Collector Car Insurance and Classic Car Insurance

If you are fortunate enough to own a classic car – or any collectible automobile – then you want to ensure that your luck does not run out because of having inadequate insurance coverage. Call it covering your butt – or covering your “asset” – but by all means, call one of the major providers such as American Collectors, Haggerty, or Parish Heacock insurance companies and let them put you in the driver’s seat in terms of professional protection of your cherished automotive investment.

How to Kick the Tires on Classic Car Insurance

The whole idea of insurance is that it needs to do what you expect of it in an emergency, when the rubber really hits the road. And classic car insurance is as different from conventional auto insurance as, well, a classic car is from your run of the mill generic vehicle.

When you buy a classic car insurance policy, you are essentially purchasing protection for those times when – God forbid and knock on wood it doesn’t happen – disaster strikes in the form of a fire, a collision, or an act of theft or vandalism. Just as we now have modern airbags to save us in the event of a crash, we also have collector’s car insurance, to protect us with adequate moneybags when calamity throws a wrench in the works.

The time you invest in choosing the right classic car insurance coverage is well worth the value and peace of mind that a quality collector’s insurance policy delivers for owners of classic motor cars.

The Nuts and Bolts of Classic Car Insurance Coverage

Collector car insurance is not the same as the insurance you buy for normal coverage of your daily transportation. Collector car insurance, or classic car insurance, is made especially for the needs of the car collector. And while ordinary insurance does offer some protection, no matter what you drive, it can leave you high and dry in the event of a loss that it not effectively covered by the terms of the insurance contract.

For example, you may have a garage-kept Cadillac Sedan DeVille with swooping fins your grandparents bought for $7,000 brand new back in the 1960s. But dealers have offered you three times that much, and you saw another one sell at an auto show for $35,000. If you don’t have special collector car insurance or classic car insurance, and the car is totaled, you will be lucky to get $7,000 for it. With depreciation calculated in, the insurance statisticians may decide that it is worth only half that much, or less, and you could wind up with two or three grand in exchange for your dream machine.

Stipulations or requirements normally encountered while shopping for collector car insurance or classic car insurance:

• A decent driving record.
• At least 10 years driving experience
• No teen drivers on the policy or drivers with poor driving records
• Secure and out of the weather garage
• Proof that you have another car for daily transportation
• Collector vehicle insurance is sometimes limited by the age of your car, and if your car is too young it may not qualify for a particular policy.
• Limited mileage. You probably don’t want to drive your creampuff car all the time, and your insurance company doesn’t want you to either. Mileage limits have increased recently, though, so if you can live with 250 miles a month you’re probably okay.

Coverage with collector car insurance or classic car insurance: Three kinds of value are important to understand when buying your policy. 1) Actual cash value: This is what you usually get with ordinary insurance, and is based on replacement cost minus depreciation.

2) Stated value:

The insurance company pays up to the stated value of the car, but may not guarantee the full stated value. And deductibles of up to $1,000 usually apply.

3) Agreed value:

In most jurisdictions, those who provide collector car insurance or classic car insurance are allowed to insure for a value that you and your insurer agree upon. And for most autos, there is no deductible. If your $100,000 vintage Rolls get trashed, you get a check for 100 grand, plain and simple – which is exactly why collectors use special classic car insurance coverage.

Do a periodic review of your coverage limits, because classic car prices are rising. What you insured your cherry classic for ten years ago may be a fraction of what it’s worth today. And if you are restoring a vehicle, ask your agent to give you appropriate insurance. There is no need to pay extra based on mileage statistics, if your car is up on blocks with no engine inside it. And as the car’s value increases thanks to your hard work of restoring it, you should raise the coverage to keep up with the added value of the restoration.

Keep all your receipts and paperwork – for everything from parts and labor to expenses incurred to take it to a classic car show – so that you can document the total investment your collector’s car represents. And take photos and keep them updated, for the same reason. And Last But Not Least: Special Savings Opportunities

As long as you meet the criteria in terms of how you use and take care of the car, you can usually buy a policy.

Traditional insurers will either refuse coverage, offer only a replacement value based on the nuts and bolts (minus heavy depreciation) of the car, or will charge you a prohibitive amount for the premium. But many collectors find that special collector’s coverage saves them money – as much as half – while insuring them for higher limits, sometime three or four times what a traditional company gave them.

Yes, it’s possible to get collector’s insurance coverage for full market value for your car, and save up to 50 percent off of the premium you’d pay with ordinary insurance. That makes classic car insurance a must-have for any serious car buff.

Below is information about three of the most reputable and dependable collectors and classic car insurance companies in the USA (All information listed below subject to change, please contact the insurance companies listed to be sure.):

Hagerty Insurance P.O. Box 1303 Traverse City, MI 49685-1303

Email: auto@hagerty.com Toll Free: 800-922-4050

Qualifications:

• Similar to the others listed below, but please contact Haggerty for details.

American Collectors Insurance P.O. Box 8343 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Email: info@americancollectors.com Toll Free: (800) 360-2277 Qualifications (subject to change or regional laws so check with the company for specific up-to-date information).

• At least 15 years old
• Garage-kept
• Driven on a limited, pleasure-only basis (up to 5,000 annual miles – available in most states)

You may also qualify by:

• Having at least 10 years driving experience
• Having a good driving record
• Having at least one “regular” vehicle for every licensed driver in the household You may request a policy application either directly from American Collectors Insurance or through your local insurance agent (rates are the same either way).

Parish Heacock Classic Car Insurance P.O. Box 24807 Lakeland, FL 33802-4807 Email: info@parishheacock.com Toll free: (800) 678-5173 Qualifications (subject to change or regional laws so check with the company for specific up-to-date information).

• Each household member of driving age must have at least 10 years driving experience or be excluded.
• Each household member must have a regular use vehicle less than 15 years old that is insured with liability limits equal to or higher than the limits being applied for on the collectible vehicle.
• All licensed members of household and any other drivers of the vehicle must be listed on the application.
• Maximum of two accidents or violations in the household, maximum of one per licensed household member in past 3 years. No major violations permitted in past 5 years.
• A Driver Health Questionnaire must be completed for all drivers over 70 years old.
• Auto must be stored in a locked permanent garage facility when not driven.
• Auto may not be used for commuting to or from work or school, used for business purposes or as a substitute for another auto.
• Autos not covered while on a racetrack or when being used for: racing, speed, driver’s education, or timed events.
• Must display pride of ownership: well maintained, in restored or well-preserved condition.
• Vehicles under restoration must be stored at residence or a restoration shop, with a target date for completion. Agreed value coverage is not available on cars under restoration. Eligibility subject to company review.
• Replica Vehicles and Pro Street vehicles are subject to company review.
• Trucks and Jeeps must be over 25 years old, and not be used for towing, hauling, off-road or utility use.
• Generally do not require appraisals, but may ask for one if vehicle value is difficult to determine.

Michael Modica is an avid musclecar fan. He is the webmaster of the world’s leading Second Generation Camaro resouce, http://www.nastyz28.com

As we kick off a new year in cinema, I thought I’d take time to look ahead at the films we’ll be hit with over the course of the year. In this article, I’ll be going over what my 15 most anticipated movies are for the year. Now it should be noted, these aren’t the movies that I feel will be the best of 2011 necessarily. Rather, they’re the ones that, as of the time of this writing, I am anticipating the most. So without further ado, here are my most anticipated movies of 2011.

1. Sucker Punch

Director: Zack Snyder

Writer: Zack Snyder and Steve Shibuya

Stars: Emily Browning, Vanessa Hudgens and Abbie Cornish

Release Date: March 25, 2011

Genre: Action Fantasy Thriller

What is it: A young girl is institutionalized by her wicked stepfather. Retreating to an alternative reality as a coping strategy, she envisions a plan which will help her escape from the facility.

Why it should be good: Really hot and badass chicks wearing schoolgirl outfits and other skimpy clothes, with swords and guns, coupled with Snyder’s awesome visual flair? Yea, definitely count me in. The trailer for this thing just looks completely awesome. From the style to the action, even the story (while seeming a bit out there) seems cool. I’m beginning to thoroughly enjoy Snyder’s work. If The Adjustment Bureau could be this year’s new Inception due to its mindfuck story, then Sucker Punch could absolutely be this year’s Inception meets The Dark Knight meets 300 meets Inglorious Basterds due to it’s style and epic adventure, yet dark tone with alternate realities. This movie just oozes style and badass-ness and I really can’t wait for what is sure to be an absolutely entertaining, epic adventure.

Why it could suck: Snyder can be a bit off his mark sometimes. While Watchmen was enjoyable, it did get a bit boring. And Legend of the Guardians is said to suffer from some pacing issues as well and has drawn mixed reviews from critics. Though to be fair to Snyder, he wrote neither of those movies, but is responsible for the writing (or at least screenplay) of the badass 300.

2. Sherlock Holmes 2

Director: Guy Ritchie

Writer: Kieran and Michele Mulroney

Stars: Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Noomi Rapace and Stephen Fry

Release Date: December 16, 2011

Genre: Action Mystery

What is it: Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson join forces to outwit and bring down their fiercest adversary, Professor Moriarty.

Why it should be good: I’m a big Sherlock Holmes fan. The Doyle stories still stand as my favorite books today. I love Sherlock. He’s such a badass. And finally, a movie seems to have captured that pretty well. The first was one of the better portrayals of Sherlock I had seen. Rather than being portrayed as a snooty, ‘proper’ and sophisticated Englishman, he was shown with all the rough edges that Doyle wrote him with. While the movie was indeed Hollywood-ized beyond anything you’d find in the books, it was a fun adventure and quite an enjoyable movie. Guy Ritchie is a very good filmmaker as well. For these reasons, and my love for Sherlock, I’m very much eager to see how Part 2 turns out, especially as they go head-to-head with Moriarty. Also, I’m eager to see how well Noomi Rapace (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,etc) does in her Hollywood debut.

Why it could suck: New writers. The original writers from the first aren’t coming back instead Kieran and Michele Mulroney are taking over the job. So let’s see how they handle it. Relatively new to writing, the two previously wrote Paper Man which didn’t fair so well with critics.

3. Paranormal Activity 3

Director: Tod Williams

Writer: Christopher B. Landon and Michael R. Perry; characters by Oren Peli

Stars: Katie Featherston

Release Date: October 21, 2011

Genre: Horror

What is it: Well, we have no idea what this one is going to be about as nothing has been given. However, the first movie followed a couple that were being haunted by an evil spirit who possessed Katie. The sequel (which was more of a prequel) followed Katie’s sister’s family as that same spirit haunts them and their baby. This all culminates to the two stories converging at the end of Part 2 where it gets to the point where Part 1 ends and we see what happens after the whole event. Undoubtedly, Part 3 is set to pick up where Part 2 and 1 left off. What happens from there? Your guess is as good as mine.

Why it should be good: The first Paranormal Activity became something of a cult phenomenon/sensation. Hailed as the scariest movie of the year, people flocked to the film making it a huge success. And rightly so in my book. It was a minimalistic horror movie that took it back to the roots of the genre by using tension and suspense to really instill fear and terror in the minds of the audience. Part 2, while some people seemed to not like it as much as the first, did more of the same. I actually thought Part 2 was pretty much right on par with the first. And the ingenious storytelling that created a parallel prequel to the first was definitely cool. The creator and writers of this franchise have really shown that the horror genre can be revived and doesn’t have to be all about gore and such. They’ve done a good job with instilling that fear in the audience as well, tapping into that fear, leaving the audience’s imagination to run wild while being completely captivated. I expect no less from the third.

Why it could suck: If you feel the second was worse than the first, then you may be in for some disappoint when you find out the same writers and director of the sequel are back. However, like with Part 2, Oren Peli (the creator of the franchise) is still very much involved and is serving as producer on this film.

4. Paul

Director: Greg Mottola

Writer: Nick Frost and Simon Pegg

Stars: Nick Frost, Simon Pegg and Seth Rogen

Release Date: March 18, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Comedy

What is it: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead) reunite for the comedy adventure Paul as two sci-fi geeks whose pilgrimage takes them to America’s UFO heartland. While there, they accidentally meet an alien who brings them on an insane road trip that alters their universe forever. For the past 60 years, an alien named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen) has been hanging out at a top-secret military base. For reasons unknown, the space-traveling smart ass decides to escape the compound and hop on the first vehicle out of town-a rented RV containing Earthlings Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost). Chased by federal agents and the fanatical father of a young woman that they accidentally kidnap, Graeme and Clive hatch a fumbling escape plan to return Paul to his mother ship. And as two nerds struggle to help, one little green man might just take his fellow outcasts from misfits to intergalactic heroes.

Why it should be good: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost back together again. That should be enough. Seriously. When these two guys get together it’s gold, as evidenced by Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. This might be my favorite duo around these days. They’ll also be pairing up to write this which is always a good thing as well (well, this will be Frost’s first real writing job, but Pegg has been responsible for their first two outings together). Now, they won’t be reuniting with Edgar Wright for this one, instead they’ll be teaming with the director of Adventureland andSuperbad, two movies which I definitely enjoyed. On top of all of that, they have comedic star Seth Rogan joining them. Sounds like quite the team really and I’m rather excited for what I’m sure will be a very funny movie, and possibly end up being the comedy of the year.

Why it could suck: You do have to wonder if some of that magic from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz will be lost as Frost and Pegg carry on without Wright. I think they’re great comedic talents though and can stand on their own. And the somewhat all-star get-together should compensate.

5. The Adjustment Bureau

Director: George Nolfi

Writer: George Nolfi; Based on Short Story by Philip K. Dick

Stars: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt and Terence Stamp

Release Date: March 4, 2011

Genre: Thriller

What is it: Just as he is on the brink of winning a senate seat, politician David Norris (Matt Damon) meets a ballerina named Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt). Though David is smitten, mysterious men conspire to keep him away from the beautiful dancer. David learns he is up against the powerful agents of Fate itself, and, glimpsing the future laid out before him, must either accept a predetermined path that does not include Elise, or defy Fate to be with her.

Why it should be good: Honestly, this sounds like it could be this year’s Inception. With plenty of mindfucks going on, it’s a thriller involving different levels of reality and mysterious forces. Matt Damon really tends to shine in these types of movies. The trailer has me rather intrigued and looks like it could provide quite an enthralling adventure. While this is Nolfi’s directorial debut, he did write The Bourne Ultimatum, thus will be teaming up with Damon once again. The movie is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, whose work has been the grounds for such movies asBlade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, Paycheck and A Scanner Darkly. So with presumably some good source material, and a writer that can definitely do the part (as illustrated with The Bourne Ultimatum) we could be in for a real treat.

Why it could suck: This is Nolfi’s first time in the director’s seat, so we’ll have to wait and see if he’s in over his head. Furthermore, it is being billed as something of a romance thriller. So let’s hope they don’t go overboard with the romance part and make it some sappy romance film for which they sacrifice some of the plot to focus on the romance.

6. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Director: Rob Marshall

Writer: Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio

Stars: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Penelope Cruz and Ian McShane

Release Date: May 20, 2011

Genre: Fantasy Action-Adventure

What is it: Jack Sparrow and Barbossa embark on a quest to find the elusive fountain of youth, only to discover that Blackbeard and his daughter are after it too.

Why it should be good: Some people have hated them. Some have thought they’ve gotten worse as they went along. I’ve found the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise to be a fun adventure. Just a fun movie with plenty of adventure, some cool special effects, and just good times. And maybe it’s my man-crush I have on Depp, but I’m absolutely thrilled to see him back as Jack Sparrow. The character is so much fun and always provides for some entertainment. Should be interesting to see how they go about freshening up the franchise as well as they get a new cast of characters while Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann are out.

Why it could suck: It’s a Hollywood sequel, those always have chances of sucking. Also, the exclusion of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann could put a damper on things. While there is a chance that it could freshen it up, there is just as much a chance that some of that magic might be lost as they look to replace those characters. Also, while we do get the same writers back, we have a new director taking on this sequel. Pirates seems to be out of Rob Marshall’s comfort zone (best known for Memoirs of a Geisha and Chicago) so we’ll have to wait and see how he can handle an action adventure of this scope.

7. The Hangover 2

Director: Todd Phillips

Writer: Todd Phillips, Scot Armstrong and Craig Mazin

Stars: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and Justin Bartha

Release Date: May 26, 2011

Genre: Comedy

What is it: Not a lot is known about the plot of this sequel. What is known is that the gang is back to get into more trouble as they travel to Thailand. And Phillips promise a lot of fucked up surprises and hilarity.

Why it should be good: The Hangover was hilarious I thought. The cast of the original had good chemistry and the writing was hilarious. It provided for several laugh-out-loud moments and was one of the funniest movies of the year (one of the funniest I’ve seen in a while too). Hopefully, getting the gang back together will provide for more hilarity that the first one delivered.

Why it could suck: New writers. The writers from the first aren’t coming back and have been replaced. Instead we get Scot Armstrong and Craig Mazin that have brought us such garbage asSemi-Pro, Starsky and Hutch, Scary Movie 4 and Superhero Movie. If their past work is any indicator of their talent, the writers could really butcher this franchise.

8. Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Director: Michael Bay

Writer: Ehren Kruger

Stars: Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson

Release Date: July 1, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Action-Adventure

What is it: The Autobots learn of a Cybertronian spacecraft hidden on the Moon, and race against the Decepticons to reach it and learn its secrets, which could turn the tide in the Transformers’ final battle.

Why it should be good: I’ve enjoyed the franchise so far. While Part 2, was blasted pretty well by critics, I didn’t hate it that much. Granted it wasn’t as good as the first, but I still found it fairly entertaining. And the movies are always a fun visual treat. Also, Michael Bay. I still have no idea why he receives so much crap while James Cameron is given a pass. Bay is just as adept a director as Cameron is. Anybody that still likes to tell me there’s a difference between Pearl Harbor and Titanic will kindly receive a “fuck off” as you buy into the pretentious drivel. At least Bay knows his place (a mindless action director who can make pretty movies and fun explosions). Whereas Cameron believes his some gift to cinema which often leads to his films being poorly written, yet pretentious as hell. Seriously, I’ll take Armageddon, Transformers, The Rock and Bad Boys over Titanic, Avatar, Aliens, and T2 any day of the week. Even though, yes, I know that will enrage many people and get me flamed for that opinion. Now, this movie (Transformers: Dark of the Moon) surely won’t be a great cinematic piece. But as a mindless “let’s make some cool special effects scenes and also blow some shit up” type of movie, it should be entertaining.

Why it could suck: Well, if I had to pick one movie from the franchise that was better, it’s definitely the first. The writer for this third film, unfortunately, is the same writer from Part 2 rather than the first. Also, it’s still Michael Bay. He’s not the greatest of directors.

9. X-Men: First Class

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Writer: Jane Goldman, Ashley Miller, Jamie Moss, Josh Schwartz and Zack Stentz; story by Bryan Singer

Stars: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence

Release Date: June 3, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Action

What is it: Before Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr took the names Professor X and Magneto, they were two young men discovering their powers for the first time. Before they were archenemies, they were closest of friends, working together, with other Mutants (some familiar, some new), to stop the greatest threat the world has ever known. In the process, a rift between them opened, which began the eternal war between Magneto’s Brotherhood and Professor X’s X-MEN.

Why it should be good: A look at when Xavier and Magneto were younger. A backstory to where it all started. For such a thrilling franchise, this could be a nice take on the story and provide quite some entertainment and thrills. Plus, having directed movies like Kick-Ass andStardust, Matthew Vaughn is, I believe, much more adept at creating a movie like this than say a Jon Favreau or such. Vaughn also has the enjoyable Layer Cake under his director’s belt, which very much shows off that he learned well producing Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels andSnatch. Furthermore, his friendship and learning under the great Guy Ritchie, only further adds value to his role as a filmmaker. Meanwhile, the writers have brought us such movies as Stardustand Kick-Ass as well as TV shows such as Fringe and Chuck. Also, it has a pretty good cast.

Why it could suck: Well, those writers did also bring us The Sarah Connor Chronicles andAndromeda. Also, prequels sometimes have a tendency to not do so well. It’s, sometimes, almost as if a prequel is a last resort when the writers have run out of ideas of where the current story can go, so they decide to go back and cash in on the name once more by filling in some gaps from the beginning. I guess only time will tell if this becomes a Batman Begins (ie a very good prequel movie that did very well to reboot the franchise) or it falls more in line with The Scorpion King (ie a complete waste of my time that probably shouldn’t have even been made).

10. Source Code

Director: Duncan Jones

Writer: Ben Ripley

Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan and Vera Farmiga

Release Date: April 1, 2011

Genre: Action/Sci-fi-Thriller

What is it: An action thriller centered on a soldier who wakes up in the body of an unknown man and discovers he’s part of a mission to find the bomber of a Chicago commuter train.

Why it should be good: The trailer just makes this like it could be a cool creative story that provides for an entertaining thriller that could keep you on the edge of your seat. This is Duncan Jones sophomore release, after 2009′s highly acclaimed Moon. So, if he delivers again, we could have a nice treat on our hands and he could solidify his place as a talented filmmaker. I also really enjoy Jake Gyllenhaal. I think he’s a great actor and should do fine in leading this movie. Vera Farmiga is also a really talented actress and one I definitely don’t mind seeing. Meanwhile, Michelle Monaghan isn’t too bad either.

Why it could suck: This is coming from an unproven writer. And while Duncan Jones’ Moon was well-received, it’s not rare that a filmmaker comes in to become something of a one hit wonder. Let’s just hope Jones can deliver a worthwhile follow-up.

11. Battle: Los Angeles

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Writer: Christopher Bertolini

Stars: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez and Bridget Moynahan

Release Date: March 11, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Action

What is it: A Marine platoon faces off against an alien invasion in Los Angeles.

Why it should be good: The official trailer makes it look so damn bad-ass. Maybe that’s in part due to the great song selection for the trailer, but it looks just completely thrilling. It looks to be a sci-fi action movie that actually has some depth too. It sort of reminds me of Independence Day but with the seriousness, depth and emotional-center of some type of good post-9/11 movie. It’s like we may finally get a really good sci-fi movie with the heart of the best war movies, coupled with the awesome actual and visual treats of some of the best sci-fi/alien movies. Eckhart is a good actor that should do well in this movie as well. Also, the writer’s only past feature film work was The General’s Daughter which I thoroughly enjoyed. So if that’s any indication of the type of writing we’ll get for Battle LA then we should definitely have a compelling story to go with the visual flare of it all. Likewise, Jonathan Liebesman has brought us The Killing Room which I felt was a fairly enjoyable suspense/thriller movie.

Why it could suck: Liebesman also brought us Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginningwhich was garbage. On top of that, movies like this can often take themselves too seriously and often times become pretentious and/or preachy and just plain unimaginative with no real heart to the movie (I’m looking at you War of the Worlds). Let’s hope they avoid that here.

12. Cowboys and Aliens

Director: Jon Favreau

Writer: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof; based on the comic book by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg

Stars: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford and Olivia Wilde

Release Date: July 29, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Action-Thriller

What is it: A spaceship arrives in Arizona, 1873, to take over the Earth, starting with the Wild West region. A posse of cowboys are all that stand in their way.

Why it should be good: It just looks fun. It’s like Indiana Jones meets Men in Black with a good western feel to it. This also comes from the writers that brought us such movies as Transformersand Star Trek, and such TV shows as Alias, Fringe and Lost (though in my book “Lost” might be a bad example, though others seemed to enjoy it). Also, there’s a good cast (Craig, Ford and Wilde), coupled with a nice supporting cast which includes Sam Rockwell and Paul Dano. At the end of the day, it may end up being a mindless action movie, but still looks to be fun.

Why it could suck: Jon Favreau. I’m sorry, but the guy hasn’t sold me. People seem to like him, but I’m not entirely sure why. The guy hasn’t delivered any really great movies. And only a few decent ones. Well, Elf I thought was really funny. Both Iron Man movies were really nothing to write home about though. Both were enjoyable, but they definitely weren’t spotlights in their genre. And the second one was panned quite a bit (though I enjoyed both, but the second was a bit lacking). And that’s really the only movies (Iron Man) that he’s done in this genre/realm. So that doesn’t give me a big vote of confidence in the guy. His other movies: Zathura was crap andMade was decent. Nothing else to note really. On top of that, the writers did also give usRevenge of the Fallen, which I enjoyed well enough, but wasn’t on par with the first Transformersmovie. And they’re also responsible for such things as The Island and Legend of Zorro.

13. Apollo 18

Director: Gonzalo López-Gallego

Writer: Brian Miller and Cory Goodman

Stars: None Given

Release Date: April 22, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Horror-Thriller

What is it: Apollo 18 is a found-footage movie that claims to be “a film about the real mission to space in the 1970′s that was canceled by NASA.” With the tagline “There’s a reason we’ve never gone back to the moon”, while implying a government cover-up of monsters existing on the moon.

Why it should be good: With these found-footage movies, they tend to go terribly wrong or be very entertaining. This one is looking to go the way of the latter. It’s giving a fresh take on the rising sub-genre and taking us to an interesting location. Furthermore, it’s basing itself on some real actual events, thus adding some extra layer to it. The viral marketing on this movie is going along nicely and the film has become something of a hot ticket. Gonzalo is a Spanish-born director who has had a couple of critically-acclaimed films in the past as well.

Why it could suck: It’s kind of the nature of the genre. If they don’t hit they mark, then they tend to really suck. Couple that with a pair of brand-new writers, and there are no guarantees for this movie. I’m getting a feeling though that this will end up being up there with Paranormal Activity.

14. Unknown

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra

Writer: Oliver Butcher and Stephen Cromwell; based on the novel by Didier Van Cauwelaert

Stars: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger and January Jones

Release Date: February 18, 2011

Genre: Drama Mystery Thriller

What is it: A man awakens from a coma, only to discover that someone has taken on his identity and that no one, (not even his wife), believes him. With the help of a young woman, he sets out to prove who he is.

Why it should be good: Liam Neeson is a bad-ass. Watching the trailer, I’m reminded of Neeson’s past movieTaken. Seems to be that similar mystery action thriller type movie. And I absolutely loved that movie. Neeson made it a very good film showing off his bad-assness in it. If Unknown turns out to be as good as Takenwe’ll have a very entertaining movie on our hands. Didier Van Cauwelaert, whose novel the movie is based on, is an award-winning author with multiple best-selling novels. The novel this movie is based on has met plenty of praise. So, we’re sure to find that the story/source material is good.

Why it could suck: Two virtually unproven writers. While the source material may be good, they could mess it up and adapt a bad screenplay. On top of that, the director is responsible for such things as Orphan and House of Wax, neither of which were that good.

15. Red State

Director: Kevin Smith

Writer: Kevin Smith

Stars: Melissa Leo, John Goodman and Michael Angarano

Release Date: TBA (Screening at Sundance 2011)

Genre: Horror Thriller

What is it: A horror film in which a group of misfits encounter fundamentalism gone to the extreme in Middle America.

Why it should be good: Kevin Smith. Smith is one of my favorite directors around. While last year’s Cop Out was rather bland, this year he returns to writing his own material with Red State. Furthermore, he’ll be treading into a new genre with his first horror movie. I love Kevin Smith as a writer/director and have been fond of pretty much all of his work. From Clerks to Mallrats to Clerks II to Jay and Silent Bob, everything Smith has actually wrote and directed, I’ve enjoyed really. Couple that with the enjoyable John Goodman and the “fresh off an Oscar-worthy performance” Melissa Leo, and we should be in for a real treat.

Why it could suck: As stated before, this is Kevin Smith’s first venture into the horror genre. Some writers/directors find that there are just some genres that they can’t do, while they’re better suited for another particular genre. We’ll have to wait and see how Kevin Smith’s foray into the horror/thriller genre goes.

If you like this and found it helpful, visit my site couchpotatoclub.com for other movies related articles as well as the latest DVD and movie news and reviews.

The history of American sports cars is the story not only of machines, but also of the men who made and drove them. There have been many key players in the development of the modern sports car, but some stand out as truly significant figures.

Among those innovators to remember are Alexander Winton, Zora Arkus-Duntov, and John DeLorean. Each made a lasting impression on the sports car scene.

Alexander Winton

Alexander Winton was the first truly successful automotive magnate in the United States. His cars participated and excelled in virtually every major racing and touring event of the late 1890s and early 1900s. Winton cars were perceived as the model of American automotive engineering.

Winton’s success and belief in his vehicles led him to accept a challenge from an upstart from Detroit named Henry Ford. In a much-ballyhooed 1901 contest, Ford and Winton squared off in one-on-one race.

Winton’s Sweepstakes racecar suffered from mechanical problems during the contest and his two-cylinder, 28 horsepower racer finished a distant second to Ford, who found his career revitalized after the publicized victory.

Despite often being remembered as the man who lost to Ford, Alexander Winton was a true American sports car pioneer and laid the groundwork for many manufacturers who followed in his footsteps.

Zora Arkus-Duntov

After World War II, American manufacturers began to produce readily available sports cars, in contrast to the limited production, high-dollar versions from earlier in history. After Ford made a splash with the Thunderbird sports car, Chevrolet sought to capture its share of the growing market with the 1955 introduction of the Corvette.

The Corvette, whose distinctive appearance was brought to light be famous designer Harley Earl, was a beautiful package containing a ho-hum gift. The car had a two-speed automatic transmission and a standard Chevy 6 cylinder engine. Sales stagnated.

A Russian migr and Chevrolet designer named Zora Arkus-Duntov took the reigns of the Corvette project after its second lackluster year. He redesigned the new Chevy V8 to fit in the Corvette and replaced the automatic transmission with a sportier 3-speed manual tranny. His design changes vaulted the Corvette to fame and admiration.

Arkus-Duntov continued his affiliation with Corvette, ushering it into its heyday as the most respected and admired American sports car.

John DeLorean

A brash young auto executive at Pontiac named John DeLorean had an idea. He could take the under performing Pontiac Tempest, make a few minor exterior alterations, outfit it with a big and powerful V8 engine and upgrade some of the other components. His revitalization effort turned the lowly Tempest into the Pontiac GTO the car that sparked the muscle car era in America.

DeLorean’s efforts to build better and more interesting sports cars continued as he opened his own auto company. He introduced the stainless steel DMC-12 sports car later popularized in the Back to the Future movies. The innovative vehicle was never a hot-seller but was an inspiration for countless future designs from other automakers.

The controversial DeLorean was plotting an economy-priced plastic sports car that was never released. He passed away while the vehicle idea was still in its infancy.

Sports car enthusiasts remember cars. They can tell you the specs of many significant sports cars and can trace the history of many sports car lines. It’s important to remember these cars did not materialize from thin air. There were men behind the cars who brought them to the limelight. Three of the great innovators Winton, Arkus-Dontav, and DeLorean deserve to be as remembered as any sports car to ever hit the road.

For more articles like this one, please visit [http://www.SportsCarGuide.org]

Televisions have come a long way since their invention by Philo Taylor Farnsworth in 1928. Today, Liquid Crystal Display sets, known as LCD televisions, are one of the most up to date types of televisions you can purchase. They are competing with other types of televisions, including Projection TV, Light Emitting Diode (LED) televisions, Plasma TV, HDTV, and new Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) television sets.

LCD televisions today are full color televisions sets. They produce images using liquid crystal display technology, which also allows them to be quite a bit thinner and also lighter than the old cathode ray tube sets. The screen displays can be much larger than those allowed by CRT technology. With falling costs of production, the LCD televisions seemed destined to overtake the industry. Other large television formats, such as rear projection television and plasma television are losing market share to the new LCD televisions. There is, however, new competition against LCD televisions by Organic Light Emitting Display televisions and others on the horizon.

LCD televisions work with white light, and filtering that light to display a colored image on the screen. This requires backlighting by cold cathode fluorescent lamps on most sets. Some use LED lighting instead for the white backlighting. LCD technology is inefficient in that most of the light, about 90% of light produced never reaches the viewer as it is used or distracted prior to reaching the viewing screen. They take a lot of power, which adds to the inefficiency and they are similar in power use to the CRT televisions.

This television uses a system of LCD shutters in a grid, which allow different amounts of light to pass by opening and closing the shutters. There is a colored filter with each shutter that removes unnecessary colors, all by the red, green and blues, from the white light passing through the shutter system. These work to form a tiny pixel, and the shade of each color is adjusted by changing the light intensity. There are millions of shutters in a display. Voltage controls turning shutters on or off. The liquid crystals form thin layers that make up thin plates. These plates allow polarization of the light and control of light passing through the shutters. Improvements in technology have addressed some problems with blurring and response times, and the first commercial LCD televisions hit the market in 1988. By 2004, the first 42″ sets were being purchased quickly, and in later years prices dropped. LCD televisions were competitive against plasma sets because they have higher resolutions, and therefore better pictures. By 2007, screen display panel sizes were offered up to 108″ in size.

There was some concern with environment effects of the nitrogen trifluoride used in production of LCD screens, as it is a potent greenhouse gas, but critics point out that actual amounts released to the atmosphere are far less than the perfluorocarbon gas that it replaced. LCD televisions remain popular and comprise a large segment of the commercial television set market.

Matthew Kerridge is an expert within the television industry. If you are looking for cheap lcd televisions please visit http://www.ebuyer.com/

Outside of the academic environment, a harsh and seemingly ever-growing debate has appeared, concerning how mass media distorts the political agenda. Few would argue with the notion that the institutions of the mass media are important to contemporary politics. In the transition to liberal democratic politics in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe the media was a key battleground. In the West, elections increasingly focus around television, with the emphasis on spin and marketing. Democratic politics places emphasis on the mass media as a site for democratic demand and the formation of “public opinion”. The media are seen to empower citizens, and subject government to restraint and redress. Yet the media are not just neutral observers but are political actors themselves. The interaction of mass communication and political actors — politicians, interest groups, strategists, and others who play important roles — in the political process is apparent. Under this framework, the American political arena can be characterized as a dynamic environment in which communication, particularly journalism in all its forms, substantially influences and is influenced by it.

According to the theory of democracy, people rule. The pluralism of different political parties provides the people with “alternatives,” and if and when one party loses their confidence, they can support another. The democratic principle of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” would be nice if it were all so simple. But in a medium-to-large modern state things are not quite like that. Today, several elements contribute to the shaping of the public’s political discourse, including the goals and success of public relations and advertising strategies used by politically engaged individuals and the rising influence of new media technologies such as the Internet.

A naive assumption of liberal democracy is that citizens have adequate knowledge of political events. But how do citizens acquire the information and knowledge necessary for them to use their votes other than by blind guesswork? They cannot possibly witness everything that is happening on the national scene, still less at the level of world events. The vast majority are not students of politics. They don’t really know what is happening, and even if they did they would need guidance as to how to interpret what they knew. Since the early twentieth century this has been fulfilled through the mass media. Few today in United States can say that they do not have access to at least one form of the mass media, yet political knowledge is remarkably low. Although political information is available through the proliferation of mass media, different critics support that events are shaped and packaged, frames are constructed by politicians and news casters, and ownership influences between political actors and the media provide important short hand cues to how to interpret and understand the news.

One must not forget another interesting fact about the media. Their political influence extends far beyond newspaper reports and articles of a direct political nature, or television programs connected with current affairs that bear upon politics. In a much more subtle way, they can influence people’s thought patterns by other means, like “goodwill” stories, pages dealing with entertainment and popular culture, movies, TV “soaps”, “educational” programs. All these types of information form human values, concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, sense and nonsense, what is “fashionable” and “unfashionable,” and what is “acceptable” and “unacceptable”. These human value systems, in turn, shape people’s attitude to political issues, influence how they vote and therefore determine who holds political power.

Jonathon Hardcastle writes articles on many topics including Business [http://letstalkaboutbusiness.com/], Beauty [http://letstalkaboutbeauty.com/], and Finance [http://ifinancecentral.com/]