Disclaimer - This is a news site. All the information listed here is to be found on the web elsewhere. We do not host, upload or link to any video, films, media file, live streams etc. Kodiapps is not responsible for the accuracy, compliance, copyright, legality, decency, or any other aspect of the content streamed to/from your device. It is your responsibility to ensure that you comply with all your regional legalities and personal access rights regarding any streams to be found on the web. If in doubt, do not use. We don't have enough data to suggest any movies based on Wet & Rope. Original Title Shudojo: nure nawa zange. Status Released. Release Information. Oh, today's sacrificial lamb, Shudojo: nure nawa zange quotes. Find all lines from this movie. Subtitles Shudojo: nure nawa zange (1979) free download. Large database of subtitles for movies, TV series and anime. Shudojo: nure nawa zange (original title) Unrated| 1h 9min| Drama, Thriller| 20 January 1979 (Japan) After being. Watch: Shudojo: nure nawa zange (1979) Full Movie Online by Paige Plante [2] Play next; Play now; Watch: Shudojo: nure nawa zange (1979) Full Movie Online.
0 Comments
Published: August 12, 1937 The Warners, who have achieved the reputation of being Hollywood's foremost triflers with history, paid their debt to truth last night with the presentation of The Life of Emile Zola at the Hollywood Theatre. Rich, dignified, honest, and strong, it is at once the finest historical film ever made and the greatest screen biography, greater even than The Story of Louis Pasteur with which the Warners squared their conscience last year. Like Pasteur, the picture has captured the spirit of a man and his times; unlike Pasteurand this is the factor which gives it preeminenceit has followed not merely the spirit but, to a rare degree, the very letter of his life and of the historically significant lives about him. And, still more miraculously, it has achieved this brilliant end without self-consciousness, without strutting glorification, without throwing history out of focus to build up the importance of its central figure. Literature knows Zola as the author of Nana and a score of other novels which crusaded, during a sociologically dark age in France, in behalf of the oppressed and the unenlightened. History knows him more dramatically as the man who cried out, so all the world could hear, against the famous perversion of justice that was the Dreyfus case. The Life of Emile Zola, is the story of both those menthe crusading novelist, the Dreyfus defenderand it is a story told with dramatic strength, with brilliant language, and with superb performances. Paul Muni's portrayal of Zola is, without doubt, the best thing he has done. Fiery, bitter, compassionate as the young novelist; settled, complacent, content to rest from the wars in his later years; then forced into the struggle again, although he resisted it, when the Dreyfus cause whispered to his conscienceMr. Muni has given us a human and well-rounded portrait. It would have been simple to have stuffed the character with glory, to have presented Zola as charging happily into a battle in which he had everything to lose and nothing, personally, to gain. The true story was the more dramatic one and the Warnersby which I mean their writershad the wisdom to follow it. Zola, when he thundered the 'I Accuse' message that eventually exposed the army conspiracy against Dreyfus, was no longer an individual; he truly had become, as Anatole France later said of him, 'a moment of the conscience of Man.' That was the essence of Zolathat he was not a man, but an instrument of freedom, truth, and social justice. There is something infinitely touching in the contrast of the physical Zola and the spiritual Zola. One a human, frail, pathetic, at times a quaint figure; but behind him always, in his writings and utterances, the steadfast tread of truth on the march and our grateful knowledge, with him, that 'nothing will stop her.' And that has been written into the film, just as it has been written into history, and when a picture has that spiritual surge it has realized the best the cinema can accomplish. Against the impressive bulk of its virtues, the few defects are negligible. Feb 16, 2007 A serious biopic of the life of Emile Zola. Starting in Paris in 1862 it deals, among other events, with the Dreyfus Affair and anti-semitism in France. The novelist (Paul Muni) defends a French captain (Joseph Schildkraut) accused of treason. True, the film could have been trimmed. True, the Mme. Dreyfus role, played by Gale Sondergaard, is an illustration of a part built up from nothing and even then scarcely able to get off the ground. True, there are sequenceslike the Anatole France speech at Zola's bier and Zola's reading of his 'I Accuse' editorialwhich are pictorially static and offer nothing (although I think it is a great deal) but poetic language beautifully read. True, the picture skirts the real issues behind the Dreyfus case (the word 'Jew' is never uttered) and skips recklessly over the political, racial background of the plot. But these are little against a great and valuable and stirring film document. There is not space here for a full inventory of its assets, but mention must be made of the eloquent script turned out by Norman Reilly Raine, Heinz Herald, and Geza Herczeg; of William Dieterle's majestic direction; and of such principal members of the cast as Mr. Muni, Joseph Schildkraut as Dreyfus, Donald Crisp as Maitre Labori, Vladimir Sokoloff as Cezanne, Erin O'Brien-Moore as Nana, Henry O'Neill as Colonel Picquart, and Louis Calhern as Major Dort. The others are scarcely less worthy and another of 1937's 'best ten' has arrived. THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA (MOVIE) Directed by William Dieterle; written by Norman Reilly Raine, Heinz Herald, and Geza Herczeg, based on the story by Mr. Herald and Mr. Herczeg; cinematographer, Tony Gaudio; edited by Warren Low; music by Max Steiner; art designer, Anton Grot; produced by Henry Blanke; released by Warner Brothers. Black and white. Running time: 123 minutes. With: Paul Muni (Emile Zola), Gale Sondergaard (Lucie Dreyfus), Joseph Schildkraut (Captain Alfred Dreyfus), Gloria Holden (Alexandrine Zola), Donald Crisp (Maitre Labori), Erin O'Brien-Moore (Nana), and John Litel (Charpentier). Lurking definition, to lie or wait in concealment, as a person in ambush; remain in or around a place secretly or furtively. Search: For: » » Dark Lurking Dark Lurking // R // October 12, 2010 List Price: $24.98 [Buy now and save at ] Review by| posted November 3, 2010| C O N T E N T V I D E O A U D I O E X T R A S R E P L A Y A D V I C E Recommended E - M A I L P R I N T The Product: Sure, it's a critical crutch and we online content generators can't help but rely on it from time to time, but in the case of The Dark Lurking, the 'Cinematic Mixing Bowl' approach to a review is impossible to avoid. You know the drill: you take a series of recognizable movie references - in this case, past projects like Aliens, Alien3, Event Horizon, Pandorum, and almost any other evil in space genre effort - argue for how loyal the current filmmakers are toward said examples, and then state that the title in question is nothing more than a fanboy combination of same. The Cinematic Mixing Bowl metaphor. Again, The Dark Lurking definitely deserves this tag. If James Cameron, Paul W. Anderson, David Fincher, and Christian Alvart were of a mind, they could easily sue for plot/particulars plagiarism. While easy on the eyes and deafening to the ears, this straightforward sci-fi splatter fest owes way too much to established classics from the past. With its grunts in space set-up to the Satanic/supernatural angle, originality is not part of this Australian effort's designs. Instead, it hopes to rely on familiarity to get by.and for the most part, it almost does. The Plot: At a remote location deep underground, an outbreak of blood-thirsty mutants is destroying the population. Enter an intergalactic rescue squad made up of mercenaries. Their mission? Discover the cause and save any survivors. When they arrive, they soon realize they are vastly outnumbered. Even worse, their only means of support requires a mission back up to the surface to reestablish a com link - and something horrific walks the dark, rainy landscape. Eventually, the truth is revealed. Scientists in the facility are taking up the mantle of previous foolhardy researchers and are trying to clone the Antichrist - that's right, back during World War II, Hitler and his occult happy investigators uncovered the actual place where an angel fell to Earth. Indeed, they found Lucifer's landing spot after being cast out of Heaven, and for generations, governments and their goons have been trying to unleash its unholy power. Luckily, almost all have failed.until NOW! The DVD: Up front, it has to be said that The Dark Lurking looks very good indeed. Sure, the obvious plastic model nature of the rocket ships gives the space stuff a jokey, junk culture patina and writer/director Greg Connors never met a scene he couldn't get his cast to shoot their way out of, but for the most part, this low budget mimicry stands head and shoulders above 90% of the similarly styled genre attempts out there. Heck, in some ways, it's better than the above referenced Dennis Quaid space slasher from 2009. But don't get the wrong impression. The Dark Lurking is still a subpar effort overall, a film that's so incapable of thinking for itself that it has to borrow from betters in order to have a purpose. From the moment we see the military men warming up for their planetary assault, as we watch nameless characters die at the hands of bloody headed freaks, we immediately start quoting classics from the past. At any given moment, one expects a particularly nervous GI to shout, 'Game over, man! It doesn't help that the monsters look like rejects from H. Giger's original creature designs and that every situation is addressed via the end up a gun barrel. Indeed, if Connors had settled down for a moment and let his own imagination run wild, we might have something special. Instead, the routine nature of The Dark Lurking's ideas undermine its possible effectiveness. Even when we discover the truth about what it going on (the weaponizing of evil - go figure), it's just not enough. We want something original, not another mixing of science and the supernatural. Anderson had his physics-warping spacecraft teleport itself into Hell, the notion seemed silly but still viable. Here, turning Lucifer remains into a lean, lanky killing machine (in the guise of a bland, boring actress) is just laughable. Besides, the 'character' spends so much of the movie's 100 minute running time having shivering spasms that you just wish she'd transform and take out the rest of the cast ASAP. Connors clearly believes in a high body/bullet count. Over the course of an hour and forty minutes, we seem about a billion mutants destroyed and about a trillion rounds of ammo fired. The basic set-up for the story is this: characters complain about their fate; they hear a noise in the background; they start firing their guns with 'who needs to reload' abandon - all the while screaming like Rambo at the carnage. Perhaps the biggest sin committed by this otherwise defendable film is the lack of any real character connection. Everyone here is a jerk, from the muscles and mayhem minded soldiers to the survivors who range from incredibly whiny to 'why don't they die?' One actress in particular is so awful, so clearly disconnected from the concept of talent that when she gets an axe in the chest, it's like a last minute death row reprieve from the Governor. Since we don't care about a single person here, because we can't identify with their plight beyond what movie Connors is borrowing from next, The Dark Lurking becomes nothing more than an exercise in excess. There is lots of gore here, body parts and vivisected torsos taking the place of dramatic gravitas and, as stated before, the soundtrack is overloaded with automatic machine gun fire. In certain instances, film fans can handle the copycat. After all, slasher films and RomComs are all built from the same basic cinematic parts. But The Dark Lurking is not just paying homage to its obvious influences. Instead, this is nothing more than a series of greatest hits - SOMEONE ELSE'S greatest hits. The Video: Hey - Cinema Epoch! What's up with this shoddy, problematic print. The 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen image actually looks like a YouTube video blown up to big screen proportions. There is so much rampant pixelation and image stutter that you wonder what kind of webcam lens was being used to capture the action. Granted, there are a few moments where the video defects disappear, but they are few and far between. Overall, this is a pretty crappy transfer. The Audio: Hello bombast my old friend, you've come to destroy my home video system speakers again. WOW - is The Dark Lurking ever loud and obnoxious. Between the bullet blasts, the human agonizing, and the monster grunts and groans, this friggin' film never shuts up - and then, when the characters speak a few lines of dialogue, we long for silence even more. The Dolby Digital Stereo mix delivers everything in ear piercing pronouncements, forgetting such crucial cinematic elements as subtlety and nuance. The aural situation here is not powerful, but nerve shattering - and not in a good way. The Extras: Want proof that Connors can create his own semi-original fare? Check out his underworld comic short Netherworld as part of this DVD's bonus features. It's a fun, fresh look at some hoary old Hell/demonic material. Elsewhere, we get a decent behind the scenes and an average still gallery. Cinema Epoch also unleashes a trailer, as well as a collection of same for other titles in its catalog. Overall, the added content here is eye-opening, especially in how it paints Connors and his untapped abilities. Final Thoughts: If you can divorce yourself from the obvious (and much better sources), if you can put your brainpan on creative cruise control and simply absorb what The Dark Lurking has to offer, you might just find yourself enjoying the otherwise redundant experience. This is not a badly made or manufactured film, just one we've been seeing since It: The Terror from Beyond Space first argued for intergalactic monster mayhem. Earning a reluctant Recommended rating, this unbridled mess does suggest Greg Connors potential as an epic action moviemaker. Right now, he may not have his own ideas, but a little borrowing to make one's names is more or less excusable. Unfortunately, imitation is all The Dark Lurking has going for it. Want more Gibron Goodness? Come to Bill's TINSEL TORN REBORN Blog (Updated Frequently) and Enjoy! What Do You Think? Plot: A team of supernatural researchers set out to shoot a documentary about hikers who vanished on a remote and desolate island in the Great Lakes; an island whose only inhabitants are 3,500 Native American graves. Despite repeated warnings from locals, they provoke the spirits of the dead and find themselves stranded and trapped in a vortex of Paranormal retribution. Watch Death Island: Paranormal Retribution - 0000 Free movie Death Island: Paranormal Retribution - 0000 with English Subtitles Watch Death Island: Paranormal Retribution - 0000 in HD quality online for free, putlocker Death Island: Paranormal Retribution - 0000, 123movies,xmovies8,fmovies Death Island: Paranormal Retribution - 0000. Free watching Death Island: Paranormal Retribution - 0000, download Death Island: Paranormal Retribution - 0000, watch Death Island: Paranormal Retribution - 0000 with HD streaming. Death Island: Paranormal Retribution: A team of supernatural researchers set out to shoot a documentary about hikers who vanished on a remote and desolate island in. A team of supernatural researchers set out to shoot a documentary about hikers who vanished on a remote and desolate island in the Great Lakes; an island whose only inhabitants are 3,500 Native American graves. Despite repeated warnings from locals, they provoke the spirits of the dead and find. Find great deals on eBay for i hope they serve beer in hell book and i hope they serve beer in hell. Shop with confidence. Earning the type of divisive emotional responses normally reserved for those on the far right or the far left of the political spectrum, writer Tucker Max celebrated his debauchery-driven lifestyle in the memoir I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell. Now Max earns credit as both co-screenwriter and producer of the film adaptation with this comedy from Niagara Niagara director Bob Gosse. In the film, Tucker (Gilmore Girls' Matt Czuchry) behaves very badly at his friend's bachelor party, getting his invite to the nuptials revoked. Can he renounce his (not-so) inner selfish jerk in time to recapture his invitation? I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell also stars Geoff Stults, Jesse Bradford, and Traci Lords. ~ Kimber Myers, Rovi •. ½ In 'I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell,' it is surprising that Tucker Max(Matt Czuchry, of television shows infinitely better than this) can study in law school when he is constantly either thinking about sex or acting on those urges, like the night before when his tryst with a deaf woman(Yvette Yates) was interrupted by the police for being too loud. So, he is definitely the right person to schedule the bachelor party for his pal Don(Geoff Stults). The local no touching rule complicates matters by forcing them to go a couple of hours out of their way, even if Don has to lie to his fiancee, Kristy(Keri Lynn Pratt), about this road trip. And hopefully it will cheer up Drew(Jesse Bradford) who has been morose and angry ever since he caught his girlfriend giving head. See, I have a soft spot in my heart for rogues which is what drew me to 'I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell' in the first place but shortly came to regret my decision. While the movie is certainly worthless, it was not quite reprehensible enough for me to fumigate my DVD player. The filmmakers think these men are likable and their antics funny but they are anything but, especially in the insults aimed at women. As much as they may want to deny it, there is very little difference between sexism and misogyny as Tucker takes objectifying women to new lows in seeking to zero out his purity test score. Even then, the movie has a sentimental finale, after the requisite gross-out gags. ½ This is really a poor man's 'Hangover'. I really wanted to like it, and I did like some about it, but overall was letdown. The two biggest problems I had with the movie were the characters and it ran too long. The thing about movies like the 'Hangover' that make them great are the characters. You get emotionally invested in them, and have a true affection for them. Here, I didn't care about any of the guys. Tucker was a douche, Drew was whiny, and Dan was just there. Most everything Drew said tried to be funny, but really came out stupid, and I was left thinking 'Why in the hell did he say that? It makes absolutely no sense.' As far as Tucker, what is there to like about him? I mean he has a couple funny moments, but the movie is about him, he should be somewhat likable. Instead he's a tool, and like Drew just has some really ignorant lines. The movie is almost two hours, and could have easily been a half hour shorter. Cut out half the horrible dialogue and it may have been a good movie. Instead it's a big waste of time. I'm all for R rated comedies and guy humor, but this was more douche bag humor(not saying I'm not a douche bag). Just watch the 'Hangover' movies or 'Van Wilder' instead, because why settle for a lousy cheap imitation? I'm a big Tucker Max fan, and I read his book religiously. This film is based on Max's heralded, cult classic, best-selling book I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell. The book is nothing more than a collaboration of short stories about random nights out drinking with his buddies and having sex with random women. His stories, in essence even if they are fabricated or exaggerated as some have claimed, are pure comedic gold. His savvy charm and his sparkling wit makes every guy want to be him and every girl want to be with him. Through his book of course, a portrait is painted of Tucker Max that renders him endearing despite his self-indulgent, chauvinistic demeanor. This majestic dickhead, so to speak, would be awfully hard to pull off on the big screen. This daunting duty went to a no-namer Matt Czuchry, who actually pulled off a very convincing funny heartless bastard; but however, he failed to be likable in anyway possible. Another aspect of this film that drew hesitation from me would be the script itself. The book doesn't flow like your typical story. It's just a collaboration of Tucker's random nights out on the town, there's no real story arc. So of course what we get is a very linear, predictable, over-hashed bachelor party storyline. Tucker Max himself wrote the script, and even deemed it far better than comedic powerhouses The Hangover and Wedding Crashers. Hopefully the enormous belly flop this film took humbled our author a little. But probably not. Loyal fans of the book, like myself, will recognize a lot of his stories in the plot. It's also undeniable to admit that Tucker's cruel sense of humor is actually funny. However, the film fails to capture the comedic brilliance of the book, but Tucker's followers will still be pleased. It's a good, mindless laugh. I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell is yet another in the continuation of films trying to carry the jock of the film known as Bachelor Party, failing miserably in the process. The basic premise is that Drew (Jesse Bradford) is getting married, but his fiance doesn't want him going to a strip club three hours away. The local strippers are fine, but not elsewhere. Maybe she worked there or something. I don't know, but serial sex pervert Tucker (Max Czuchry) has other plans, which include using his friends impending marriage as an excuse to go far, far away and hump a midget stripper. Throw in Drew (Geoff Stults), who is the token guy who just got dumped and hates all women (remember Bachelor Party?). All hell breaks loose, there's anger, there's midget sex, and everything works out in the end. Now the first mistake that will happen is the comparisons with The Hangover. First, The Hangover was actually funny with a plot that worked. I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell is shit, a massive, steaming pile of crap that just sits there waiting for the next crap scene that makes little sense. The acting is garbage, the script is worthy of a nice flushing with characters that are not even one dimension. Can we go to fractions on this? The characters did the same schtick for the 90 plus minutes of the film, even until they have their moments of clarity. This movie goes no where, which is fine when the film is actually funny. Hell will be 24 hour showings of this film and Spider-man 3 over and over again. Hitler is probably watching this film right now. A connoisseur of fast times and faster women, Tucker Max (Czuchry) unleashes his wit and wants on every unsuspecting female around – from horny hotties to aroused cougars to one amorous dwarf – for one night of non-stop debauchery. But the night gets out of control when the boys meet a stripper who can match their misogynist mouths, and Tucker becomes the butt of a vengeful practical joke. Nothing is sacred in one of the smartest, most well-written, disgusting, hilarious, endearing, offensive and downright best comedies within its genre to date! Based on the best-selling book! A connoisseur of fast times and faster women, Tucker Max (Czuchry) unleashes his wit and wants on every unsuspecting female around – from horny hotties to aroused cougars to one amorous dwarf – for one night of non-stop debauchery. But the night gets out of control when the boys meet a stripper who can match their misogynist mouths, and Tucker becomes the butt of a vengeful practical joke. Nothing is sacred in one of the smartest, most well-written, disgusting, hilarious, endearing, offensive and downright best comedies within its genre to date! Based on the best-selling book! A connoisseur of fast times and faster women, Tucker Max (Czuchry) unleashes his wit and wants on every unsuspecting female around – from horny hotties to aroused cougars to one amorous dwarf – for one night of non-stop debauchery. But the night gets out of control when the boys meet a stripper who can match their misogynist mouths, and Tucker becomes the butt of a vengeful practical joke. Nothing is sacred in one of the smartest, most well-written, disgusting, hilarious, endearing, offensive and downright best comedies within its genre to date! Based on the best-selling book! A connoisseur of fast times and faster women, Tucker Max (Czuchry) unleashes his wit and wants on every unsuspecting female around – from horny hotties to aroused cougars to one amorous dwarf – for one night of non-stop debauchery. But the night gets out of control when the boys meet a stripper who can match their misogynist mouths, and Tucker becomes the butt of a vengeful practical joke. Nothing is sacred in one of the smartest, most well-written, disgusting, hilarious, endearing, offensive and downright best comedies within its genre to date! Based on the best-selling book! A connoisseur of fast times and faster women, Tucker Max (Czuchry) unleashes his wit and wants on every unsuspecting female around – from horny hotties to aroused cougars to one amorous dwarf – for one night of non-stop debauchery. But the night gets out of control when the boys meet a stripper who can match their misogynist mouths, and Tucker becomes the butt of a vengeful practical joke. Nothing is sacred in one of the smartest, most well-written, disgusting, hilarious, endearing, offensive and downright best comedies within its genre to date! Based on the best-selling book! A connoisseur of fast times and faster women, Tucker Max (Czuchry) unleashes his wit and wants on every unsuspecting female around – from horny hotties to aroused cougars to one amorous dwarf – for one night of non-stop debauchery. But the night gets out of control when the boys meet a stripper who can match their misogynist mouths, and Tucker becomes the butt of a vengeful practical joke. Nothing is sacred in one of the smartest, most well-written, disgusting, hilarious, endearing, offensive and downright best comedies within its genre to date! Based on the best-selling book! A connoisseur of fast times and faster women, Tucker Max (Czuchry) unleashes his wit and wants on every unsuspecting female around – from horny hotties to aroused cougars to one amorous dwarf – for one night of non-stop debauchery. But the night gets out of control when the boys meet a stripper who can match their misogynist mouths, and Tucker becomes the butt of a vengeful practical joke. Nothing is sacred in one of the smartest, most well-written, disgusting, hilarious, endearing, offensive and downright best comedies within its genre to date! Based on the best-selling book! A connoisseur of fast times and faster women, Tucker Max (Czuchry) unleashes his wit and wants on every unsuspecting female around – from horny hotties to aroused cougars to one amorous dwarf – for one night of non-stop debauchery. But the night gets out of control when the boys meet a stripper who can match their misogynist mouths, and Tucker becomes the butt of a vengeful practical joke. Nothing is sacred in one of the smartest, most well-written, disgusting, hilarious, endearing, offensive and downright best comedies within its genre to date! Based on the best-selling book! Donald Trump has re-ignited the controversy surrounding the Central Park jogger rape case. Trump told in a statement that the five people originally implicated in the case 'admitted they were guilty.' 'The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty,' Trump said. Oct 12, 2016. For 27 years, I've been in Donald Trump's crosshairs. I'm a member of the Central Park Five, a group of teenagers wrongfully imprisoned after the brutal sexual assault of a jogger in Central Park in 1989. The victim, a 28-year-old investment banker named Trisha Meili, was bludgeoned with a rock, tied up,. Amazon.com: The Central Park Five: Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Ken Burns, Sarah Burns: Movies & TV. Oct 18, 2016 Donald J. Trump rarely apologizes. When it comes to the case of the Central Park Five, he has never even come close. In 1989, after these black and Latino. 'The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same.' When the incident first occurred, Trump had put forth advertisements that read: 'Bring Back The Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!' And called for the five men thought to be the assailants to face the death penalty. Here are seven things you need to know about the Central Park jogger case. The incident occurred on the night of April 19, 1989. A woman, later identified as Trisha Meili, was jogging in Central Park when she suffered a horrifically brutal rape and assault, as described by the: Trisha Meili lost 80 percent of her blood during an attack and rape so brutal that doctors did not expect her to live more than a few hours. Oct 07, 2016 Washington (CNN)A member of the 'Central Park 5' who was wrongfully convicted in a horrific 1989 New York rape case blasted Donald Trump Friday after the GOP presidential nominee said he believes the group is still guilty. She had deep scalp lacerations and skull fractures. Her brain was swollen. Her eye had exploded from its socket. Unconscious and tied up, her body jerked uncontrollably because of massive brain damage. The soles of her feet were the only part of her blood-soaked body not bruised, and she was identified by a gold ring that she always wore. One of her physicians testified that “she hung onto life by a thread.” Meili survived, but she was unable to remember the attack at all. Five males, dubbed as were arrested for raping and attacking Meili. The Central Park Five, which consisted of Korey Wise, Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana and Yusef Salaam, spent numerous years in jail for allegedly raping and attacking Meili. Here were when they were arrested: • 14 years old: Santana, Richardson. • 15 years old: McCray, Salaam. • 16 years old: Wise. Trump did later admit that he was wrong to call for the death penalty at the time given the ages of the Central Park Five. However, everything about the case changed in 2002 when the following happened. A man confessed to raping and attacking the Meili., who had been incarcerated for committing a slew of heinous crimes that included a murder and multiple rapes that involved Reyes gouging out the eyes of his victims, came forward with the confession because he supposedly 'found religion' and felt Wise's 'pain' when they met in jail. Many seemed to think that Reyes only gave the confession to gain attention and be rewarded with 'a transfer and special privileges in prison.' Traces of Reyes' semen were found on Meili's sock from the night of the attack, and this resulted in the charges being dropped against the Central Park Five since there was no DNA evidence connecting them to the crime. The Central Park Five sued the city of New York after the charges were dropped. They ended up winning $41 million in a settlement. Ken Burns' documentary called The Central Park Five was released in 2012 blaming the convictions of the five males on racism and income inequality, which is patently absurd. The Central Park Five are all black and Hispanic, which of course opened the door for leftists to resort to their usual shrieks of racism. But as wrote in the American Spectator at the time, even if you believe the Central Park five did not commit the crime, their convictions had nothing to do with race or wealth and more likely was due to the media hysteria surrounding the case at the time that encouraged the convictions to occur. After recovering from the attack, Meili now shares her experience of healing as a motivational speaker. Now residing in Jacksonville, FL, Meili gives speeches to numerous organizations and shares her recovery as a means to provide hope to others who are dealing with their own struggles, as 'her story of hope and recovery resonates with people,' according to the Florida Times-Union. She has also written a book about her recovery process, called I Am the Central Park Jogger: A Story of Hope and Possibility and has jogged through Central Park after the attack occurred. Meili has also won numerous awards, including the the 2014 Survivor Activist Award from the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence. So are the Central Park Five truly exonerated from the attack, or are they actually guilty, as Trump insists? Pointed out in a 2014 column at Townhall that thye had given statements that basically admitted they attacked Meili: Antron McCray: “We charged her. We got her on the ground. Everybody started hitting her and stuff. She was on the ground. Everybody stompin’ and everything. Then we got, each—I grabbed one arm, some other kid grabbed one arm, and we grabbed her legs and stuff. Then we all took turns getting on her, getting on top of her.” Kevin Richardson: “Raymond [Santana] had her arms, and Steve [Lopez] had her legs. He spread it out. And Antron [McCray] got on top, took her panties off.” Raymond Santana: “He was smackin’ her, he was sayin’, ‘Shut up, bitch!’ Just smackin’ herI was grabbin’ the lady’s tits.” Kharey Wise: “This was my first rape.” The Central Park Five later claimed that these confessions were coerced, but, who served on a panel re-investigating the Central Park jogger case, wrote in the that there is no evidence that any of the confessions were coerced. For 27 years, I’ve been in Donald Trump’s crosshairs. I’m a member of the Central Park Five, a group of teenagers wrongfully imprisoned after the brutal sexual assault of a jogger in Central Park in 1989. The victim, a 28-year-old investment banker named Trisha Meili, was bludgeoned with a rock, tied up, raped and left for dead. She was discovered hours later. When we were arrested, the police deprived us of food, drink or sleep for more than 24 hours. Under duress, we falsely confessed. Though we were innocent, we spent our formative years in prison, branded as rapists. During our trial, it seemed like every New Yorker had an opinion. But no one took it further than Trump. He called for blood in the most public way possible. Trump used his money to take out, urging the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York. I don’t know why the future Republican nominee bought those ads, but it seems part and parcel with his racist attitudes. [] At the time, our families tried to shield us from what was going on in the media, but we still found out about Trump’s ads. My initial thought was, “Who is this guy?” I was terrified that I might be executed for a crime I didn’t commit. Another man, Matias Reyes, eventually confessed to the rape and was definitively linked to the crime through DNA. Because of this, we were exonerated in 2002. New York City paid us $41 million in 2014 for our false imprisonment. (As is customary in such settlements, the city did not admit liability.) Trump has never apologized for calling for our deaths. In fact, he’s somehow still convinced that we belong in prison. When the Republican nominee was recently asked about the Central Park Five, he said, “They admitted they were guilty.√” In a statement to CNN, Trump wrote: “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same.” (Meili, for her part, told CNN in 2003: “I guess there are lots of theories out there, but I just don’t know.... I’ve had to come to peace with it by saying: ‘You know what? I’m just not going to know.’ ”) It’s further proof of Trump’s bias, racism and inability to admit that he’s wrong. When I heard Trump’s latest proclamation, it was the worst feeling in the world. I couldn’t breathe. Starting when I was 15, my life was not my own. For years, I had no control over what happened to me. Being in the spotlight makes me wary and self-conscious again. I am overwhelmed with fear that an overzealous Trump supporter might take matters into his or her hands. Doing something simple like picking up dinner for the family or going to the aquarium now fills me with dread. I’m constantly looking over my shoulder, keeping an eye out for people who stare too long. Like a soldier always on high alert, I can never enjoy myself fully, with all the adrenaline that comes with that. It’s a scary feeling. [] In some ways, I feel like I’m on trial all over again. I know what it is to be a young black man without a voice — like Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown, who were killed and then crucified in the press. Even though the Central Park Five were found innocent by a court of law, we are still guilty in the eyes of many. That brings a certain kind of stress. I realize, too, that I’m not the only victim. Trump has smeared dozens of people, with no regard for the truth. And he has backed a “law and order” system (including the “stop and frisk” policy found to be unconstitutional) that would systematically target minorities, sending a collective chill down the spines of those of us who have been the victims of such “law and order.” Black people across America know that because of the color of our skin, we are guilty before proven innocent. As a result, sometimes we lose the best years of our lives. Sometimes we lose our actual lives. We must not let this man ascend to the highest office in the land — a man who has proved that he lets neither facts nor humanity lead his steps. This text has been updated from its original version. Phi Beta Sigma Die Cut Car Badges on SALE for $8.95.! You'll find the BEST SELECTION & LOWEST PRICES on Phi Beta Sigma Die Cut Car Badges. Check out our entire. Sigma Tool & Machine manufactures T-Nuts, Clips and the equipment to insert them for the furniture industry. Jump to: • (2) Summaries • Hell night. On a small,midwestern college campus, four men are executing a very important rite of passage. The panty raid. But something goes terribly wrong and one is left behind to fend for himself, thus beginning the legend of Zeta house. Now, more than two decades have passed, and we find five 'Zeta' girls renting an off campus property for summer vacation. They are not alone. Crashing the party is their house mother, two disturbing caretakers and a group of beer swilling, wise-cracking frat boys, along with someone who is on the outside watching, waiting for their chance to join the fun! GILBERT, AZ — August 6, 2015 — Finetech introduces its new FINEPLACER® Sigma bonder, designed to provide a solution for large die up to 100mm, combined with a working area of 450 x 300mm. The FINEPLACER® Sigma is ideally suited for high-density array applications and high bond force (up to 1000N) requirements, coupled with Finetech’s renowned sub-micron placement accuracy. The system is the ideal choice for a wide variety of Wafer Level Packaging (FOWLP, W2W, C2W) with high bump count used to assemble MEMS/MOEMS, IR/ image sensors, focal plane arrays, and high power device packaging. This includes assembly of complex 2.5D and 3D IC packages that require high accuracy across the entire surface of large substrates. The FINEPLACER® Sigma can also pick up from and bond to 300mm wafers. The cornerstone element of the new bonder is FPXvision TM, the newest generation of Finetech’s Vision Alignment Systems (VAS). The FPXvision TM provides the highest resolution at all magnification levels and real-time optimized camera images. It enables the smallest devices and features to be clearly observed across the entire field of view, even with large components and substrates. Touch screen magnifiers allow zoomed images anywhere in the field of view. Two high definition cameras and specially developed optics ensure that the cameras’ full resolution potential is tapped. FPXvision TM is the first vision system to introduce pattern recognition to a semi-automated die bonding platform. The FINEPLACER® Sigma allows endless fields of application to users working with medical technologies, R&D, mil/aero, semiconductor, and automotive industries. The optimal process environment can be configured for each type of application, including the latest technologies such as vacuum bonding, sintering or metal diffusion (Cu/Cu). “It is very exciting to offer such a flexible bonding platform to address the needs of large or small die, with high density I/O bonded to virtually any size substrate,” says Neil O’Brien, General Manager of Finetech USA. “We have always been known for our sub-micron technology, but to offer this in a semi-automated system that can handle 300mm wafers and apply forces up to 1000N is incredible. Our new FPXvision TM technology with pattern recognition and alignment verification, will help increase yields for today’s most demanding applications.”. Character, Actor. Kai Koss, Kristoffer Joner. Sara, Cecilie A. Frode, Bjarte Hjelmeland. Peter, Anders Danielsen Lie. Roy, Marko Iversen Kanic. Miriam, Karin Park. Anders, Eivind Sander. Svenna, Arthur Berning. Kai Koss' Mother, Agnes Karin Haaskjold. Anne, Julie Rusti. Books.google.com.tr - '43000+ Danish - English English - Danish Vocabulary' - is a list of more than 43000 words translated from Danish to English, as well as translated from English to Danish.Easy to use- great for tourists and Danish speakers interested in learning English. As well as English speakers interested. 43000+ Danish - English English - Danish Vocabulary. Porno Videoer. Skjult - 121116 videoer. Skjult, Udspionere, Skjult Kamera, Svensk, Skjult Onani, Dansk og meget mere. Gratis Porno: Skjult, Kone, Lover, Slow Motion, Solseng, Skjult Toalett og mye mer. Complete your Skjult record collection. Discover Skjult's full discography. Shop new and used Vinyl and CDs. Following a bizarre accident on a desert road and an odd encounter with another boy about the same age, KK (Kristoffer Joner) returns to his hometown after a long. Rock & Chips. The prequel to 'Only Fools And Horses' allows one to take a trip back in time and pay a visit to the ever popular Trotter family, circa 1960. Del Boy's mother Joan is less than happy with work dodger husband Reg. Her head is instantly turned following the return of jailbird and gentleman thief, Freddie 'The Frog'. Rock & Chips Genre Created by Written by John Sullivan Directed by Dewi Humphreys Starring Country of origin Original language(s) No. Of episodes 3 () Production Executive producer(s) John Sullivan Mark Freeland Producer(s) Location(s),, England Running time 90 minutes (Original Pilot) 60 minutes (following two Specials) Production company(s) Shazam Productions Release Original network (Pilot) (Specials) Picture format 16:9 HDTV 1080i Original release 24 January 2010 ( 2010-01-24) – 28 April 2011 Chronology Preceded by (1981–2003) (2005–2009) External links Website Rock & Chips is a and a prequel to the. The show is set in, south-east London, during the early 1960s, focusing primarily on the lives of, Freddie Robdal and Joan and Reg Trotter., who played Rodney in Only Fools and Horses, plays Robdal alongside (Del Boy), (Joan), (Reg) and (Grandad). The Shazam Productions and co-production was written by Only Fools and Horses creator, directed by Dewi Humphreys and produced. The 90 minute production was conceived in 1997 and commissioned in 2003, with the premise established in the final episode of Only Fools and Horses in 2003. It was shelved and Only Fools and Horses spin-off was developed; its success led to the prequel being recommissioned in July 2009. Filming began in October in London and the production was first broadcast on and on 24 January 2010. It was the second most watched programme of the day but gained mixed reviews from critics. Contents • • • • • • • • • • • Plot [ ] The story starts in February 1960, by setting up the characters. () is in an unhappy marriage with the work-shy (), whose father () has just moved in. Her 15-year-old son, often shortened to Del Boy, () and his friends,, and new-in-town (Stephen Lloyd,, Lee Long and Ashley Gerlach) are still in school, following an increase in the school leaving age. Joan works at the local cinema with Trigger's aunt (Emma Cooke) and Raymond (Billy Seymour) for cinema manager Ernie Rayner (), and at the Town Hall as 'a part-time filing clerk who sometimes makes the tea'. Convicted thief () has just been released from and returned to Peckham with explosives expert Gerald 'Jelly' Kelly (). At the Town Hall, Joan asks Mr Johnson () about applying for a flat in the new estate; she is told she is unlikely to get a tenancy, as preference will be given to those with young children. At the Nag's Head, Freddie and Reg meet, and Reg invites him to his house to continue drinking. After meeting Joan and buying her a drink, Freddie realises that she is a Trotter, a family he has a dislike for. After they return to the Trotters' house, Freddie shows his affection for Joan. At the cinema, Joan is promoted to part-time assistant manager and Rayner tells her that the safe sometimes contains over £2,000 at weekends. She later tells Freddie, after he goes round to her house to offer Reg some work (Reg was not at home as Freddie told him to meet him at the pub). They talk about art, and he invites her (and Reg) to his house-warming party. In March, Joan has a hairstyle and the safe at the cinema is broken into. Ahead of the party, Freddie gives Reg the use of his car, to return unused decorating materials to and he takes his father, Reenie and her boyfriend Clayton Cooper () with him. They run out of petrol on the way, leaving Freddie and Joan the only ones at the party. They dance, and Freddie admits that he wanted to be alone with Joan so they could talk about art. They end the night by sleeping together. In June, Reenie accompanies Joan to a pregnancy testing clinic, while the boys are on the Jolly Boys Outing to (providing Freddie and Jelly the opportunity to burgle a jewellers). On their journey home, Reenie tells Joan about Freddie's time in prison and she realises he burgled the cinema. After Freddie tells Kelly he thinks he's in love with Joan, Reg announces her pregnancy in the pub. While Joan is completing a housing request form, Freddie goes to see her and she fails to acknowledge the baby is his. The Trotters' housing application is successful in August, and September sees them view a flat in the new House, which they have moved into in October. In November, Joan has her baby, which she calls (after the 'handsome actor', and to the surprise of everyone else). The closing scene sees Joan enter the balcony of her flat with Rodney in her arms. After telling him that Del will be very rich one day, Joan sees Freddie on a balcony in a tower opposite; she shows him Rodney and nods her head, to his delight. Throughout, the story tells of Del's strained relationship with his father and his affection for his mother; Reg's affair with the barmaid at the Nag's Head; Del and Jumbo selling goods from the docks out of the back of a van; Del and Boycie's attempt at dating Pam and Glenda (Jodie Mooney and Katie Griffiths); Joan fending off advances from her perverted boss and provides an introduction to (Calum MacNab) and (Jonathan Readwin). • ^ Johnson, Andrew (11 January 2009).... Retrieved 23 March 2009. • Powell, Laura (4 April 2009).... Retrieved 31 January 2010. BBC Press Office. Retrieved 3 July 2009. • Parker, Robin (3 July 2009).. Retrieved 3 July 2009. • Robertson, Colin (7 October 2009).... Retrieved 31 January 2010. BBC Press Office. 5 October 2009. Retrieved 14 January 2010. • ^ Deacon, Michael (20 January 2010)... Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 31 January 2010. BBC Press Office. 15 January 2010. Retrieved 31 January 2010. • ^ Rees, Claire (23 January 2010).... Retrieved 1 February 2010. 23 April 2011. • Sullivan, John (18 January 2010).. BBC Comedy Blog. Retrieved 31 January 2010. BBC Press Office. 15 January 2010. Retrieved 31 January 2010. Archived from on 29 March 2007. Retrieved 30 April 2011. • Brook, Stephen (25 January 2010).... Retrieved 31 January 2010. Archived from on 13 January 2013. Retrieved 14 February 2010. • Wollaston, Sam (25 January 2010).... Retrieved 31 January 2010. • (25 January 2010).... Retrieved 14 February 2010. • Sutcliffe, Tom (25 January 2010).... Retrieved 31 January 2010. • Wilson, Benji (22 January 2010)... Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 31 January 2010. • Whitelaw, Paul (25 January 2010).... Retrieved 31 January 2010. • Venning, Harry (1 February 2010)... Retrieved 10 April 2010. • Billen, Andrew (25 January 2010).... Retrieved 31 January 2010. • Watson, Keith (25 January 2010).... Retrieved 1 February 2010. Retrieved 10 April 2010. Retrieved 30 April 2011. External links [ ] • at • on • at • at the Only Fools Appreciation Society Site •. INTRO: The op amp is a fundamental building block of audio gear. Op amps are widely used and, not surprisingly, they’re a popular topic among audiophiles. So what are the myths and facts? MYTH: MOST OP AMPS SOUND DIFFERENT - There’s a general perception that op amps sound different. Many gear manufactures tout op amp brands and part numbers in their marketing literature. The $3 OPA2134 is supposed to sound much better than the $1 NE5532 and the $10 AD8610 is supposed to sound better still. The chip companies don’t help the perception implying some of their op amps offer better sound. But used properly, in a typical audio application, I’ll challenge anyone to a listening test and bet they won’t be able to tell the above three op amps apart. The only catch is it would be a blind test and the listener won’t know which op amp is which. HISTORY: The (op amp) was invented in the 40’s. Bell Labs filed a patent in 1941 and many consider the first practical op amp to be the vacuum tube K2-W invented in 1952 by George Philbrick. Texas Instruments invented the integrated circuit in 1958 which paved the way for Bob Widlar at Fairchild inventing the uA702 solid state monolithic op amp in 1963. But it wasn’t until the uA741, released in 1968, that op amps became relatively inexpensive and started on the road to ubiquity. And they didn’t find their way into much consumer audio gear until the late 70’s and early 80’s. MYTH: DISCRETE IS BETTER - For audio use the op amp’s main competition is a fully discrete amplifier made out of transistors, resistors, etc. Which is better? It turns out, for nearly all applications for which IC op amps are suitable, they easily outperform discrete designs in the following areas: • Better Performance – It’s very difficult to match the overall performance of even the inexpensive 5532 op amp with a discrete circuit. The discrete circuit is at a disadvantage in many areas including component matching, bias stability, and the need to use off-the-shelf components (every “component” in an IC op-amp can be custom tailored and optimized to its task). • Simplicity – To even come close to the performance of an IC op amp many more components are required. You need differential pairs, multiple stages, current mirrors, constant current sources, bias circuits, protection circuits, etc. You end up with dozens or even hundreds of components to try and match a single dual op amp IC in a little 8 pin package. • CMRR/PSRR – Common Mode Rejection Ratio is how well an amplifier can reject unwanted noise. Because their internal components are so well matched it’s easy for op amps to achieve excellent CMRR and PSRR (Power Supply Rejection Ratio) performance. This helps their real world performance in audio applications because they can reject noise on the power supply, and inputs, much better than most any discrete circuit. • High Open Loop Gain – Op amps typically have higher open loop gain. This allows more feedback which in turn lowers distortion. There’s another audiophile myth high feedback is somehow bad but that’s the topic of another article. Look up Bruno Putzeys recent article on the topic. He pretty much busts all the feedback myths wide open with real science. He even explains how so many people got off track. Trying to get comparable open loop gain in a discrete design typically creates challenging stability issues. • Repeatability – Op amps have tightly controlled specifications and detailed information available on their performance. They’re typically individually tested when they’re made so you know exactly what you’re getting. You can buy a TI 5532 today and an On Semi 5532 a year from now, and both will perform very similarly. High performance discrete circuits often require matched or hand picked components to achieve their best performance. This makes them difficult to reproduce and their real world performance is more of an unknown and sometimes requires detailed testing of each implementation (something few DIYers can do). Discrete circuits also typically cannot hold as tight of performance over a wide temperature range. • Massive R&D – The big semi conductor companies compete against each other for design wins. They spend serious money trying to out perform each other and have million dollar labs full of advanced equipment. They design the ICs right down to the properties of each transistor and have at their disposal types of internal components that are not even available as discrete parts. It’s impossible to match all their capabilities with a discrete design. • Built In Protection – Many op amps have at least current limiting and some also have other forms of protection like thermal shutdown. This makes them more robust than a discrete circuit unless similar circuitry is added to the discrete design making it even more costly and complex. • Ease Of Use – Op amps are very well characterized and typically well supported by the manufactures with detailed specs, performance graphs, and even application notes and sometimes reference designs. Following their guidelines usually results in predictable performance. They’re also typically easier to “glue” together when using a proper bipolar power supply as the outputs are referenced to zero volts and can be directly coupled to the next stage. The discrete designer is largely starting from scratch and has far more hurdles to clear. • Lower Power – An op amp, because of all the advanced techniques available to IC designers, can operate its output stage in Class-B with vanishingly low levels of distortion. While discrete designs are often forced to use much more power hungry Class-A to even come close. Overall, an op amp typically needs substantially less power than a typical discrete equivalent. This is a huge advantage for battery powered gear or if you need lots of amplifier stages. • Lower Cost – You can get amazing performance for under a $1 with an op amp. You can’t even come close with discrete designs. In fact, discrete designs often end up significantly compromised to limit their cost and complexity to reasonable levels. So you end up comparing a highly optimized IC against a compromised discrete circuit that still costs a lot more and performs worse. DISCRETE ADVANTAGES: There are a few circumstances where discrete designs generally make sense. One is a needing output voltages greater than about 8 V RMS. There are some high voltage op amps but the selection is limited and they’re expensive. And the same is true if you need peak currents much over about 300 mA. There are some high current op amps, but they can suffer from thermal issues and are also relatively expensive. Driving speakers, for example, requires both voltages and currents that exceed these ranges. That’s why most high power amps for speakers are discrete designs. There are also some decent “chip amps” but they’re not strictly op amps. They also have thermal limitations and are limited to relatively modest power outputs. They also tend to have rather invasive protection circuitry due to their thermal limitations. FIRST GRAIN OF TRUTH: There are often grains of truth behind many audiophile myths. But, very often, those grains no longer apply, or audiophiles apply them in ways that are entirely invalid. The early op amps, like the 741, were rather substandard for some audio applications. They had poor slew rates and they couldn’t manage much gain while maintaining bandwidth to 20 Khz--let alone do so with low distortion. They also couldn’t drive much of a load. That didn’t stop some manufactures from using early op amps in 70’s and 80’s audio gear. WAX CYLINDERS: Many audiophiles condemn op amps based on the early examples. By that same logic, their $10,000 vinyl turntables should also be condemned because the phonograph was horrible. It could barely reproduce intelligible human speech let alone do a good job with music. Obviously, it’s not fair to judge a technology only by the early examples. But that’s how op amps mostly got their reputation of shame among audiophiles, and it stuck. Op amps didn’t offer serious audio performance at reasonable prices until the 5532 was released around 1985—almost 20 years after the 741. And it took several more years for the 5532 to show up in much consumer gear. (photo: photopedia.com) SECOND GRAIN OF TRUTH: Some op amps have been judged in the wrong applications. The Cmoy headphone amp is just such an example. Typical op amps are made to drive loads of several thousand ohms or higher. Even the more powerful ones are often only rated down to 600 ohms. But that didn’t stop anyone from using these same op amps to drive headphones in the 16 – 300 ohm range. And, not surprisingly, some of them audibly complain at their mistreatment. They simply weren’t designed for such a low impedance load. If you compare overloaded op amp A against overloaded op amp B you may hear some differences in their highly distorted performance. But that’s only because you’re stepping on their tails and making them screech in pain. YACA (yet another car analogy): Let’s take a Ferrari and a Lamborghini--both amazing cars with very similar performance on the road. But instead of driving them on pavement as their manufacture’s intended, let’s hitch them up to a plow and try to plow some corn fields. Suddenly the two very similar cars behave very differently. The Lamborghini has all wheel drive and likely does significantly better trying to pull a plow in dirt than the 2 wheel drive Ferrari. Who tries to plow a field with a sports car? This is analogous to misusing op amps and judging their performance based on an application they were never designed for. MYTH: MOST OP AMPS ARE COMPATIBLE - Op amps are complex devices. While many have the same pin configuration making it appear you can simply substitute one for another, that’s often not the case. They’re optimized for different input bias values, configurations, gains, feedback circuits, load impedances, quiescent currents, speeds/bandwidths, compensation values, operating voltages, noise trade-offs, etc. But some audiophiles can’t be bothered by, or don’t understand, all those details. So they simply swap them out without changing anything else in the circuit. Many have a favorite op amp or two they like to use in most everything without considering if it’s a good match. It’s like the old quote “when you have only a hammer everything looks like a nail”. But that just doesn’t work for op amps. And, not surprisingly, some op amps do better than others when you ignore their requirements. Again, this is a lot like the Second Grain Of Truth above. If you use a given op amp incorrectly, it may well sound different. But it’s not the op amp’s fault. The person misusing it is creating the audible differences. MYTH: OP AMP UPGRADES ARE USUALLY WORTHWHILE - The forums are full of posts from people who buy some perfectly nice piece of audio gear, open it up, discover the manufacture used a “cheap 5532” op amp, and they promptly pop in something much more expensive and exotic to “improve the sound”. These are usually people who lack the test equipment to have any idea if their op amp swaps help, hurt, or are just a waste of money. They simply use their ears, in, and draw all sorts of erroneous conclusions. I know of op amp swaps causing potentially harmful oscillation. Someone might hear ultrasonic artifacts from the oscillation as “newfound detail” when, in reality, they have unwittingly created a radio transmitter. And this isn’t as rare as you might think because of the “faster is better” mentality. (photo: photozou.jp) YACA: Some of the car magazines have done objective tests of tire upgrades, shock upgrades, oversized wheels, etc. When they compare say a stock BMW to the same car with one or more of the “upgrades”, the factory set up usually posts the best overall performance, lap times, etc. While those massive 20 inch rims with ultra low profile tires might look cool they often perform worse than what the car came with. That’s because the manufactures, especially for performance-oriented cars, optimize the tires and suspension carefully. They understand all the trade offs better than anyone. And the same is often true with op amps and audio gear. In their attempt to “upgrade” the owner is often messing up a carefully engineered design and making it worse. MYTH: GEAR COMES WITH LOUSY OP AMPS – Believe it or not, you can usually trust the bigger manufactures of audio gear to use an op amp that’s up to getting the job done. Because for one thing such op amps are surprisingly inexpensive. So there’s little reason for a manufacture not to use an ideal op amp. For another they likely have $50,000+ worth of test instrumentation and can precisely measure differences between op amps. They also designed the circuit the op amp is in, so they better know what requirements matter most. But it seems a lot of audiophiles only see an inexpensive op amp on a circuit board that needs replacing. They may not understand the rest of the circuit, have any way to know if they’re creating new problems, etc. OP AMP STABILITY: Stability is critical for proper op amp operation. The gear makers tend to specify relatively stable op amps with sane bandwidths. So they don’t have to take many precautions in their circuits to keep such op amps happy. But when Joe Audiophile whips out his soldering iron and replaces the factory op amp with some high strung exotic part, what happens? The new part often requires much more attention to PC board layout, better power supply decoupling, different compensation, perhaps a more stable power supply, etc. In other words, without updating the rest of design (perhaps including even the PC board), the op amp may be at least somewhat unstable or otherwise unhappy. And because most instability is at ultrasonic or RF frequencies, the person doing the swap may not even know they just took a giant step backwards. Even RMAA can’t “see” ultrasonic and RF problems. THE EASY LIFE: Most op amps in audio gear are not used in stressful ways. Many are simply buffers which means they don’t even have any voltage gain. And even in something like a headphone amp, the gains are relatively modest. And modern audio op amps are virtually never stressed for slew rate. This means the theoretical advantages of many expensive parts are completely useless in these “easy” audio applications. It’s like upgrading your lawnmower with a 400 horsepower V8 when the original 5 horsepower engine cuts the grass just fine. THE WRONG LIFE: A lot of expensive op amps, including many favored by certain audiophiles, are optimized for entirely different applications—like precise DC performance, video use, etc. Using these for audio is like trying to plow a field with a Ferrari or drive a race car to work. The Ferrari’s main assets are useless in a corn field. For example, the OPA690 op amp used in the AMB Mini3 was never designed for audio use and has relatively horrible audio performance. If you stray too far from what the op amp is designed for it may well sound worse than a much cheaper part designed for audio use—like the 5532. FOLLOW THE CHAIN: If you follow most music up the signal chain you’ll almost always find it’s already been through dozens, or sometimes even hundreds of op amps. Those big giant mixing consoles you see in the recording studios? Yup, most are filled with hundreds of op amps. Same story for the EQ, compressors, vocal processors, mic preamps, A/D converters, and much more. And do you think they’re all $10 Analog Devices or Burr Brown parts? They’re mostly inexpensive 5532s in the better gear, and even cheaper parts in the less expensive stuff. Sure music is increasingly produced in the digital domain, but I’ll bet before your music ever touches your headphone gear it’s already been through at least several inexpensive op amps. (photo credit Dennis AB) (photo: photopedia.com) COMMON SENSE: If much of our most loved music has already been through dozens or hundreds of cheap op amps, is it reasonable to think that one more such op amp is going to make much difference? It’s not and that’s largely because op amps, properly used, are audibly transparent—i.e. You can’t tell they’re even there. TRANSPARENCY: If op amps really have a “sound”, as many audiophiles suggest, it would follow when you add op amps to the signal path the sound should change. Two guys named conducted a very interesting rigorous study. They played high resolution SACDs on a high end system and sometimes inserted an extra A/D and and D/A into the signal path to “down convert” the high resolution audio to CD quality (16/44) audio. After 500+ trials lasting more than a year, using audiophiles, recording engineers, and students as listeners, they found nobody could tell when the extra A/D and D/A was in the signal path. On top of demonstrating the supposed benefits of SACD are highly questionable they also managed to demonstrate that A/D and D/A converters can be audibly transparent as well. And, as you may have guessed, both the A/D and D/A add several op amps to the signal path. But nobody could tell they were even there. There have been many more blind tests that also demonstrate different op amps (and much more) indeed sound so much alike even audiophiles can’t hear the difference. See the for another example. SIGHTED LISTENING: So early op amps sometimes sounded bad and if you misuse an op amp you can make them sound different. But what about all the decent op amps in proper designs? Why do so many claim they sound different? The answer is they use sighted listening. Our brain filters what we hear using other knowledge—like which op amp you’re listening to. It’s an involuntary response that even the most skilled listener cannot “turn off”. Check out this short BBC video on the for an example of how our brain influences what we hear. And if you find that interesting, there’s a lot more in my article. Basically when someone “upgrades” an op amp they’re often expecting to hear a difference based on the manufacture’s claims, other (similarly biased) subjective listening tests they’ve read about, audiophile myths, etc. So their brain serves up the expected difference much like in the video linked above. But if they let someone else swap the op amps, and they don’t know which is which, the differences always seem to disappear unless there’s another problem. And such problems can be revealed with proper measurements. So if two different op amps both measure reasonably well in a given piece of gear, the evidence strongly suggests they will impossible to tell apart in blind listening tests. MYTH: FASTER IS BETTER - An often cited reason for expensive op amps, or upgrades, is to get more speed. Sadly, it seems those making these claims don’t understand how “speed” applies to audio. As can be demonstrated with some simple math (and has been verified by Doug Self and many others), any op amp with a slew rate of 3 V/uS or greater is fast enough for nearly any audio application on the planet. And op amps like the 5532 can easily have bandwidths out to 200+ Khz in most applications which results in negligible phase shift or “delays” in the audio band. Using an op amp rated for 20 V/uS or even faster is just asking for other problems and it probably performs worse in other ways (i.e. More noise and distortion). This will be discussed more in the next article. OP AMP ROLLING: Swapping op amps out, often using a socket so they’re easy to switch, is known as “op amp rolling”. Countless words have been written describing one op amp as having more “depth”, another as having a “blacker background”, etc. The Tangent headphone amp site has a. As explained above, sometimes the differences might be real because some of the op amps are seriously unhappy in that particular configuration. But, more often, it’s just the usual sighted listening bias described above. If the swaps are done blind, and they’re using suitable op amps operated correctly, the alleged differences seem to always disappear. DISCRETE OP AMPS: There’s another tiny grain of truth here. There are some very expensive discrete op amps that were designed specifically to outperform IC op amps in very specific ways. Their highly specialized benefits, to my knowledge, don’t offer any real world advantages in typical audio use. And audiophiles seem to favor much less rigorously designed discrete replacements for IC op amps. These discrete substitutes typically lack any sort of valid test data to demonstrate their real performance. So how does anyone know they outperform ICs? They mostly use Sighted Listening which is completely invalid (see above). Audio-GD discrete op amps were tested by Samuel Groner using an Audio Precision analyzer and the results were horrible. See The Discrete Is Better Myth. OP AMP MEASUREMENTS: To try and keep my articles to a more digestible size, I’m splitting this into two parts. This article has covered the history, applications, and myths. The next article will cover the more technical aspects including op amp parameters (what matters on a datasheet for audio) and some actual measurements using my and a number of op amps that were evaluated for the. Hey, thanks for another great article. As someone relatively new to the higher-end audio world I appreciate this. Being a scientist, I am always skeptical of the outrageous claims made (and prices charged) relating to a lot of audio gear. I have skimmed over some of your pages, and plan to read in more depth, but now that the O2 is coming out as a roughly $100 headphone amp, are you planning on anything similar relating to DACs? I currently use either my iPhone (pretty good sound quality, and enough volume for most of the time, but limited listening options) or my computer (more versatile, but has horrible audible noise from the rest of the system), and so I'd like to be able to get clean audio out of the computer, so any advice or recommendations would be great! There are still many areas of differences in performance exist among opamps such as driving capacitive loads like driving XLR cables with long lengths and driving low impedance loads down to 600ohms. Another very significant area of difference in performance of opamps is when you use them in active filters, some of them dont like over driven and tend to shift the phase excessively or phase reversal happens. TL072 is one such opamp, though this is not prevailent in NE5534/32 because it has back to back diodes at its inputs +/. Yet another area of difference lies in headroom, discreet implementations offer much higher voltage swing and its not difficult to make it when you have matched pair of transistors available in form of differential pairs and current sources. My 2 cents, Kanwar. Kanwar, thanks for your comments. I plan to cover some of those issues in the next, more technical, article. I talk about phase reversal in the O2 design process article. I did credit discrete designs with higher voltage capability--although there are several op amps with around 60 volt maximum ratings that can work well if you just need some extra headroom. In practice, even in pro sound gear, common op amps typically have enough headroom as long the engineer is careful with the gain distribution. But it can make the design a bit more challenging. Regarding high PSRR,kindly note that most opamps have single ended differential input stages which gives different values of PSRR for negative and positive rails. In discrete implementation, one can opt for fully symmetric design in order to get balanced PSRR on both rails. NE5532 gives the PSRR curves w.r.t both negative and positive rails and you can see the difference yourself in the datasheet. There are certainly some benefits associated with opamps such as ease of use, small footprint and much less external components required and they perform good in most of the applications. NE5534/32 is versatile proven workhorse in many applications but it also has limitations of its own. Gain and repeatability is not an issue with today's advancement in available discrete building blocks which come in matched pairs. I have made discrete opamps and class-A opamps in lots of 100 in which the parameter variation was tightly controlled such +/-5% openloop gain variation. Temperature/bias was again not an issue. As i am from pro-audio field only, i have seen yamaha and studiomaster mixers using NJM2068 and JRC4558 in plenty but they fall flat when they have to drive more than 3 to 4 power amplifiers connected in parallel through XLRs. Replacing them with NE5532 instantly makes the difference felt in the sound itself. Kanwar, thanks for the added points. The PSRR I'll get into more in the technical article coming up. I'm aware of the dual transistors available but there's a relatively limited selection available (especially from mainstream distributors) that are highly linear, low noise, and well suited for high-end audio use. There's more than just openloop gain in terms of parameters. In my experience discrete designs made with unmatched parts tend to have rather variable CMRR/PSRR. And if they use a class B output stage they also have rather variable THD. I'm not saying you can't get impressive performance from a discrete design. But it's generally far more costly and far more difficult to do so. And for most audio applications where an op amp works well, I just can't see any real world advantages to discrete. That's especially true for DIY, where few can even properly measure the result. As long as the voltage/current requirements are not an issue, a good op amp will likely yield far better performance than an untested discrete design made with unmatched commonly available parts. You're correct about the drive capabilities of the 2068 and 4558 vs the 5532. That's all just proper engineering. If you don't know what the load is going to be it's good practice to make some fairly worst case assumptions. FakeMilkshake Quick op-amp question for you, NwAvGuy: Are you aware of any common op-amps which do not exhibit the ringing or bouncing-across-to-the-opposite-rail behaviours which you mentioned previously, and where the output voltage swings to within the same distance of both supply rails (i.e. Vop+ = Vcc - x and Vop- = Vee + x). I was auditioning parts a couple of months ago for an instrumentation project (not audio) and had a tough time finding something that would do all this without going to an expensive rail-to-rail part. Hey, thanks to the one or two people who responded in regards to my DAC question. I know NwAvGuy has said he likes the Fiio E7, particularly its amp, but I recall him saying the DAC section on it was okay but not stellar. I guess I was wondering on two things in particular: 1. Does he plan to review other DAC or particularly DAC/Amp options in that rough price range (like the Audinst HUD-Mx1, for instance)? Does he plan to come up with a DIY DAC design, like the O2, which is based purely on the specs of the unit rather than listening test? I don't know if DACs are as susceptible to the design issues that he finds with some amps, or if a DIY would be worthwhile compared to what is out there already. Thanks again for the help. Focal, I'm open to suggestions for reasonably priced DACs to review that are $150 or less but most everyone seems to want me to review something different and I'm looking for something with hopefully broad appeal. The only two with much consensus so far are the Xonar U3 and Creative X-Fi HD. DACs are in many ways more susceptible to DIY problems than amps. It's challenging to achieve the specs on the datasheet if you don't use the chip maker's reference design (and I've yet to see a DIY designer that has). Even commercial companies, like NuForce, get it wrong (see my uDAC-2 review). Anonymous If the E7 has a good DAC section, yet certain limitations when it comes to its amplifier driving headphones with higher impedances, then it would be great to specify -more or less- what headphone impedances it is capable to handle, and which it definitely isn't made for. That would be a great reference you could add to your extraordinary review of the E7. The topic is certainly brought up by your review, but you only mention experiencing the E7's limitations while listening to headphones with a 80 and 250 Ohms impedance. Of course the sensitivity of headphones also plays an important role, but it would still be a great reference to have more clear spectrum of the headphones -or impedances- the E7 is really capable of delivering with. I personally own a pair of HFI 2400 Ultrasones, which have an impedance of 70 Ohm and a sensitivity rated at 94dB, and I would like to know if the E7 would be a good option for them, and I guess many other readers have the same question regarding their own headphones. Sorry to be asking for more, when your posts are already genuinely terrific, but I got really enthusiastic about the E7 and I would really get one if it does the job with my cans. Thanks for your great -and so necessary- blog, and for taking the time to answer everyone's questions. The OPA627 isn't part of my tests because I was evaluating only dual op amps in DIP8 packages. But, that said, I'm fairly confident in a typical configuration with the circuit optimized for both parts, and in a blind test you wouldn't hear a difference unless it was a really high gain circuit and the rather mediocre noise performance of the 2134 was audible. The key word above is BLIND. It's not easy to to do blind comparisons of op amps without a fairly specialized set up, or long times between shutting down the gear, having someone else swap out parts (or pretend to), and powering it back up again. But I've done them and will be doing more now that I have multiple identical O2 boards laying around:) The OPA627 typically sounds better because it's expensive and everyone else said it sounds better so that's the widespread expectation. It's no different than the Matrix Audio test, or Meyer & Moran, etc. Or, it's possible it's ringing or otherwise has some problem making it at least sound different. Yeah, that's likely typical biased sighted listening--i.e. The McGurk Effect. As I've explained, the majority of music people listen to, including some treasured audiophile recordings, has already been through multiple 5532 op amps. They're the mainstay in high-end pro sound gear. My blind challenge stands. Please direct whoever made that claim to step up. If they really believe the 5532 sounds obviously bad they can get $500 donated to the charity of their choice if their ears can support their claims. Kiteki Hi NwAvGuy! I'm currently using NE5532P, OPA2134PA and OPA627AU(x2) in my DAC, I have a few more on the way now such as AD8620AR(x2), LT1028CSW(x2), AD797AR(x2), OPA2111KP & OPA552AP. Which of these would be suitable for a blind test in the objective2 amplifier? Thanks in advance if you think some of these are suitable to alternate in the objective2 design, then I'll black out the lettering, write on them underneath with ultraviolet ink, and practice to see whether I can identify any difference, in pursuit of audio truth. Kindest Regards, Kiteki. In the O2 it's fair to compare the OPA2134, NE5532 and NJM2068 in blind testing. But to do that right, you need two otherwise identical O2 amps, fed with a 'Y' cable from the same source, volume matched to exactly the same level, a way to switch the headphones between both of them, and someone else to do the switching behind your back in such a way you have no idea which is which. The brain's memory of subtle audio details is very short. So during the time required to swap op amps you will forget a lot. It's best to rapidly switch between 'A' and 'B'. Some of the other op amps you listed may be stable in the O2 as well, but I haven't tested them. I would stick with the three above. If you can really make them all look the same, that could work too, but that might be harder than you think. The color of the packaging material (shades of dark gray), style and plating on the pins, etc. May still give you clues as to which is which. Better is to have a friend swap the op amps in a way you can't see which one is installed. And sometimes have them only pretend to switch the op amp but leave the same one in place. You also have to make sure the volume setting does not change even a little between op amp swaps. Kiteki If there are three objective2's, and it's only a matter of deciding which two share the same chip in a volume matched ABX, however not _identifying_ which chip that is, that sounds too easy! I'm quite perplexed now, because I've even read comments on diyaudio from someone working at National saying which chip he thought sounded the best in their listening room (LME49713). I'll try assembling two objective2's with different opamps then. At the moment I'm perplexed because the OPA2134 and OPA627 honestly sound different in my DAC, perhaps it's a power issue or one of them is fake. ABX/DBT testing is all about determining if a person (or ideally several people) can reliably tell A from B. They have to score significantly better than just random guessing over several trials. If they can reliably hear a difference, ABX/DBT doesn't help much with deciding which one sounds better--that's a subjective choice. With op amps, when properly implemented (power supply, compensation, drive capability, closed loop bandwidth, stability, sufficiently low noise and distortion, etc.), the issue usually isn't deciding which one sounds better, or which is which, it's that they don't have any 'sound' at all. As explained in this article, lots of people who 'roll' op amps really have little idea what they're doing. In some cases it's a lot like dropping a lawn mower engine in your car, or a big V8 engine into your lawn mower--neither is a good match. So it's no wonder you read all sorts of things on diyAudio, Head-Fi, etc. But it's fair to compare the 3 op amps I mentioned above without changing the O2's gain stage. There are others that work OK as well--see the next article on this blog regarding Op Amp measurements. Finally, if the differences are so obvious, why hasn't one single person come forward to accept my blind op amp listening challenge? Steve Davies Hi kiteki If you find that changing the interconnect cable changes the sound of your DAC then it is could indicate a deficiency in the output buffer. I had an OPA2134 in the I-V section and an OPA2134 in post filter/buffer section of my Denon DCD825. Luckily Denon did not use 1 chip for the left channel and 1 chip for the right channel. I did think that the 'dark' sound of the OPA2134 was a myth, as the sound I was hearing was pretty punchy and forward. However I think that the OPA2134 has problems driving cable capacitance and the top end loses detail and the bass become boomy with even interconnect capacitance. With the OPA2134 it was quite easy to distinguish between a coax Radio Shack cable and a twisted pair + screen Ixos cable. The cheaper Radio Shack cable was felt to sound more neutral on this CD player. Swapping to an NJM4556 in the buffer position the sound is clearer, especially the top end. For example it is easier to identify the various cymbals in cluttered rock music. Switching the interconnects the difference is no longer so obvious. I think that this chip is just about impervious to any reasonable cable capacitance - NwAvGuy can prove me wrong - as it drove 500pF through 10r perfectly to my ears. I'm guessing that the difference in sound that you hear is dominated by you choice of buffer amp. Steve Davies In my last comment I suggested that the differences that kiteki heard were due to the ability of the OPA2134 to drive cable. Now I think that the cable sound was a secondary effect and I am not even sure that the NMJ4556 made much difference. I put a NE5532 in the buffer position and tried other opamps in the I-V position. Here is the conclusion of sighted/blind testing using Vivaldi 4 seasons CD. (I knew which chips were which but my friend did not) OPA2134 - nice euphonic sound but violins sounded synthetic and a little bright. Harpsichord was lost. LME49720 - Not so bright sound but now we could hear the correct timbre of the violins and the harpsichord suddenly appeared. NE5532 - Clearly more accurate than the OPA2134 but violin tone was not quite as convincing as the LME49720. On the plus side it was also easier to pick out the rhythm of the bass than with the LME49720. The LME49720 gets my vote for the seductive top end and the mid detail. It just sounds right. Of course this adds nothing to the argument as to whether the same chips sound different in the simpler role of the gain stage of the 02. Thanks for the added comments. If you're talking about listening, killing the power, prying a chip out, replacing it, powering back up, and listening again you're at a big disadvantage. It's been shown we humans don't do very well at remembering subtle differences in things we hear. It's way too easy for our memories to slightly alter or skew what we thought we hear. It's a lot like if I show someone a brown house color chip from a paint store, take it away for several minutes, and then present them with half a dozen very similar shades of brown and ask them to pick out which one I just showed them 5 minutes ago. They're apt to get it wrong if the shades are relatively close. But when you put two color chips side by side it's easy to determine if they're the same or different. The same is true in blind listening. You need to switch nearly instantly (ideally in under 0.1 seconds) to perform a direct comparison that's not tainted by 'selective memory'. This has been demonstrated with multiple studies (some of which are referenced in my Subjective vs Objective article). I believe in a proper blind ABX test with immediate switching between two otherwise identical pieces of gear you would not hear any differences between those three op amps unless one or more of them is being operated in a way that's stressing the part. In fact, I'll give $500 to the charity of your choice if you really can hear a difference in a proper blind public listening test (see the Op Amp Measurements article). Some devices, especially ones made in large volumes, may be 'cost engineered' in ways that might compromise the choice of op amps. But it's not very likely in the sort of gear audiophiles are usually trying to 'upgrade'. The NJM2068 is cheaper than the NE5532 and performs better in some applications. The amount of time spent on design is a very different issue. Generally for large volume products, some extra development costs won't make a huge difference in the profits. But there often is a rush to get products to market for competitive reasons. With low volume audiophile products, all bets are off. Some are even largely 'designed by ear' and/or designed by people who don't even understand proper engineering. Thanks for the reply, My Soundcard is a low-end card being a Xonar DS, it comes with a Op-Amp Socket, and a NE5532, it fits the bill of a cost engineered entry level audiophile product. And 5.1 is pretty much broken as Windows seemly never advertises the correct configuration to any apps (Linux on the other hand makes this card far better). I'll probably just pick up an O2 amp kit to clean up the impedance problems I assume it has and open the possibility to some less efficient headphones, when I buy a decent pair, instead of fiddling with Op-Amps and the like. But either way, I like learning about stuff, so keep up with the awesome articles. Sound Shui The weapon of choice to drive h/p seems to be JRC4556 (usually SMD type). I’ve found them in Creative Soundblaster Live series & quite a few motherboards (operating at +/- 5V), also in old Marantz & Philips CD players. The JRC4558 (SMD type) can be found in almost every line out driver section of consumer DVD players (+/- 12V). JRC4580 or NE/ NJM5532 (again SMD type) are also used in some soundcards to drive h/p. But never have I seen 4556 in parallel to drive h/p (like O2). Looks like these opamps from JRCs has got a huge fan followings amongst designers & engineers(incl. NWAVGUY & yours truly) but often getting slammed by subjectivists in forums. If you see 'LOAD MORE.' OR 'LOADING.' Just above this paragraph, you need to click that link to load the newest comments. It may take several seconds. When all the comments are displayed the Load More/Loading link disappears. COMMENT APPROVAL: Comments may take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days to be approved. You might want to save a copy (highlight Ctrl-C) of your comments before submitting in case something goes wrong. The approval process is necessary to prevent obscenity, etc. Please keep comments on topic. Comments promoting commercial interests will not be approved and may be reported as SPAM. Man at fight club (uncredited) Produced. Line producer: China/HK (as Wenyao Li). Line producer. Producer Music by Cinematography. Enjoy Man of Tai Chi online with XFINITY®'s high-quality streaming anytime, anywhere. Watch your favorite movies with XFINITY® today! Directed by Keanu Reeves. With Tiger Hu Chen, Keanu Reeves, Karen Mok, Hai Yu. A young martial artist's unparalleled Tai Chi skills land him in a highly lucrative. Director of photography Film Editing by Casting By Production Design by Art Direction. Co-art director: China Costume Design by Makeup Department. Special makeup effects artist Production Management. Production supervisor: China. Production manager (IMAX version). Unit production manager: Beijing. Production manager: stunts Second Unit Director or Assistant Director. Second assistant director. Second unit director. First assistant director Art Department. Storyboard artist. Assistant art director Sound Department. Adr technician. Adr recordist: Thailand. Re-recording mixer. Dialogue editor. Fights and effects design / supervising sound editor. Re-recording mixer. Adr facility supervisor. Sound recordist Visual Effects. Digital artist. Digital compositor. Additional Post-production Manager. Flame artist. Digital compositor. Visual effects production coordinator: Base FX. Digital artist. Digital compositor. Visual effects producer. Digital compositor. Visual effects producer: Base Fx. Digital compositor. Senior compositor: Base FX. Lead effects technical director: BaseFX. Visual effects coordinator (as Natasa Ljubisavljevic). Digital painter: Base Fx. Lead compositor. Digital compositor. Compositor: Base FX. Digital artist. Compositing supervisor (uncredited) Stunts. Car stunt coordinator. Assistant car stunt coordinator. Action choreographer (as Tony Ling Chi-Wai). Martial arts choreographer. Fight choreographer. Action choreographer (as Eagle Yuen Shun-Yi). Action director Camera and Electrical Department. Camera 'A' Camera Trainee. Video assist operator. Assistant camera. Lighting designer. Lead video engineer. First assistant camera: 'a' camera Casting Department. Fighter casting. Casting associate. Extras casting director. Extras casting assistant. Casting coordinator Costume and Wardrobe Department. Costume supervisor Editorial Department. Digital intermediate editor (as Matthew Blackshear). Digital intermediate producer. First assistant editor. Digital intermediate finishing artist. Digital intermediate systems administrator. Digital intermediate assist. Digital intermediate assist. Digital intermediate assistant. Digital colorist: Marketing. 2nd assistant editor. First assistant editor. Digital intermediate colorist. Assistant editor (as Vincent Bin). Digital cinema mastering: IMAX (uncredited). Color timer (uncredited) Music Department. Music editor Other crew. Assistant accountant. Chef (as Tom Burney Hong Kong Personal Chef). Assistant: Ms. Production controller. Location accountant. Production attorney / production legal counsel. Assistant: Mr Reeves. Producer assistant. Production consultant. Assistant production coordinator. Script supervisor. Production accountant. Physical trainer: Mr. Reeves and Mr. Production accountant. Assistant to the upm. Development executive. Production intern (uncredited). Post-production accountant (uncredited). Consultant (uncredited) Thanks. Special thanks. Subscribe HERE for NEW movie trailers ➤ Man of Tai Chi - Official Trailer (2013) Release Date: November 1, 2013 (limited) Studio: RADiUS-TWC Director: Keanu Reeves Screenwriter: Michael G. Cooney Starring: Keanu Reeves, Tiger Hu Chen, Karen Mok, Iko Uwais Genre: Action Plot Summary: Set in modern Beijing, 'Man of Tai Chi' marks Keanu Reeves' directorial debut. The film, also starring Reeves, follows the spiritual journey of a young martial artist (played by Tiger Chen) whose unparalleled Tai Chi skills land him in a highly lucrative underworld fight club. As the fights intensify, so does his will to survive. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |