Where ever you live this seems like a question that generates a lot of interest. I've done a little research and thought my answers maybe of interest to anyone prepared to read on. Personally I have a cable TV installation at the moment but seriously considering moving to a satellite TV installation.

I live in the UK but many of the responses I have seen have originated in the USA so don't stop reading you guys in North America. On balance I would say that more people preferred a Satellite TV to a cable TV installation. If I had been asked 5 or 10 years ago then I may still have answered cable TV but for very different reasons. I really believed that combining TV and other services into a cable would be everyone's answer but in practice satellite TV providers have moved more quickly to provide what the customer wants. There have been so many advances in technology that we seem to have far more choices than could been foreseen just a few years ago.

Some of the key points I have identified in my research are:-

- Satellite TV is an uninterrupted digital signal the only cable used in the connection is from the dish to your set. This, I understand, is why the quality of picture via a satellite transmission is regarded, by many, to be better than cable transmission.

- Satellite TV is prone to signal loss during heavy storms. This is information I have gathered from US users rather than here in the UK. Equally I read somewhere that to spray PAM on the dish every 3 months or so works wonders (if it is safe to access of course). The PAM treatment is a non stick coating which prevents rain sticking to the dish. [Do we have non stick rain in the UK or maybe the dish specification and manufacture is different?]. This obviously can not happen to a cable user but there many other ways in which cable transmission can be interrupted.

- Cable TV has it's supporters though. Installation is simple and there is no ugly dish attached to your property. This assumes that a cable is already installed in your neighbourhood.

- Cable providers frequently bundle or package other services which can help reduce your total costs for a computer network connection, telephone service and TV.

North America has had many cable networks for many years so the 2 players in the satellite TV services are providing some great promotions at the moment. Many companies are providing FREE equipment and installation packages in return for an ongoing subscription. Ironically Free SAT has just been launched in the UK which means you get 200+ channels for the one-time purchase price of a Free SAT box and installation of a satellite dish (if you don't already possess one). There is no on-going subscription with Free SAT. We also have SKY TV a regular subscription service with the premier channels (i.e. top sports events and most recent movies).

The next choice to be confronted with will be IP television this is television delivered via your computer network. Ironically this is perhaps why I thought cable meaning a cable into your property rather than cable TV would have been naturally ahead of satellite TV.

Time and the television watching public will reveal how we receive our visual images in the future. My vote for the moment is for a satellite TV installation.

It pains me to say this but I was waiting in anticipation for this movie ever since the series ended in 2002 and left the theater nothing short of disappointed. I wasn't expecting the movie to be fantastic or a beautiful piece of cinematic art. But being that I consider myself and die hard fan and a "shipper" at that, I at least expected to enjoy it. Even my expectations of this movie mustering up some kind of "nostalgic tinglies" were shot to, well you know.

The plot (or the various subplots) just didn't do anything for me. It was underdeveloped and lacked any kind of intrigue. I cant even piece together how this could be an "x-file". Or why the F.B.I would need the estranged agents help at all. The only thing paranormal is the psychic who, quite frankly, was barely intriguing but more or less just creepy and disturbing. I don't fully understand the significance of the little boy. I know its the science vs. faith thing but the whole issue is left unresolved and with me scratching my head. The relationship between the characters seemed a bit off and pretty much just boring. The allure of the the mulder/scully relationship has always been the angsty tension and the push/pull dynamic between them. There is barely any of that in this movie. It was hard to even tell exactly where they stood with each other during the film. "Are they together"? "Did they just break up"? "Wait, I thought the just broke up why are they kissing"? "What the 'h' are they doing in a boat"?. I actually said all these things during the movie. I felt no emotional connection to the two at all. I instead felt kind of sorry for them and their weird dysfunctionality as a couple. Before seeing this movie I would have told you that there is no way I wouldn't feel anything while watching this movie. Well I would have been wrong.

I guess it wouldn't have been so disappointing if I didn't know that they could have done better. I've seen so many episodes that I consider brilliant, and even the first movie was above par in my opinion. I wish the writers and producers would have put a little more thought and effort into it. Don't get me wrong the acting was good. Gillian Anderson is fantastic and she had some very well-acted scenes in this movie. But the writers? Wow. I've read better fanfic.

My only hope is that this film does well enough at the box office to warrant these guys another chance at redemption. I hope that if the opportunity comes along they will use their god-given talents and produce an amazing film like the true fans know they can.

In The film the Happening multiple species of plants have evolved to produce an airborne neurotoxin that targets humans because human pollution threatens plant survival. Apparently plants cannot successfully evolve a trait that protects them from human pollution, so they evolve a neurotoxin that target humans. When humans are targeted by the plant neurotoxin they become paralyzed and then kill themselves because our self-survival instinct has been damaged by this neurotoxin.

However, there is no reason to believe plants could know that humans produce pollution. If anything, plants would react to pollution without any knowledge of its origin as if it was a natural airborne gas. Plants would evolve a defense mechanism against pollution instead of against humans. Greater thickness in plant material or greater resistance to certain airborne pollutants could be more plausible evolutionary traits.

Morevoer, it would take plants generations to develop an evolutionary trait that targets human pollution or human populations, and given the long time it takes for trees to age and reproduce, for instance, giant sequuoi that can live up to 3,000 years and the bristlecone pine that can live can live beyond four-thousand years, could only have developed over thousands of years of evolution. Since most major human pollution began with the industrial revolution which occurred a few hundred years ago, it would be impossible for plants to evolve traits that protect them from pollution within a short period of time. Moreover, given the diversity in plant reproduction cycles and lifespans, it would be impossible for a single shared adaptation to occur simultaneously among all of these plants. It seems that if plants where such environmentalists, they would develop some way to stop cow farts, which could be disastrous to global warming.

This film is also erroneous in assuming that humans are a danger to plant survival because humans have a symbiotic mutualism between many plant species, especially agricultural plants. For instance, corn could not exist without humans planting corn seeds. Thus, to continue the line of thought and sort of science fiction proposed by this film, there could be a sort of plant wars that emerges, agricultural plants versus human-hating plants, where the fate of humanity lies in the balance. The Happening 2: The fate of humanity lies in agricultural human-loving plants, pitted against misanthropic plants.

Moreover, Humans have similar nervous systems and brains to animals, so there is no reason for the plant neurotoxin to target humans instead of other animal life. That is, animals and humans share many of the same biological organs and as such illnesses and biological vultnurabilities. For instance, animals react adversely to pollen just as humans do, and domesticated dogs get cancer as much as humans do. It is sheer nonsense to think that plants could produce a neurotoxin that targets only humans. Humans can't even do that, and we actually have thinking brains. Moreover, even if plants produce neurotoxins that target humans, these would be detectable and likely treatable. Anyone with access to a biological laboratory with a decent microscope and biohazard suit could enter the danger zone, retrieve samples of the neurotoxin and the plants that produce them, and return safely to a laboratory for research and treatment.

This film explores the evolutionary struggle of plant life with human-produced pollution. Humans cope with pollution as well, however New technologies will bring human-made pollution back to a minimal level like before the industrial revolution. Plants will continue to evolve defenses against other plants, animals, toxic chemicals, and micro-organisms, such as viruses and bacteria, and animals and microorganisms will do much the same, however it is humans whose dependence on evolution for survival will be minimal, existing in large part to resist against toxic chemicals and microorganisms, for we are more or less invulnerable to animal and plant life. And when humans reproduce and survive equally human evolution will be no more.

Basically you need a hero/heroine, some sort of plot, a climax and a moral. That's the basis for most recipes as far as screenwriting goes. The problem is some do it better than others.

Sometimes it's painful watching such movies. The moment you realize you can predict every major step along the way, the movie loses part of its charm (unless that's what it intended) and you end up either walking out (though I've personally never done so) or trying to find the good in all the rest: camera work, soundtrack, acting, etc.

There are many, many rules, and following them is something nonconformists in Hollywood adore. Whether it's the token black guy dying (there was a brief period of time when he was allowed to live, maybe even be the hero - see Deep Blue Sea, House On Haunted Hill), or the innocent girl who survives (see most slasher movies) horrors have done it over and over again, yet people still go see them (apparently hope dies last). The bad boy reformed story is as old as time (A Walk To Remember), so is the good boy gone bad, then repenting one (see 21 most recently). And don't get me started on the Chosen One plot. Every martial arts movie out there has something of the sort, so do most comic books (Wanted is the latest one), though I am partial to it, and sometimes, just sometimes we get something different (even if it's a parody - Kung Fu Hustle). I'm not going into teen comedy teritory. Apart from horrors those are the most formulaic of all. Romantic comedies are also right up there, break up to make up plot included. Even the send offs are pretty unoriginal (it's a TV movie, but still - Romantic Comedy 101). Sci-fi is possibly the most original of them (not denying it follows some of the basic themes of adventure, but then again, we're not talking about themes here).

And it doesn't really stop with scripts. Directors are often easily influenced. Roger Ebert, in his review of Battlefield Earth(which uses ) stated the director "has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why". The unnecessary use of CGI is also quite an issue. Just because someone else does it, it doesn't mean you need it.

You might say it's hard being original, the old "it's all been done before" excuse. But as I've already stated, do it well, and people will overlook cliches, familiar storylines and the likes. Citizen Kane is considered the best movie ever made because it was the first one to use certain camera techniques or tell a certain story. I'm certain Welles wasn't the first to make his camera look up at characters, but he did it with purpose, and it worked. It's because of this (revolutionary) understanding of cinema that his movie still reigns.

I feel that "Event Horizon" is severely underrated. The film wasn't successful at the box office, and I was actually lucky enough to catch it at the cinema when it was in it's first run before it disappeared quickly thereafter. Aside from a dreadful ending, this film contains some of the most deeply atmospheric and terrifying moments put in to a sci-fi/thriller for quite some time. Production design is first rate - all the ships feel and look very real and capture a very strong science-fiction feel (kind of the way the early Alien films did - but obviously not as good as those). It's actually a decent directing job by Paul Anderson (the director of such 'classics' as "Mortal Kombat" and "Soldier"... enough said). It's a shame this film didn't get the recognition it deserved, but at least on DVD format, it can still be enjoyed for what it is - a chilling, terrifying haunted house film set on a spaceship with some superb sci-fi images and production design.

There are some high quality actors in this film and they mostly do a decent job but nothing remarkable. This film is more about the terror and the production design. Laurence Fishburne is particularly good, as are most of the crew. Sam Neill is a bit of a let down - he just doesn't ever seem comfortable or natural, especially as he becomes the personification of evil on the ship by film's end. Maybe the material just didn't work him. The music is chilling and well composed... except for the opening and end credits which has a bizarre techno dance beat which is completely out of whack with the rest of the film (what was going on there?!). There's an attempt to go into Exorcist territory in some moments, particularly towards the end, and there's a bit of blood spilt. I'm not a fan of the latter but it should please the horror buffs.

I've already said it but I'll say it again; this film has a dreadful ending. After a fabulous build-up of tension and anxiety (combined with some very atmospheric space scenes), it turns out that the terror comes from the spaceship having gone to hell and back. That's it. The ship could have gone anywhere in the universe and it goes to hell. How original. Maybe some people will go for it but I felt it wasn't interesting enough (and definitely not original), and when the big reveal is made, it's so overblown, over-acted and over the top that it's kind of silly. A good, solid ending is a must for a film and it's amazing that this unimaginative, overblown ending still doesn't manage to kill the film. The rest of the film is of high quality and absolutely worth the ride.

The Dark Knight is a direct sequel to 2005's Batman Begins, largely considered the greatest comic book hero adaptation film in history. I echo that sentiment, and unfortunately hold it to still be true even after seeing The Dark Knight.

While I thoroughly enjoyed the action and spectacle of The Dark Knight--and will most assuredly pre-purchase the DVD--my critical side is alarmed. After the complex depths with which Director and Screenwriter Christopher Nolan delved into the psyche of Bruce Wayne and made Batman believable in the previous film, I cannot help but feel that the Caped Crusader was shortchanged this time around. I can sum up Batman's/Bruce Wayne's character development through the course of The Dark Knight in the following sentence: Batman upgraded his suit so that he can turn his head. That's it . . . Seriously.

The film makes the mistake, in my opinion, of repeating the sins of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher films that Warner Bros. tried so hard to disown with this recent reinvention of the franchise: The Dark Knight focuses too heavily on the antagonist and secondary characters rather than the development of Batman as a hero. Cramming two arch-villains into one movie further exacerbates the problem and reduces Christian Bale's screen time even further.

On the good side, Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker is unquestionably the best ever seen. The film effectively portrays The Joker's uncanny ability to get under Batman's skin. Gone are the Disneyland parade floats and poison gas attacks from the sleeve, as seen in the Tim Burton film. Whereas Jack Nicholson's Joker was a pompous prince and easily forgettable rapscallion with little impact, Nolan's Joker is far more disturbing. He's fully believable as a hands-on murderer, arsonist and demolitionist with a penchant of doing the exact opposite of what ration criminals and crimefighters would consider logical. But under the facial scars and clown paint, he honestly seems human. Ledger takes full advantage of what remains of The Joker's subverted humanity in several calm moments during the film when talking to other characters. Ledger takes character traits we usually find endearing in normal people and uses them to portray a villain who does insane things, but isn't necessarily insane. The only times I found myself disagreeing with Nolan's and Ledger's Joker were moments when the character begged for someone to kill him. Understanding that The Joker approaches crime and mayhem with a clear sense of his own purpose (to fraction society), the character undertaking his actions out of a suicidal tendency doesn't stand to reason. Still, I'm glad to finally see The Joker done mostly right, and in line with writer Alan Moore's unforgettable take on the character, The Killing Joke. However, the film's intense focus on the villain and his exploits leads me to question why they titled it "The Dark Knight" and not "The Joker".

The other villain in the film is Two-Face, a madman whose face is half-handsome, half-horrible, probably as a challenge to amateur comic artists. For me, Two-Face has always been one of the most chilling Batman villains. The guy flips a coin and you have a 50% chance of exiting the room alive regardless of your guilt or innocence. There's nothing colder than leaving someone's fate to a coin toss. For most of the film, Two-Face is Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent . . . and a hero. Dent's physical transformation into the villain as depicted in the film is probably one of the best scenarios thus far. (In the comics, Sal Maroni only threw sulfuric acid on the left half of Dent's face during a courtroom trial. Not as effective.) As far as the visual effects are concerned, Two-Face's visage in this film is utterly shocking and disturbing, far more than The Joker. But unfortunately, I feel like we get the Cliff's Notes version of Two-Face's transformation through the use of a hackneyed romantic revenge scenario. Batman fans understand that the film's portrayal of Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne as budding buddies is right on the money. However, Harvey becoming a raving maniac because The Joker "talks him into it" is completely implausible. With the Sal Maroni character readily available in the film, I get the sense that something may have been muddled in the script rewrites. From the comics, we at least get the backstory that Harvey Dent is the abused son of an alcoholic, who secretly suffers from schizophrenia and multiple personalities before his physical transformation into supervillain. So therein, his personality schism is somewhat more believable in light of his accident. As propagated in the film, Two-Face feels tacked on at the last minute when he could have just as easily waylaid until the obviously forthcoming third film in this series.

Between Harvey Dent and The Joker, there is little time to catch up with Bruce Wayne or Batman. While I enjoyed the readily apparent metaphor of Bruce Wayne becoming layered with scar tissue while his alter ego remains an unstoppable vigilante, his fleeting reunion with Rachel Dawes provided little opportunity for advancement of his character. And with so little actual focus on Batman and what the actions of The Joker and Two-Face mean for his crimefighting career, I can't help but feel that the film left me wanting for a protagonist. Perhaps it was the influence of seeing the trailer for Watchmen prior to the film, but several scenes made me wonder if there wasn't some heavily buried message in play that Batman is a fascist symbol and an unnecessary hero.

And so with respects to the screenplay and story organization, I have to declare The Dark Knight to be a glorious mess. The action scenes are spectacular and the villains are diabolical, but the message is ultimately muddled since the focus is on the villains' acts of terrorism rather than the hero's solutions. It's a 180° turn from the previous film, and the ending seems to foreshadow more of the same in the next feature. But still, as spectacle and summertime fun, there's probably nothing better this summer.

Once you start working as an actor, you'll soon realize that it's not the time you spend in front of a camera that counts. It may be your talent or appearance that got you the job, but it's professionalism on the set that keeps you working.

If you're unprofessional on the set, you not only demean yourself but also the agency that represents you. God gave you two ears and one mouth....learn to listen twice as much as you talk. Do as you're asked...do the lines you are given, stand where they ask you to stand, keep your hands off a hot set, and do not get in people's way.

Production time is expensive, every minute represents thousands of dollars, plus there's a time schedule to maintain. So, don't be wandering off the set until you're dismissed. If people like the way you conduct yourself on the set, chances are you will be called back. People like networking with professionals.

It's really important to stay positive and smiling even after 14 hours on the set. Keep your energy up; go to school on other actors while you're there. Observe and learn from everyone around you. People like working with happy people.

It is important, when working on a set, to bring several changes of clothes just in case it's needed. Most actors just show up with what they are wearing at the time. Stay one step ahead of your competition.

Also, it's imperative that you know your lines. Directors frown at unprepared actors, this is not the time to be learning your lines. Remember, time and money are a commodity.

NOTE: Break down your script by marking key points using color markers, pen or pencil. Make notes to yourself as to words you want to emphasize, speed up or slow down. I guarantee it will make you a better actor. It shows that you have taken the time to really study the script and that you are prepared and committed to your career. Directors like that!

Is copying TV program downloads to your PC illegal?

The simple answer is no.

The only thing that is illegal is taking copyrighted material that you haven't acquired legitimately - and, of course, distributing copyrighted material that you have acquired legitimately.

You are well within your rights to copy your own tv program downloads,music collection or whatever onto your computer or your iPod, as long as you don't then copy those files onto your friends computer or iPod.

As for tv program downloads and music on the internet there are numerous legal options, including online services that sell individual recordings to download and keep, others offer unlimited access to a media archives in return for either a monthly fee or a one off membership fee.

There are also plenty of TV program downloads that are both legal and free, these include one-off promotions from the major companies as well as products from little known production companies or upcoming bands who are more interested in exposure and making a name for themselves than making a profit.

As we've already seen there is nothing the media industry fears more (for obvious reasons) than the uncontrolled distribution of its copyrighted material.

It is difficult (impossible?) to see how the companies can stop people sharing files they have copied from their own CD's or PC files even if they manage to legally kill off the underground file sharing networks.

The major companies do however have a strategy for stopping people freely distributing media they have legally purchased.

Its called Digital Rights Management or DRM, it involves embedding special pieces of code into music files for instance, (or TV program downloads or other formats for that matter) which digitally impose certain restrictions on what you can do with that file.

I first started watching movies at home in the 1980s. In those days there was a great big battle raging between three different systems: VHS, Sony Betamax, and Philips as to which one would finally corner the market in movie viewing at home. In the end as we all know, VHS won out, although many experts thought the Betamax was better. But such is the nature of the market place. I can remember thinking how fragile a video tape seemed to be and how it would last a lifetime as it would need to do. Well, as it turned out, the video cassette did not need to last a lifetime, since it was very soon superseded by the dvd. Finally it seemed that you would no longer have the problem of going to the video store to get a video tape that then jammed or did not play back properly.

I remember when we first saw dvds. It seemed incredible that the picture could be so clear and realistic! And there was virtually no background hiss. This was due to the revolutionary digital playback method. However there was still the problem that you had to trudge over to the dvd store to get your dvd to rent or buy. And once dvds started to get a bit old, we discovered that careless use by a previous renter could cause scratches which made the picture skip. Also you might find that the movie of your choice was not available or was not in stock at your local store.

Renting or buying dvds on the internet from Amazon or one of the large supermarket chains that are sent to you through the mail seemed to provide the solution to some of these problems. You could sit at home with no hassle and your movies would come to you. But this time, although you always get a vast range to choose from, the problem is that you do not get the movie right away you have to wait for the postman to bring it to you. By that time you might not be in the mood for that movie!

But now it really does seem like ALL the problems have been solved.

Now you can download movies, with perfect picture quality, delivered instantly. And you can watch them right away. You only have to make sure that the website you obtain them from is operating legally, but apart from that, it is the most hassle free method of watching movies that we have seen in all of history!

If retro styles are in, then it is certainly because we believe that, 'Old is Gold.' The sweet and simple melody of songs, meaningful interludes and the charisma of natural expressions in the olden times is a regaling experience. The look of sixties and seventies has a charm of its own. There were all kind of films then namely action, suspense thrillers or the Indian family drama. The essence of old Bollywood movies relates to a hero who is the super hero and essentially a Jack of all trades.

Parallel cinema of art form was associated to social concepts, the prevalence of evils in the society or simple facts of normal living. In the earlier days, women oriented subjects were limited or the films revolved on a single theme. The complexity that is present in today's Bollywood films like multi-star cast, dual stories, assortment of screen play and specialization in functions was not adhered in the olden times. Film making was a devotion and a process which internalized in the directors mind. Most of the vamps or villains were predictable in their behavior and certain mannerisms were associated with them. There were stories about the kings and queens, patriotic movies and also others which had the pathos of romance. The actors were veterans and had a clear mind to play the role. Improvisation was their key objective. It is also true that story writing and lyrics writing was a true passion. The words were initially formed and the tune was set accordingly which is reverse to today's trend.

Quality was well maintained about continuity in the films. Flashback scenes were not of a very high detail yet the link was very well continued. The masking concept was very much in use for mingling two different shots at the editing table. Sounds were mostly verbal and the action scenes had less drama than the modern concept. Compositions and musical arrangement were simple and genuine. No treatment was given to alter the vocalists sound. There was a special charm in the look of the sixties. The fashion was original with familiar trends that came with the western influence.

The adaptation of hairstyles was very evident in the black-white era. Make up ideas were minimal and the heroines had their own style concepts. Eastman color films also led to another change breaking the cliched presentation in the black and white films. The actors then were also playback singers and this worked as an advantage to the films popularity. Press conferences and film launches were comparatively a straightforward affair and award ceremonies were laudable for their simplicity. Elegance reigned supreme and this added to the glamor of the filmdom.

Indian cinema is leveling up to the international level. The trends are modern yet depicting the Indian set up. There are skilled professionals who have taken cinematography to an elevated level. Film launches and promotions are eclectic happenings with careful research and marketing skills. The earlier trends in Indian cinema was more specifically related to the Indian audience but the recent incline is towards a global concept.

Parallel cinema is very much a reflection of the happenings in the society. Again this kind of cinema is also emerging to be a modern subject. There are actors who are willing to explore their skills in experimenting with bold and untouched subjects. Actors are going global by also accepting offers abroad. It is an idea to hold premiere shows abroad and releases are also designed to get the patronage of the NRI audience.

Music in Indian cinema has gained prominence. Details of the background score is of international value. The promos and teasers prior to release of a movie are slotted with television channels to attract the masses and spike their curiosity. Indian film makers enjoy the source from foreign flicks, though Indianising the concepts is an experts job. There are many aspiring talents who go through a perfect schedule of film grooming and mentoring which was not very much a trend in the past.

Again the slotting of a persona as a character artiste or a villain is no more typical. The adaptation to a particular role is done with much ease as actors and directors work with an open concept to achieve the demand of the role. The protagonist of a film is very much supported by other star cast and multi star casting is the latest phenomenon. The looks are chipper with much efforts on style and body image. The demand of the role for each film is indicated while presenting the script during the 'sittings' and the actor morphs beautifully into the mould. Film making is an intelligent activity and the digital technology as well acoustics requires constant updates. Job avenues are opening up in the field of animation and music industry. The competition is tough as the bar is high on perfection.

The passion in Indian cinema is well maintained with growing benefaction. The films are also Indian in terms of family bonding and virtues. Modern parallel cinema is bold, comedy is original, cult films are being conceptualized and there is a constant passion to improve. Foreign locales are being explored to create the 'never before' scenes and there is a certain crispness to the impression. Glamor goes full-on during the award functions with celebrity felicitation and performances.

Online Gossip Girl streaming is getting very popular these days. Good news, you can now stream it online and watch during your free time. Before you watch Gossip Girl, here is a little background and review of the show. Then you can consider whether it is a show worth watching.

Gossip Girl started off in September 18, 2007 in high anticipation due to the popular novel series. The show revolves around a group of young adults having to face teenage issues that are faced by any other teenager such as sex, drugs, and jealousy. What is interesting is that all the characters attend elite academic schools and come from different family backgrounds. The actors and actresses dress in designer clothes which is another reason why the show is so popular worldwide.

Season 1 has ended with only 18 episodes due to the writers' strike. Though the show received low ratings, it is coming back again with a second season containing 24 episodes. Few months back, it was said that Gossip Girl will not be streamed online for the second season. However the show producers have changed their mind last month and they will be streaming the show online. The only restriction is that only U.S. citizens can watch the episodes online from their website.

Due to that, there are quite a number of third party video sites showing Gossip Girl online. The latest episodes are often released just one day after the original air time. Fans from anywhere in the world can now watch Gossip Girl online episodes for free in high quality definition video. Buffering speed would depend on how fast your connection is.

"You hear a phone ring and it could be anybody, but a ringing phone has to be answered...doesn't it?"

Set in New York the opening scene shows a small time film manager Stu Sheppard appears to walk the walk and talk the talk. He is what I like to call a pretender (I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about here) - to those around him he is the cream of the crop, hanging with all the famous people in the hot spots of the bustling city, however Stu knows that he is only half as rich, famous and popular as he wants to be.

With his apprentice by his side (Keith Nobbs), his mobile permanently stuck to the side of his head and wearing what I imagine to be a fake Versace pinstripe suit, Stu struts through Times Square going about his daily business.

Enter Kiefer Sutherland (who remains anonymous in the film), an experienced criminal stalker/sniper who chooses his targets carefully with a view to teaching them valuable lessons about their shortcomings in life. It is Stu's dismissive inhumanity to fellow men that gives this crazed murderer the incentive to trap him in a public phone box using a very strong blackmail grip to ensure that Stu does exactly what is required of him.

The film reminds me of a chess game, where the attacker has his opponent in check but not quite check mate as the victim appears to have an incredible knack of wriggling away from the final jugular assault.

As the police and television crews turn up, the street is filled with onlookers who witness the proceedings. A number of unconvincing red herrings are throw into the mix to fool the viewers into thinking that they know who and where the crazed murderer is - they are predictable and wouldn't fool a child.

The film doesn't move along very quickly - the majority of scenes are focused on the phone box and the conversation between predator and prey. Whilst this may seem boring and mundane the film kept my interest very well indeed and I believe this would be the same for most viewers. It just goes to show that a simple film script doesn't necessarily compromise its effectiveness.

Forest Whitaker (Captain Ed Ramey) plays the lead cop in the film and does a not outstanding but decent job in this role. It would have been very hard to stand out in a sideline actor in a script such as this.

In summary, the film is a thought provoker and makes a valid point that I'm sure many of us can relate to or have experienced in our everyday lives. Unfortunately you can see the red herrings and twists (especially in the finale) coming from a mile off, which I didn't like. A good performance from Colin Farrell and Forest Whitaker as the lead policeman helps the film. I'm not going to watch it again, but I'm not asking for 2 hours of my life back either - we'll give this film a strong 7 out of 10.