two and three, Roswell concentrated more on alien things, discovering their origins and lots of alien factions were being introduced, alas! Twilight also followed the same path. In the second and third series, New Moon and Eclipse, introduced more vampires and werewolves and concentrated on the conflict between these two groups. Roswell's final season revealed Liz, because of her intense feelings for Max, attracted an alien existence and she too got a supernatural power where she can create fire and so on, they eventually got married. Twilight too has the same format. In the last series, Breaking Dawn, Edward and Bella finally tied the knot and Bella became a vampire and got the vampire's supernatural power!

Diary Narration: And the most obvious connection of all: DIARY! In Roswell, Liz Parker was shown writing her experience of the day in a diary, she also narrates some of the episodes through her diary. In the Twilight saga, the retelling of the story also comes from Bella!

CHARACTERS:

Roswell: Max is so protective of Liz, he made sure he is always there to protect her and watch over her when dangers seemed too close. He tried to resist his feelings but the presence of this woman is so strong that soon he found himself deeply in love with her. His sister Isabel and friend Michael became so furious with his decision but they eventually accepted Max's girlfriend, although Isabel remained hostile to Liz. There's also a sheriff who became close to them and Max had to fight hard with Kyle over Liz's love and attention.

Twilight: Edward is also very protective of Bella and made sure he is always there to protect and watch over her. He also tried to resist his feelings but the presence of this woman is so strong that soon he found himself deeply in love with her. His adoptive siblings Rosalie and Jason were furious with Edward's relationship with Bella but eventually they accepted her although Rosalie remained hostile to her. There's also a sheriff in Twilight, Bella's father, Charlie Swan, and Edward had to fight hard with Jacob over Bella's love and attention.

I don't know if it's only me who noticed the similarities, but I was closely following Roswell in 2000 so I am very familiar with the episode's concept and plot....and what a coincidence, I saw it too in the Twilight saga!

Though the succeeding stories, as the series progressed, followed a slightly different route, the concept and circumstances being introduced are strikingly the same! Roswell concluded its final episode in May 2002 in the US while Twilight book made its public debut in 2005.

The King's Speech

Directed by Tom Hooper, script written by David Seidler. Starring Colin Hirth and Geoffrey Rush, this movie garnered five Oscar awards including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor and Best Art Direction.

The King’s Speech centers on how the stammering habit of King George VI made him a reluctant King and how an Australian Speech Therapist, Lionel Logue, helped him overcome this shortcoming.

While watching this film, I could feel the sincerity of its script writer, David Seidler, in bringing out the truth on the dreaded speech disorder of the late British King. The story is largely based on historical evidence so it is very accurate. In fact most of the scenes and dialogue there can be found in many books about the British royal family. In 2003 I bought a book, “The Royals” by Kitty Kelley and much of the contents of the book are revealed in The King’s Speech.

Based on my research and readings about the British monarchy, King George V, who founded the House of Windsor in 1917, was constantly annoyed with Prince Bertie’s stuttering that he wanted him to increase loads of public engagements to overcome his nervousness. During those years, the King grew tired thinking what will happen to the Kingdom he desperately saved during the terrible period of World War I, when it will be inherited by his fickle-minded heir, Prince David the Prince of Wales, who at 37, still unmarried and was often seen in the company of married women. He had wished his second son, Prince Bertie the Duke of York, to save it from the hands of the Prince of Wales, but the primogeniture succession guaranteed an eldest son only to succeed. Nevertheless, George V was confident the Prince of Wales couldn’t endure the weight of the crown. In the book of Kitty Kelley, the King confided his worry to his aide, “I will pray to God that David won’t have an heir so that nothing could come to the throne except Bertie and Lilibet (Princess Elizabeth). After my death, David will ruin himself and leave the crown to pursue his happiness”…these famous lines were quoted in the film too.

In “Royal Sisters” book by Anne Edwards, I read that several months before his death, George V, was informed that his heir was forming a scandalous affair with a commoner married woman, Wallis Simpson, the King’s concern for the future of the monarchy grew heavier. Unperturbed with the implication of his plan to disinherit the Prince of Wales, George V redesigned his last will testament, though he couldn’t bar David from succeeding, he stripped much of his inheritance and redistributed it to his grandchildren. As the King’s health is failing, Prince Bertie’s anxieties escalated as he had sensed David’s reluctance to remain in the throne without Wallis Simpson at his side.

In January 1936, King George V died and Prince David ascended as King Edward VIII, but eleven months later he abdicated to be with his lover forever, uttering this famous line “I find it impossible to perform my duty as King without the support of the woman I love”, this line was also revealed in the film. Prince Bertie, who dreaded the idea of becoming a King, was forced to pick up the crown. As his hesitation grew, Lionel Logue taught him how to gather confidence and relax, he painstakingly taught the King how to overcome his stammering habit.

Well, the movie was exactly told this way and I am glad the director did not mangle history just like what Philippa Gregory did in the book “The Other Boleyn Girl” which badly distorted the events surrounding Anne Boleyn and her days in the British royal court.

The King’s Speech revolves only on the King’s stuttering habit and not entirely on the history of his family. The important role of Lionel Logue’s in the life of the King was highlighted here. Perhaps the highlight of the film was on the King’s broadcast speech over BBC urging his subjects to unite as the country enters war against Germany which precipitated World War II. It was amazing how Logue’s unique style pumped confidence to the King while struggling to strengthen his speech during the live broadcast. Well, this is one of the most accurate films about the British monarchy I’d ever watched. Very accurate and sincere, no wonder it won the Oscar’s nod.

In real life, well according to British history, King George VI and Lionel Logue became best friends for life, he also awarded Logue with Victorian Cross order, a very rare distinction and honor given by the British monarch to a person who extended a distinguished personal service to the monarch. The King only reigned for 16 years, he died in February 1952 from lung cancer and was succeeded by his eldest daughter, Elizabeth. Lionel Logue died a year later, in 1953. Well, George V’s prophecy proved true. King Edward VIII, who was created Duke of Windsor by his brother, had no children with Wallis Simpson and even if he had, his children would not be in line of succession to the British throne as what he agreed upon renouncing the throne in 1936.

The Mission

This movie garnered 7 nominations at the Academy Awards in 1987 and won Best in Cinematography. Directed by Roland Joffe and starred Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro, The Mission is based on the story of Jesuit missionaries in the 18th century who made a daring mission to Christianize the Guarani tribe in South America.

You will see here the breathtaking Iguazu Falls of South America and its magnificent environment of lush green forest. This movie became number one in the Church Times listing of Best Religious Films of all time. The area where the Guarani tribe is located is in the jungle of Paraguay which was under the protection of Spain, hence, Jesuit missionaries are safe, but when the Treaty of Madrid (dividing the land in South America between Spain and Portugal) was signed, this territory was transferred to Portugal whose monarch disapproved the idea of the mission.

Soon conflict erupted as the Jesuits fought hard to defend the Guarani from the Portuguese who wanted to drive the tribe out of the jungle for the gold reserve in the area. The next scene revealed how the missionaries struggled to keep the tribe safe while devotedly adhered to the sanctity of their mission.  The Church failed to save the missionaries and yielded to the pressure imposed by Portuguese crown, in the end all the missionaries were killed.

  According to the book of Chris Lowney, Heroic Leadership, this was the most daring mission done by the Jesuits in an attempt to spread Catholicism to the world. Very awesome movie, you gotta watch it!

The Insider

This is my original written case analysis about The Insider I submitted in one of my subjects in the graduate school--the Author

The Insider, a critically-acclaimed film directed by Michael Mann, tells a story of a former tobacco company executive who became a celebrated whistleblower in what could have been the greatest scandal of public health issue in US history (uttered by Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino), in one of the scenes in the movie). The film centers on the controversy involving cigarette manufacturers in the United States with its top executives, who appeared on the House of Congress, denying awareness on nicotine’s addictiveness. The film also highlighted the inappropriate media ethics of CBS television station when they shelve the revealing interview of Wigand at the height of nicotine scandal for fear of facing a multi-million dollar law suit.

Its lead character, Jeffrey Wigand, a research scientist, was portrayed in the film as a devoted family man but with a paranoid tendency when under pressure. His short temper made him easily destructed in difficult times. During the interview conducted by Mike Wallace, an anchor in a hit TV show, 60 Minutes on CBS, Wigand revealed that he was fired from his previous job because of some issues on his behavior, emphasizing that when he gets angry, he has difficulty censoring himself, he added that he doesn’t like to be pushed around too.

Lowell Bergman was described in the film as someone who value integrity and ethical practice in the field of journalism. He built his reputation around delivering newsworthy and truthful stories. His responsibility as a producer of 60 Minutes was to make sure every detail of the story is fairly delivered. His dedication towards news reporting and as a media man portrayed him as someone who would fight for what is right and just. Bergman personifies what a media man should be---strong, determined, principled and fearless.

Mike Wallace, on the other hand, characterized as somebody who is pompous and self-conscious with his image as a news anchor, he was described as an arrogant TV personality who is more concerned with his legacy in television than on his journalistic responsibility, somebody who could not stand sacrificing his personal ambition.

Wigand and Bergman were brought together by fate when the latter received a parcel of documents about Philip Morris with complicated terms that should be interpreted by an expert, eventually he was referred to Jeffrey Wigand, former VP of a cigarette company, Brown and Williamson. While dealing with this transaction, Bergman noticed that Wigand is aware about a certain controversy involving big tobacco companies but hesitant to speak because he has a family to protect and he does not want to break the confidentiality agreement he signed with Brown and Williamson, but through series of talks with Bergman, Wigand finally yielded.

The taped-interview was conducted by Mike Wallace under the supervision of Bergman and was scheduled to air on 60 Minutes show, but when Brown and Williamson became aware with Wigand’s impending exposè on television, its top executives pointed out that employees are bounded with a confidentiality agreement prohibiting them to talk publicly about the company, this agreement might put CBS in an uncomfortable situation so its corporate officers hesitated to air the controversial interview which infuriated Lowell Bergman.

There are several ethical questions raised in this film. Brown and Williamson Company’s unethical way of letting Jeffrey Wigand sign an expanded confidentiality agreement to prevent him from disclosing any sensitive issues regarding the company.

The company even threatened Wigand to revoke his severance pay and medical coverage if he won’t sign. This policy or act violates the right of a person on a way of life or his choice of freedom. Another ethical question is on CBS station’s action in breaking its journalism code of ethics when its executives stalled the airing of the controversial interview of Wigand for a simple reason that Brown and Williamson threatened them with a lawsuit which jeopardized their role as an emissary of truth, fairness and speech freedom. The film also revealed the misconduct of seven Chief Executive Officers of Big Tobacco who denied their awareness on nicotine’s addictiveness. Then a PR firm hired by Big Tobacco initiated a smear campaign against Wigand to discredit him.

When CBS’s corporate officers decided to halt the airing of the controversial interview of Jeffrey Wigand on 60 minutes, its long years of credible news reporting legacy was put in a bad light, their reputation as a prestigious media network was heavily damaged. The media here, through CBS, is portrayed as a dependent, frail institution that can easily be threatened and silenced by big time corporations. Their journalistic integrity was badly questioned here.

It was a long and painful process involving top corporate officers of CBS on coming up with a decision whether to air the original version of the taped interview of Jeffrey Wigand or not. The top executives were horrified with the idea that they could be facing a possible multi-million dollar suit from Brown and Williamson if the revealing interview would be aired. This decision blew off the anger of Lowell Bergman who was distraught with the company’s submission to Brown and Williamson’s bullying.

While fuming in anger, with several episodes showing him thundered with frustration towards his colleagues, Bergman was left in the road of uncertainty with his principles as Mike Wallace, the anchor of the show and his good friend for so many years, made a sudden leap to the side of CBS corporate officers and refused to stand beside him with his crusade. Bergman argued that Wigand is the only key witness in the biggest public health reform issue in U.S history and he could not see any valid reason why the interview should not be aired. Bergman knew how to play hardball, thinking his arguments flung into no where he put the matters into his own hands and contacted The New York Times. The newspaper then published the scandal inside the 60 minutes on why the interview was not shown in public; the newspaper then questioned the media ethics of CBS. This event made a terrible blow to the image of CBS, to save what is left for the station, its corporate officers finally decided to air the interview.

Brown and Williamson failed to uphold its corporate social responsibility to the society because of greed and selfishness. Its top executives sacrificed the company’s reputation in order to generate more profit and probably increased market share by producing cigarettes that are more addictive to lure more consumers to patronize their products, this intention undermined their primary responsibility as a company to the society, that is, to help build prosperity and harmony among people in the community and to produce safe products. This selfish practice, believed to be carried out with the blessing of its top executives, had consciously ignored public health considerations in the name of profit and sales volume. As a company, they should be more careful and cautious with people’s health and safety.

The issue of breach of confidentiality agreement is portrayed in the film through Wigand’s decision to testify in court against the Big Tobacco companies, including his former employer, Brown and Williamson. The scene where Wigand had to choose to stand for the sake of truth or remain silent on what he knew because of an expanded confidentiality agreement is somewhat painful because it will backfire on his conscience and his responsibility towards his family. But his decision to blow the whistle on the controversies despite breaking the agreement released him from guilt.

Wigand risked testifying in court even if it would mean disintegrating his marriage. His determination to tell his story finally paid off when his case was heard in court and his interview was aired by CBS. At the last part of the movie (before the credits were shown), it was revealed that The Big Tobacco made a $246 billion settlement with Mississippi and other U.S states, Jeffrey Wigand emerged victorious in the court of public opinion. He was vindicated in the end and went on to win several national recognitions (IMDB).

But Wigand’s decision to expose the truth was justified because it exemplifies heroism. In a society composed of people who are burn out from injustices and unfairness, standing with principles to tell the truth is such a difficult task. Such an heroic act in the sense that Wigand’s decision to disclose the alarming practice of some tobacco companies is the only way to prevent these corporations from continuing such practices. Though he made so many sacrifices (risking his marriage and be away from his children and his lonely life away from his family), his act of heroism paid him more than what money can offer, aside from successfully making the sensitive issue public and stirring the tobacco industry, his side of the story was heard when the CBS finally decided to air his interview and feel vindicated.

Both Wigand and Bergman displayed exceptional acts of heroism and courage in this film which really made a big difference. In the present time, an act of heroism is something other people dreaded because of the hazard and catastrophe it brings to personal lives, but Bergman and Wigand discarded their fears and selfishness and went on to fight what is right and just. Each character showed a tremendous effort of determination and valor which paid in the end.

Heroic Leadership is presented in this film with a fearless attitude of an individual in spreading justice, peace and truth in the community or in life no matter what is the outcome, no matter how the truth will bring pain, it is a burning act of bringing out fairness in the society. It is also a way of helping people see the true value of honesty and integrity by performing a kind of task that is beneficial to all. Through this movie, people become aware that Heroic Leadership is not only for people who help build prosperity in the society, who literally help people in crisis, but also for people who act as a role model by being reliable, steadfast, consistent and dependable, who always look up by many as a strong embodiment of courage, perseverance and loyalty.

Leadership is an act where you are ready to stand for the truth no matter where it takes you, no matter what is the consequences as long as you functioned on the side of uprightness and justice, it is personifying a character that could earn respect. It is not mean being the boss of a team but more on how a certain situation is being handled in correct direction. It is a unique and brilliant process of how to execute responsibility with focus and strength to lead a certain group or team.