Terminator: Salvation - The Review

I should've seen Star Trek again...

Anyway, sorry to the folks who wrote asking where my review was... It's been a busy weekend preparing for my trip to Seattle. Speaking of which, we're less than 15 hours from departure! WOOT!

Back to the movie here, I was disappointed. Part of why I didn't write a review the second I got home was the fact that I really had to sort out that movie in my head. On one hand, I didn't like it. On the other... it had potential.

My gripes were many. First and foremost, I was decidedly disappointed by Christian Bale as John Connor. The character was about as one dimensional as you can get without him disappearing when he turns sideways. He could have been a random guy wearing a paper bag and I couldn't have cared less about him. Whoever it was who played his wife made me want to go into epileptic fits of violence every time she was on screen. Talk about cheesy acting...

McG should have taken a look at Star Trek when it comes to doing throwbacks to older movies in the franchise. Where Star Trek had tasteful inside jokes and references to the previous franchise, Terminator had heavy-handed and ultimately absurd throwbacks, and it heavily detracted from the movie. When Connor uttered "I'll be back" the audience literally groaned. In fact, the entire climactic battle might as well have been ripped out of the previous entries, as it resembled all, but seemed to cheat most off of Terminator 2.

Heck, even the score was forgettable.

Moving on to the one thing that really intrigued me about the movie, Marcus Wright. I've never heard of the Sam Worthington guy who played this role, but I would certainly like to see more of him in the future. The one nice thing about this movie was watching his character evolve (truly, his is the only one that does). Worthington nailed the role and the emotional depth it required. He is the robot who has no idea he's a robot, and the events he is put through and is a part of as his story unfolds was a reason I'm glad to have shelled out cash for this otherwise terrible movie. Aside from having the only interesting part in the whole story, Worthington out-acted Christian Bale. Enough said.

This actually brings me to the part of the film I hated most. And when I say hate, I mean hate, as in, the most literal definition you can think of. The trailer. This is a classic example of a trailer that gave away far too much. I cannot stress that enough.

Here's my argument. The story obviously hinged on the audience's emotional connection with Marcus Wright. Pretty much all the other characters fade into the background whenever he's on screen due in large part to the acting, but the story was very plainly written to be about him and his interactions with John Connor. See, the thing is, they had so much potential to draw us, as the audience, into this movie by moving us with Wright's plight (poetry!!). But, what should ahve been the most jaw-dropping part of the movie was instead another ho-hum moment courtesey of the fact that the trailer gave away the surprice, it deadened that experience. Had we been allowed to discover Marcus' cyborgness right along with him, had we experienced that surprise and shock at the same time he did, it would have made this movie good. It would have allowed us to sympathize enough with the character that the rest of the movie's foibles would have been more forgiveable. As it stands, the trailer truly killed this movie for me - whoever thought giving this part of the movie away was a good idea should be taken out behind the shed and smacked upside the face with a shovel.

Marcus Wright aside, the only other tolerable thing about the movie was Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese. Yelchin brings such energy to the screen. He's great. Though I must admit to waiting for "I can do this! I can do this!" and a thick Russian accent. :-)

Anyway, it's difficult to score this movie. Like I mentioned earlier, on one hand you have the sweetness that is Marcus Wright as played by Sam Worthington. It was entertaining and fascinating, and it made up a good chunk of the movie. On the other hand was... everything else. For everything that Worthington did right, the movie had two or three things it did wrong. I had heard going into the movie that it was the worst movie of the summer (I was skptical that it could be worse than Wolverine), so my expectations going in were low. Coming out, it had surpassed my expectations - no, it was not worse than Wolverine, but it came damn close. Had Worthington not been in the movie, this would easily get a 1, perhaps even less, but his performance really elevated the movie from downright garbage into something more appreciable. So, out of respect to him and the great character he portrayed so well, I'll give it a better-than-it-would-have-been 3.5/10.0.

Reaction to Obama's Two-Faced Speech at the National Archive

I promised myself that I wasn't going to blog today. I was going to stay busy preparing for my vacation, making sure everything at work was tidy and shiny so it would be fine while I am away for a week and a half. Yet, here I am, eating lunch, and finding it necessary to blog. 

Who here watched Obama's speech given in the National Archive? Anybody?

Who here was scared by that speech?

That speech was the biggest load of doublespeak I have ever heard, and that includes those given by the fear-mongering regime that was the Bush administration. In this speech Obama speaks both to the necessity to defend the rules outlined in the Constitution ("the rule of law"). He says that without "these documents," referring to the documents housed in the National Archives including the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, among others, our country would not be great. 

"Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world. It is the reason that enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government."

That is what this country is about, really. Our values, our rights, our freedoms. 

"It's the reason we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism and outlast the iron curtain of communism [...] Where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that it's values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology."

What a wonderful statement. It was gratifying to finally hear Obama jump in on civil liberties, and I hoped to hear all about the changes coming our way that would begin to restore the rights that the bush regime had whittled away over the course of their tenure in office. 

Obama goes on to criticize the Bush regime for their "ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism - one that was neither effective nor sustainable, a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass." Utterly scathing, that. 

With those statements, he went on to declare the following points of action that he has taken to rectify these situations:

• Banned the use of torture as an interrogation method. Bravo. This never should have been sanctioned. Cheney would later reply that torture is still a valid method of interrogation, because there is no middle ground in the fight against terrorism. Cheney is beyond senile and should be locked up somewhere. 
• Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Sort of. He points out that in over 7 years, Guantanamo Bay managed to convict a whopping 3 prisoners. That was obviously a failure and deserved to be shut down. 
• Ordered a review of all pending cases at Guantanamo, because he knew closing Guantanamo Bay. He goes on to further criticize the Bush administration for all the legal challenges his people have to face, because it's all their fault. Commence finger-pointing, and a whole lot of it. It wasn't me, it was him. The finger points so hard, it trembles.

And here is where we start to break down. Barely a breath ago, Obama was preaching the wonders of the Constitution, the strength that our rights lend this country. Then he starts in with "what we are doing [...] I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values we hold dear."

Here's where it gets scary. See if you can spot the subtext in what Obama says right here: 

"We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people."

... scary. Couple this statement with the Patriot Act, which allows the government to arrest anybody as long as they think you are a terrorist, and you have a recipe for indefinite, unjust imprionment of anybody. As I wrote about a couple of weeks ago, there is no recourse for people arrested under the Patriot Act - you are denied your rights under the Constitution. And we now have Obama, paragon of Change, telling us that he will not release people suspected of terrorism if they are a threat to national security. What this boils down to, friends and readers, is preemptive arresting. They are going to arrest you for a crime you might commit rather than a crime you did commit; they're going to bypass all that evidence stuff, and they're going to hold you as long as they damn well please without trial, without representation, without rights. 

This coming from the same man who not even 10 minutes earlier was espousing the virtues of the Constitution and upholding the rights it grants us. 

Think I'm reading too far in between the lines? Well, he goes on:

"Now finally there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo Bay who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."

What exactly does that mean? We cannot prosecute them for crimes that they have committed, why? If they did something wrong, prosecute them. If they didn't, let them go. You cannot, cannot, CANNOT hold people without having committed a crime. That goes against the Constitution, the rule of law, if you will. You cannot, Mr. President, start your speech by talking about how we as a nation must uphold the Constitution then not even a breath later, talk about all the ways you intend on breaching that same document. This is a level of hypocrisy that not even Bush the Second could lay claim to. And it's terrifying. 

He is calling it "prolonged detention." It seems so innocent on the surface, those two words. Prolonged. Detention. And yet, what they mean to this country is nothing short of tyranny. To quote, once again, Obama:

"If and when we determine the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and Congressional oversight."

So, we're going to hold individuals to keep them from committing a crime, under the Patriot Act where there is no recourse for those being held, until we deem that they are no longer a threat? Really? So, how long exactly is "prolonged?"

"Right now [...] there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and in all probability ten years from now."

No, he doesn't define exactly what "prolonged" means, but his reasoning for justifying prolonged detentions is the threat of attacks on America. If there is still a threat of an attack on America in a decade, he will be able to justify holding a prisoner until that threat is gone. Could you imagine being held for a decade without a trial, a conviction, or a sentence? Perhaps I might be arrested for writing this contradiction of the President, this criticism of his (ab)use of power. Perhaps you will be arrested for reading it. Perhaps we will be imprisoned for a "prolonged" period of time until they determine that we are no longer a threat to our country. Somebody tell me how this lines up with the Constitution. 

And where is this oversight system?

"[...] my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply [...] going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime [...]"

A legal regime? What he's really saying is this: Obama is going to create a system to make illegally jailing United States citizens legal. This is a system that will likely exist beyond the judicial system, which will guarantee it can get away with anything it decides is in the nation's best interest. This is such a step beyond even the radical policies of Bush that it makes my head spin. 

And if you'd like to sit there and think that I'm blowing this out of proportion, I invite you to read this story I reported on a couple of weeks ago, where a tenth grade kid was arrested and denied his due process under the Patriot Act. This kid could be in jail for as long as the President damn well sees fit to keep him there. No lawyer, no trial, no nothing. 

For years, we have lived under the assumption that we are safe from our government because we are protected by the rights granted us by the Constitution. Well, if Obama gets his way, we are no longer safe from our government. Our government is free to treat us as they wish, because we will have no recourse. Spout as he will his dedication to upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Obama is doing no such thing. Strip away the poetic language, the pats on the back he gives himself and his administration, cut away the talk of change and hope, and you are left with a message as stark and terrifying as anything we heard from the previous administration. A message that is, in fact, more radical and anti-Constitution than any we heard from Bush or Cheney. 

In the world Obama lives in, "Change" does not mean changing for the better. "Change" means giving the government unlimited power over its people, it means stripping US citizens of their rights, and it means holding citizens without cause for an indefinite "prolonged" length of time at the government's will. 

Obama says, "I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution." We get that you swore an oath, but a mere hundred days into your term, you jump in here with a speech that takes our Constitutional rights and shreds them. How exactly then are you living up to your oath?

We all hoped for change when Obama was elected. I was a very vocal opponent of the man getting elected, as I was for McCain, but after his election, I tried to have hope that perhaps he would change things for the better. 

Hope. With this speech, Obama shows us that Hope is, in fact, audacious.

More on this infuriating issue can be found, oddly, on MSNBC. The station is known for being quite liberal-leaning, however, Rachel Maddow gave a scathing review of this speech on her show, and her points are many and valid. Take a look right here. 

TV Shows News

This time of year always scares me a bit, particularly since many of the shows I like are on the chopping block year after yaer. Sure, shows like House and Burn Notice are shoo-ins for reneewal every year, but other shows I love, like my favorite Supernatural, are always right on the precipice. 

Fortunately, CW has announced that Supernatural will be returning for it's fifth season. According to its creator, Eric Kripke, the fifth season is supposed to be the last in the story arc, so there should be no more Supernatural after this season. That's at once depressing and exhilerating. That means that, so longs as CW doesn't demand the show be renewed for a sixth season, that we will get to see the show end on its creator's terms, and that's how a show should go out. I'm excited to see what Kripke has in store for us with the fifth and final season. I'm so excited, in fact, you might even call it giddy.

I was actually quite nervous about it not being renewed this season - Dawn Ostroff, president of CW, has been quite vocal about making the CW into a channel watch only by teenaged girls who can tweet and blog about how wonderful the station's happenings are. Supernatural definitely does not appeal to that demographic, pulling in the males ages 18-34 mostly. Color me surprised by their decision to keep this show, though I do know that the followers of this show love it. Every year there is an online petition (at least one) to keep the show on the air. Its regular viewers (myself included) are very devoted to seeing Kripke's end to the story. So, surprised though I may be, I am just pumped that it will see the fifth season. 

Sorry to all you Terminator folks out there, but Sarah Conner Chronicles has officially gotten the axe. 

ABC's got a couple of interesting new things coming their way. Courtney Cox comes back to TV (after her hilarious show Dirt was cancelled by FX) in her new comedy Cougar Town. The preview for it is absolutely hilarious. It also answers the question - what happened to Sylar's protege from Heroes?

Second up, ABC has Happy Town (lots of "towns" this year). This looks like it could be just great. ABC is using the fact that they aired Twin Peaks (another cult hit TV show) to start out their advertising for this one. It looks to be a small town horror show that seems better for mini series rather than a full blown affair. If they handle the intriguing storyline well, it could be the breakout hit of the season. Besides, it's got Sam Neil! SAM NEIL!!!

Finally, ABC is rebooting V, a show about aliens who come to our planet offering gifts and peace, but whose ultimate goal is to take over the planet. I was kind of ho-hum about this show, up until I heard the following lines: 

"They're arming themselves with the most powerful weapon out there."

"What's that?"

"Devotion."

It also seems strangely relevant to our current political times.

"Just be sure not to ask anything that would paint us in a negative light."

Wow. Count me in. This promises to be a character-driven show, so I'm also quite excited about that. I'll be watching this as soon as it hits the air.

"But that's the danger - gratitude can morph into worship."

Ground Beef Recall

This is the stuff the FDA should be investigating, rather than busying themselves by calling Cheerios a drug. 

In any case, Valley Meats LLC is recalling over 95,000lbs of ground beef products. You can read all about it here. Check your labels here (PDF). 

WWE's Devner Debacle - Update

Well, the WWE was unable to come to terms with Kroenke, the owner of both the Pepsi Center - the venue where WWE was supposed to air Raw on Monday - and the Nuggets - the team whose NBA playoff game was scheduled to be played at the Pepsi Center on the same night. They have moved Raw to (ironically) the STAPLES Center, home of the Lakers. For all you folks here in Colorado who were looking forward to Memorial Day Raw, you're SOL. You can return your tickets for a refund to the outlet from which you purchased it. Raw will return to Denver in August at the Denver Coliseum.  

WWE's Denver Debacle

In WWE news, the show scheduled for next week here in Denver is in jeapordy. The WWE booked the show for Monday May 25 and have had a reservation for the venue (the Pepsi Center) since August 2008. But, on that same night, the Nuggets have been scheduled for their playoff game. The WWE event is sold out, and many other venues have offered to take up the show, including Madison Square Gardin in New York, and the Lakers' own STAPLES Center. It's interesting, because, though he promised the 25th to the WWE, the owner of the Pepsi Center Stan Kroenke (owner of both the Pepsi Center and the Nuggets) seems to be giving the Nuggs precedence, because, well, they're basketball... or something. 

Let's nevermind for a few seconds that I'm a devoted WWE fan and generall detest professional basketball. Got that out of the way? Good. Now, when you have promised something to somebody, particularly when that party paid for that promise, you are expected to see that promise through. Stan obviously didn't have enough faith in the Nuggets to think that they would make it this far in the playoffs, so he sold the Pepsi Center reservation to the WWE. Now that the Nuggets are magically a good team, he wants to renig on his promise. My particular sports preferences aside, screw that. It's bad business.

I was not able to purchase tickets to this event, though WWE Raw on Memorial Day is something of a tradition around here. How ridiculous would it be if all the folks who purchased tickets and have been waiting to see this live are screwed because the owner of the Pepsi Center is a dumbass? Not to mention, it's highly unlikely that the WWE will ever do business wth Stan again, which pretty much precludes the idea of WWE coming back to Colorado (especially considering how pissed off Vince McMahon is right now). Being the devoted WWE fan that I am, I love to see it live whenever possible, and if I am unable to do so again because of this, I will find a way to make my disdain known. 

Stan can kiss my ass as far as this is concerned. That appears to be the consensus amongst the general public as well. Polls through various online and television sports outlets show people are siding with the WWE on this one. Basketball be damned. More to the point, Kroenke be damned.

My Resolution for This Week is to....

... finally sit down and watch seasons 1 and 2 of Friday Night Lights. 

The TV show has yet again avoided the chopping block at NBC, though it does not appear on the fall or midyear lineups. NBC has announced that the show will run for at least another 2 years, thanks mostly to the fact that DirecTV finances quite a bit of the show.

I've been meaning to watch the show, I really have. I think the movie upon which the show is based is the best damn sports movie ever, and have thought so since I watched it the first time. It gets better with every subsequent viewing (and there have been many, many of those). I also particularly enjoyed the book - it has a home on my bookshelf among very few other nonfiction titles.

The show is a critical darling, and what I've seen of it piques my interest. So, I'd like to make the time to sit down and watch it. 

Of course, with Seattle just around the corner, I expect most of my time to be devoted to playing Magic. And testing the rocking GW deck I'm going to be playing. Speaking of Magic, my friend and quite-famous (in the Magic community, anyway) article writer, Dave Meeson played the deck I built for Regionals last weekend. He wrote about it here, citing the general brilliance of the deck and how much fun it was to play. :-)  Nah. But I did get credit for building it. This is the deck (with modifications) that I plan on running in Seattle. Wish me luck.

Angels & Demons - The Review

Another weekend past, another summer blockbuster down. On Friday, I took a trip to Rome and chased a guy killing bishops of the Church. Entertaining thrills ensued.

I had really mixed feeling walking out of Angels & Demons. On one hand, the movie was really good. The acting was great, the story moved along nicely, and the score, well, just damn. But it felt there was something missing.

Prior to going to the theater, I amped myself up on The Da Vinci Code. I love that movie. The end, the last scene with Tom Hanks kneeling down just gives me chills. It's an epic conclusion to a truly great movie. Angels & Demons was missing the chills though. I'm not sure if I can blame the movie for that, however, because the story itself doesn't cover the same sweeping territroy that The Da Vinci Code does. The Da Vinci Code sweeps through symbolic history and wraps up with a conclusion, that while fictional, is earth-shattering in its weight. Angels & Demons has no such earth shattering conclusion - the story is merely the hunt for a killer and, ultimately, the mastermind behind it. 

The Da Vinci Code ranks as one of the only movies that is better than the book from which it was based. This is due to a number of factors, including the fact that I think Dan Brown is a miserable writer. Sure, his books are suspenseful - if you've only read one. the same character is the "secret" bad guy in every one of his books, there is very little character development (hell, after 2 books, Robert Langdon is the same character he was in the beginning of Angels & Demons), and his style is very simplistic. 

Event.

Event.

Event.

No filler.

The movie was also better because: Tom Hanks, Hans Zimmer, Ron Howard. Of special note: Audrey Tautou is simply a delight as Sophie Neveau. She brings  adepth to the character that is just never there in the novel. I love her and wish she was in more movies on this side of the ocean.

So, that brings us back to Angels & Demons. Is it better than the book? Perhaps. I'm not quite sure yet.

Let's start with the things I had issue with. First, they removed most of the symbology that was present in the book. This was always my favorite thing about the novels. Near the beginning, Langdon traces the Illuminati through histroy, showing their infiltration into the government and religion using symbols found in everyday life, such as some on the back of the dollar bill. This was surprisingly cut from the movie, almost entirely. With the exception of his interpretation of the ambigrams (a word that can be read the same both right side up and upside down), you'd hardly even know Langdon was a symbologist. 

An example of an ambigram

Second, Ayelet Zurer was a very... boring Vittoria Vetra. She wasn't much of a character in the book either, but perhaps I was spoiled by Tautou's performance from the last movie and was expecting too much. Either way, she was barely a noticeable presence on screen.

Third, in general, the acting in this movie aren't quite up to the bar set by The Da Vinci Code. Yes, Ewan McGregor is awesome, and Tom Hanks is really great, but when you could have Ian McKellen and Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou... well, there's just no competition. 

Those things aside, the movie was really good. The best part about the movie was it's adrenaline-pumping intensity. Sure, it wasn't quite as epic as The Da Vinci Code, but it didn't necessarily need to be. The story moves at a quick pace, fromt he opening scene straight through to the stunning revalation at the end - that is, assuming you haven't read the book. Speaking of the book, with the exception of the various symbology lectures, the movie stays quite true to it's source material. There is a super badass assassin (played well by Nikolaj Lie Kaas) who ahs kidnapped and is killing bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in ritualistic fashion. All this amid the death of the Pope and the rush to get a new one in place. What unfolds is wonderful in the most edge-of-your-seat way. Gripes aside, I was completely swept along and barely even noticed the time passing. In particular, the ways in which the bishops are murdered are shocking, to put it nicely. Very symbolic, if you are paying attention. 

Ewan McGregor plays a fine Camerlengo; he really gets into his role, and he's a joy to watch (as usual). I hope to see more of him that we've seen recently. Also, Stellan Skarsgard is truly fascinating as Commander Richter - he lends a gravity to the movie that would ahve otherwise been lacking.

My favorite part of the movie must be Hans Zimmer's score though. I've been listening to that since it came out on itunes last week. Hans Zimmer is one of the most prolific composers in Hollywood right now. He's been busy just in the past year with Sherlock Holmes (coming soon), Angels & Demons, Madagascar 2, Frost/Nixon, The Burning Plain, The Dark Knight, Kung Fu Panda, and Casi Divas (Road to Fame in the good ol' US). Compare that to most composers who complete maybe 4-5 scores a year. 

Zimmer get some criticism for the soundtrack fan community for his reuse of themes between movies. For example, many of the themes from the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy were used in Gladiator as well. There are a couple more examples of this throughout his career, but these aside, his scores never fail to be entertaining and worthwhile listens. 

Then you get to the scores he has done for both The Da Vinci Code and for Angels & Demons. The score for The Da Vinci code has ranked since its release as my best score of all time. It is dramatic, chilling, epic... It's so different from both anything Zimmer's done and anything that any other movie has done. The music fits the movie, both the themes and the on screen happenings wonderfully. Besides that, it makes for a great listen even without the movie in the background. Having listened to the new score for Angels & Demons, I must say it is at least on par with that of The Da Vinci Code. Zimmer takes the musical themes from that movie and updates them, transitioning them into the more intense, faster pacing of Angels & Demons while maintaining the beauty that made the original so enjoyable. He adds a few new themes that add a delightful new twist while still sounding like they belong with the older themes. This is absolutely a must own for any fan of classical music, whether you like the movie or not. 

It will be interesting to see if Jablonsky's score for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen can compare favorably to this. 

Back to the movie. It was great. Was it as good as The Da Vinci Code? Probably not. Was it better than the book? Looking back on it, I think so. Even though the symbolism (and Audrey Tautou!!) was missing, seeing Ewan McGregor and Tom Hanks bring their characters to life really sealed the deal. The great score is just icing on the cake. 

8.0/10.0

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Score

Chris over at The Knight Shift has let it be known that the score (and the less exciting soundtrack) for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will be released on June 23. Steve Jablonsky has returned for the sequel, and if its anywhere near as good as Transformers (my best movie score of 2007) or Gears of War 2 (my best video game score for 2008), then we are in for one hell of a treat.

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that it's going to be damn good. I have yet to listen to a Steve Jablonsky score that has been disappointing in even the smallest measure. Heck, 2 years after it's very limited release, I still rock out to the score for Transformers - the whole album is on the MP3 CD in my car's stereo right now! Same with the Gears of War 2 score actually.

You can head on over to Amazon to preorder the album now. 

Video Game News Galore!

Just in! There's a new Mass Effect 2 trailer (choose the bottom right option, then select the video that shows the guy (not the robot)) posted to Bioware's site. Check this bad boy out, because there are some juicy new details about the game in here. They're still hinting at the possibility that Shephard is dead, but they have confirmed that certain actions in the first game will ahve effects on the second.

New video for Modern Warfare 2 has been added recently - it's a commercial for basketball that airs on TNT. Yes, it's a commercial for basketball, but there's some actual gameplay footage included.

SPECIAL BONUS VIDEO

I love this song (NOT censored, so perhaps NSFW).

Never thought I'd see the day
Big boat coming my way
Believe me when I say
I f------ a mermaid!

Funny Videos and Even More Star Trek

I don't know what it is, but SNL has been really very funny lately. Between having thier Dick in a Box, riding on a boat, and Motherlovering, I've been rolling around on the floor thanks to these guys quite a bit lately - particularly as it involves their musical numbers. 

I spent some time on Hulu, and ran across this awesome video promoting Star Trek. Hilarious. The last line is an instant classic. 

2009 Credit Card Reform and Why it Needs to Pass

So, there's currently a bill in the Senate to reform the way credit card companies deal with their customers. I mean, god forbid credit card companies treat their customers fairly. That would be a sin or something (read: not as profitable). So, The Consumerist posted a wonderful article about the changes we can expect to see should this bill be passed. I'll paste the important details here, because they're... important.

PREVENTS UNFAIR INTEREST RATE INCREASES AND TERM CHANGES

•Prohibits arbitrary interest rate increases and universal default on existing balances;

•Requires a credit card issuer who increases a cardholder's interest rate to periodically review and decrease the rate if indicated by the review;

•Prohibits credit card issuers from increasing rates on a cardholder in the first year after a credit card account is opened;

•Requires promotional rates to last at least 6 months.

PROHIBITS EXORBITANT AND UNNECESSARY FEES

•Prohibits issuers from charging a fee to pay a credit card debt, whether by mail, telephone, or electronic transfer, except for live services to make expedited payments;

•Prohibits issuers from charging over-limit fees unless the cardholder elects to allow the issuer to complete over-limit transactions;

•Requires penalty fees to be reasonable and proportional to the omission or violation;

•Enhances protections against excessive fees on low-credit, high-fee credit cards.

FAIRNESS IN APPLYING AND TIMING CARD PAYMENTS

•Requires payments in excess of the minimum to be applied first to the credit card balance with the highest rate of interest;

•Prohibits issuers from setting early morning deadlines for credit card payments;

•Requires credit card statements to be mailed 21 days before the bill is due rather than the current 14.

Protects the Rights of Financially Responsible Credit Card Users

•Prohibits interest charges on debt paid on time (double-cycle billing ban);

•Prohibits late fees if the card issuer delayed crediting the payment;

•Requires that payment at local branches be credited same-day.

PROVIDES ENHANCED DISCLOSURES OF CARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS

•Requires cardholders to be given 45 days notice of interest rate, fee and finance charge increases;

•Requires issuers to provide disclosures to consumers upon card renewal when the card terms have changed;

•Requires issuers to provide individual consumer account information and to disclose the period of time and total interest it will take to pay off the card balance if only minimum monthly payments are made;

•Requires full disclosure in billing statements of payment due dates and applicable late payment penalties.

INCREASED OVERSIGHT OF CREDIT CARD INDUSTRY

•Requires each credit card issuer to post its credit card agreements on the Internet, and provide those agreements to the Federal Reserve Board to post on its website;

•Requires the Federal Reserve Board to review the consumer credit card market, including the terms of credit card agreements and the practices of credit card issuers and the cost and availability of credit to consumers.

ENSURES ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

•Requires issuers extending credit to young consumers under the age of 21 to obtain an application that contains: the signature of a parent, guardian, or other individual 21 years or older who will take responsibility for the debt; or proof that the applicant has an independent means of repaying any credit extended;

•Limits prescreened offers of credit to young consumers;

•Prohibits increases in the credit limit on accounts where a parent, legal guardian, spouse or other individual is jointly liable unless the individual who is jointly liable approves the increase in writing.

Enhanced Penalties

•Increases existing penalties for companies that violate the Truth in Lending Act for credit card customers.

GIFT CARD PROTECTIONS

•Protects recipients of gift cards by requiring all gift cards to have at least a five-year life span, and eliminates the practice of declining values and hidden fees for those cards not used within a reasonable period of time.

TRANSPARENT CREDIT CARD PRICING

•Requires the GAO to study the impact of interchange fees on consumers and merchants, specifically their disclosure, pricing, fee and cost structure.

That just sounds great to me. It's obvious that the credit card companies won't treat people fairly by themselves, so perhaps some government ass kicking can get the job done*. 

Anyway, in response to this, the credit card companies have sent a letter to the Senators responsible for the bill saying, in essence, "Don't do it, or we won't give people any more credit." The full letter here:

Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell:

I am writing you on behalf of the American Bankers Association (ABA) with respect to our position on H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009, currently being considered on the Senate floor.

ABA recognizes that the Senate bill contains a number of important consumer protections embodied in recent regulatory action, and acknowledges that change is forthcoming in the way the credit card industry and its customers interact. However, we strongly believe that any legislation in this area needs to achieve the correct balance of consumer protections and market flexibility so as to not jeopardize access to credit.

ABA remains very concerned about the contents of H.R. 627 (as amended), and believes that if it is enacted as it currently stands, it will have a dramatic impact on the ability of consumers, small businesses, students, and others to get credit at a time when our economy can least afford such constraints.

The bill contains various provisions that limit a lender's ability to manage risk, price fees, allocate payments, and otherwise prudently conduct business. We believe these limits will necessitate reductions in available credit given current economic conditions, while increasing the price of credit where it remains available. We are likewise concerned that amendments could be adopted on the Senate floor (such as interest rate caps, interchange, and bankruptcy provisions) that could seriously exacerbate these problems, with serious ramifications for consumers and the economy above and beyond those already in the bill.

For the above reasons, we oppose H.R. 627 as it is currently constituted, and urge opposition to amendments that will further harm our ability to meet the credit needs of consumers and others. We ask that these concerns be addressed before this legislation is delivered to the President for his signature.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

Floyd E. Stoner

Executive Vice President, Congressional Relations & Public Policy

American Bankers Association

So, let me get this straight. If the government tries to regulate you, you'll put yourself out of business? Seems... smart. Yeah. I like how they say that the reform limits the companies' ability to "prudently conduct business." This is a load of bullocks (I love that word). Credit card companies reap billions a year in profits from credit card users, profits they get by treating customer unfairly. They are all guilty of the things this reform would ban, and while passing this reform would certainly drop the profit margins of these companies, it will absolutely not cripple them. This letter is little more than self-serving propaganda, an attempt to dance around the fact that their business practices are unfair to their customers and the fact that they don't care to make them fair. We can't hurt that bottom line, after all. 

*Note: Regular readers of this blog may note that I am very much a fan of a small government, so this standpoint may seem completely out of line for those readers. I'd also like to address those who would argue that people who use their credit responsibly don't get hosed by the credit card companies. 

I have several credit cards in my name, all of which have small balances (in relation to their respective credit limits). I have never (with the exception of one, in my story below) paid any of them late, never gone over my balance - I have been a model credit card user. Anyway, pretty quickly after the economy started going to hell, my credit limits started dropping. By a ton. I used my CitiCard to purchase my surround sound system for my new place. It's a small limit card, so I had only about 50% of my balance left on it after my purchase. Well, I sent in a payment about two and a half weeks before the due date, but when I went back to check on my payment they had only applied part of the payment, just enough to leave the account with a past due balance of (get this) $1.50. They charged me a $35 late fee on a $1.50 balance that I paid!! I called their customer service - the lady on the phone was very nice, explained how it was an error on their end, took off the late fee, and correctly applied the payment so it covered the extra $1.50 that somehow wasn't covered the first time. No big deal.

A couple of weeks later, I go to use my card for another purchase, and it is declined. Knowing full well that I should have had plenty of money to cover my purchase, I called them back. I was informed that my credit limit had been dropped (by that smae 50% of my credit line!) due to a late payment. I explained to them how the "late payment" was a product of their system's screw up, but they refused to raise my credit limit again. No amount of logic or threats to cancel my account would win them over. What's more, to this day I have never received a letter informing me of this change. They just cut my credit limit without notifying me because they felt like it or something. I have been a loyal Citi customer for 8 years now, but as soon as my balance is paid off, I'm done with them. 

I have a couple of other stories about bad credit card experiences, but I won't bother with those right now. Point is, though, that not only "bad" credit card customers are being treated unfairly by these companies. Everybody is.

In addition to the headaches caused by decreased balances, the methods used to calculate your FICO changed recently too. Less important are things like foreclosures and repos. More important are things like your ratio of used credit to available credit. When companies start lowering your limits, your ration goes up, and your credit score goes down. How is that fair to anybody.

Anyway, there's a bill in the Senate right now that will impose regulations on the credit card companies and prevent them from doing these things to people. You can use this 800 number to contact the Senate and let your Senators know that you want them to support this bill.

1-888-944-6762

Playing For Change

Now this is why I love the Interwebz. When browsing around today, I stumbled upon this little gem of a video on YouTube. 

Picture this: You go up to a street artist and ask him to sing you a song, in this case "Stand by Me" by Ben E. King. Then go to another musician somewhere else in the world, give him a pair of headphones and ask that musician to add to the recording. Repeat this process again and again,with musicians from around the world, and you end up with a song that crosses borders and cultures, a masterpiece. 

The cause is peace. The method is music. Check out the video below. 

If you liked that, you can check out some more videos on YouTube here.

A Prescription for Cheerios?

Pretty soon we may be seeing those bright yellow Cheerios boxes behind the counter... the pharmacy counter, that is. 

In yet another waste of taxpayer money, the FDA has declared that Cheerios' statements of being heart healthy qualify it as a "drug" under federal law. The FDA goes on to suggest that General Mills should file for a new drug application if it would like to keep the wording on the packaging. 

Doesn't the FDA have something better to do with their time, like tour peanut factories?

Star Trek, Second Impressions

"I never wanted to watch 'Star Trek' because I always felt alienated from 'Star Trek.' I always felt it was not my world. It was the fans' world. The fans had built this kind of impenetrable wall around their beloved series," Pine said. "J.J.'s come in and broken that wall down a little bit, and I'm hopeful 'Star Trek' will be open to a whole new generation of fans. Different types of people who never felt they would be fans."

That quote from Chris Pine sums up my thoughts on the franchise as a whole quite well. I watched the movie yet again last night (with a possible viewing again tonight), and it truly was better the second time around. I got to notice a bunch of smaller things that I missed the first time around.

Take, for example, the symbolic nature of the Corvette scene. Here we have young James Kirk driving a classic 'Vette at about a million miles per hour. He gets chased by a cop (on a hoverbike that I would very much like to ride) and ends up driving the 'Vette right off a cliff (you saw this scene in the trailer #2). We are left with the young Kirk brushing himself off - "My name is James Tiberius Kirk!"

It's Abrams' first way of saying "out with the classic, in with the new, younger Trek."

There's so much to appreciate about the movie the second time around. My second time going to a movie is usually the nit-pick viewing. That's why I usually won't see movies more than once in a short span of time. But all I noticed the second time were the little nuances about the way the actors played their roles that made them so damn good. Watching the confrontation between Spock and Kirk the second time was just so intense - the acting was flawless, and I was left, yet again, marvelling at the chemistry Pine and Quinto have together on screen. 

I was also highly entertained by watching Simon Pegg in the background doing his crazy and funny things. The movie, as a whole, is very humorous. There's great wit peppered throughout the script, and the actors' delivery just adds to my enjoyment. But there's just something extra special about Pegg's humor in the movie. He kicks up the humor to a new level, and the movie is better for it.

Anyway, I once again endorse everybody seeing this movie. It's truly a treat, and it does something that so few movies can actually do. Last year I talked about how The Dark Knight was something more than a movie, it was art. This year I can say the same for Star Trek. The movie is beautiful - its beauty lies in how all the facets, each done so well, come together to form this entertaining and refreshing, astonishingly wonderful movie. 

Star Trek - The Review

Let me begin by saying...

THIS is the movie I've been waiting for since the first time I watched Star Trek. 

Let me clarify that statement a bit. I've noted several times on this blog that I have never really been a Star Trek fan. Aside from my dad, I have known many a Trekkie (I mean, I am a dork after all, and Trekkie friends just go with that territory), and they are all hellbent on recruiting new Trekkies. I have seen every Star Trek movie and far more than my fair share of the television shows. The same things always killed them for me: poor character development, horrible acting, cheesy plot lines... etc. 

Then J.J. Abrams gets hold of the franchise, and magically, I'm excited. Another thing I've noted on the blog several times is my general love for anything involving Bad Robot (Abrams and his writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman). Cloverfield is in my top 10 movies of all time, and Lost and Fringe are both entertaining weekly watches. So, when I heard that he was heading up the new Star Trek film, I started to pay attention. 

After seeing the movie and having an entire weekend to think about it, I can say that this is what Star Trek has been waiting for since the beginning. For the first time in the history of the franchise, I walked out of a Star Trek movie with an ear-to-ear grin, pumped on adrenaline and giggling like a schoolgirl. 

The list of things that this movie does right is very, very long. Once you break it down though, the movie really begins and ends with its characters, so let's start there. I'm just going to go out and say this right now: The casting was spot-on perfect. I have never seen Chris Pine before (a quick IMDB search gives you a list of chick flicks and Smokin' Aces), but I hope to see a lot more of him. He plays Kirk even better than the man who originally portrayed the character - he's brash, egotistical, a complete flirt, and doesn't win a single fist fight in the entire movie. Tied in with his character is that of Zachary Quinto's Spock. Quinto seems born to play this role as he both channels Nimoy's Spock and adds flair of his own. Even in the movie where he comes face-to-face with Spock Prime (played by none other than Nimoy himself), he holds his own and then some.  

The chemistry between these two actors is just amazing. Every scene which features the two of them together is electrifying, particularly the scene in which... I can't talk about it for fear of spoiling parts of the movie. Suffice it to say they fight (you saw that in the preview trailers so I don't feel like I'm doing anything wrong by saying that out loud), and the scene that leads up to that is one of the best in recent memory. Superbly acted.

What's even more amazing is even though all the characters in the movie are instantly recognizable as their counterparts of yesteryear, each actor (Pine and Quinto especially) adapt their roles and make the roles their own. 

Karl Urban's "Bones" McCoy was perhaps the closest character to the original, but that works for me. His character always provided the fine balance between Kirk's impulsive nature and Spock's logical analysis of everything, and Urban does a fine job of maintaining that balance. Zoe Saldana makes a delightful Uhura, though I found the role a bit too... I don't know what the correct word for it would be. Sexy, perhaps, would be the closest term for it. John Cho was good as Sulu, and Anton Yelchin was absolutely delightful as Chekov, the young but very intelligent Russian, whose accent even the Enterprise's computers has a tough time understanding. Bruce Greenwood is just great as Captain Pike. He's just got one of those voices that fits the commander-type role so well. I don't think I'll ever forget his line from the third trailer: "Your father was the captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including yours. I dare you to do better." That line, and Greenwood's delivery of it, just give me chills.

Eric Bana plays Nero, the story's big baddie. While not as epic perhaps as Khan, Nero provides an interesting and empathetic character. Once again on the subject of voices, Bana's voice lends so much menace to Nero's character. He's a fascinating villain to watch, and while he lacks the sheer evil of Khan, he ranks at this point as my favorite Star Trek movie villain. He has this depth of character that's lacking in most other Star Trek evildoers. 

The two main characters aside, the biggest surprise for me while watching this movie was Simon Pegg as Scotty. He just lights up the screen every time he's even in the frame, and the comedic relief he provides once his character is introduced is priceless. 

I could seriously go on for days about how much I love the casting and the acting and how great the characters were... but I won't. I do have to get this review actually posted at some point after all. :)

Regarding the story: Wow! After the last few Star Trek movies with bland story lines (and bland acting, but I'm trying to change topics here), watching this movie was like a splash of cold water to the face. It was refreshing and exhilarating. Plus, we get the added benefit of knowing that anything is possible with future installments of this new franchise thanks to some alternate-reality hijinx on the parts of the writers. I'm not usually a fan of such story lines (the alternate-reality ones), but I think this is an interesting direction for a reboot to take, and the writers really handle it well. They deliver the jaw-dropper tastefully while avoiding sounding utterly cheesy. But now we now that the sequels can break the rules, can go where no Star Trek has ever gone before, and that makes me positively giddy. 

Casting, acting, and writing aside, this movie excels in many other ways. The special effects are gorgeous. Handled by ILM - Industrial Light and Magic - the effects in this movie raise that bar for what we can expect in movie CGI. The space fight scenes top even those of the Star Wars prequel trilogy in their scope and awe inspiring-ness. Couple these with the powerful score by Bad Robot's favorite Michael Giacchino, and you get one amazing thrill ride. Speaking ofMichael Giacchino, not enough can be said about the work he does. From back in his days of scoring EA's Medal of Honor series, to his current job scoring anything and everything done by Bad Robot (Lost, Fringe, Cloverfield, Star Trek), the man is busy, but he never fails to compose wonderful and varied scores. Compare Star Trek to The Incredibles to see what I mean.

All told, it's hard for me to express how great this movie really is. Everybody's talking about the movie all across the Internet. Blogs are going up, Rotten Tomatoes is all about Star Trek this week (it's poised to become the highest rated Star Trek movie ever), and everywhere people are once again excited about a franchise that many, including myself, had written off as washed up and finished. But now, just look at how the Internet has come alive with this movie. It is, pure and simple, movie magic. It's been a long time since I've seen this kind of excitement generated for a movie. A looooooooong time. Hopefully Hollywood can put out some more "stand up and pay attention" movies such as this. 

In conclusion, if you haven't seen this movie in theaters yet, do so. This movie begs to be watched on the big screen (the bigger the better as far as I'm concerned). Heck I'm going to go see it again tomorrow after work with a friend, and there are tentative plans to go see it a third time in the coming weeks. 

Remember also that movie studios listens to one thing: your wallets. Don't just go out there and download some pirated copy of this movie. It's really a great movie, and you should pay to see it. By purchasing a movie ticket, not only do you get the satisfaction of seeing this movie as it was meant to be seen, you are telling the studios that they should be making more movies that live up to this exceptionally high standard. 

9.9/10.0

Star Trek

I just got back from seeing the movie. Working on a write-up, but I probably won't post that until tomorrow. 

Suffice it to say (for now at least, I've got a ton more coming) that this movie redefines Star Trek in the best of ways, and it sets the course for a very exciting future. The strong cast and brilliant writing really seal the deal here.

Go.

See.

It.

That is all.... for now.

Star Trek Again

The hours are dragging by as I sit around and anticipate what might be the best movie moment to come along in years. I haven't been able to figure out exactly what it is that I'm so excited about when it comes to Star Trek. I've never had much love for the franchise. My dad tried over and over to get me to watch Star Trek with him, and time and time again, even at an early age, the acting and pervading cheesiness kept me from truly enjoying the show. I love Patrick Stewart, but I was never able to get into his iteration of the show, and though many friends tried, I never picked up any love for Deep Space Nine either. 

Yet, from the moment I saw the teaser during my midnight viewing of Cloverfield (and every time I saw the movie in theaters thereafter), I was like "I must see this movie." Perhaps it has to do with my ridiculously high opinion of JJ Abrams. The man is simply a genius. Put him together with his team of writers, and magic happens on screen. I point to Cloverfield and Lost as evidence. Fringe is getting up there too. 

Perhaps it's the utterly fascinating quirk that is Zachary Quinto is Spock. That sure caught my attention in a hurry. Zachary Quinto is currently famous for playing Sylar in Heroes. I have my issues with Syalr the character, but never have I thought he was poorly acted. In fact, Quinto gets so into that character, plays him so well, it's difficult for me to see him (for the moment, anyway) as Spock, an almost polar opposite of Sylar. 

Lately, my excitement has been thrown into overdrive with the avalanche of enthusiastic reviews. Anybody who checks Rotten Tomatoes regularly knows that the scores there are generally low - a good movie usually scores in the 70s. Well, up until a couple of days ago, the RT score was sitting prettily at 100%. Today, as of this writing, it has a 96% (174/182 rating it "Fresh"). That is simply unheard of on RT for all but the most amazing movies (usually reserved for arthouse flicks). Chris over at The Knight Shift wrote a positively glowing review of the movie as well. Friends I know who've seen it are already planning on going back, not just once, but as many times as they possibly can. 

Anyway, regardless of the reason, I am stoked, and that's the first time I've ever been able to say that about a Star Trek movie (or anything with Star Trek in the name, for that matter). I'll be tweeting mobile style all night leading up to the show, so feel free to hit me up on Twitter. 

Now the Government is Stealing Land From Citizens

Like I said yesterday, the terrorists are winning. Today brings news that one more right given to US citizens by the Constitution has been overridden by a power-hungry, corrupted government.

I read on The Knight Shift just a moment ago that the government is seizing private land for use in building a memorial for the folks who dies aboard Flight 93.

...   ...   ...

WHAT the hell is going on here?! According to the Yahoo! article, the government has supposedly been in negotiations with the landowners since late 2004 to buy the land (though the property owners contend that there were NO negotiations at all), but since the "negotiations" were unsuccessful, the government is just going to up and take the land anyway. 

What do the g-men need the land for? How about a $58 million permanent memorial and national park to honor the folks who gave their lives on Flight 93. What's more, the memorial/park will cover a ginormous twenty-two hundred acres. The gov't would like to have the memorial completed by the 10th anniversary of the hijacking, as if the people who died in that plane crash really care when or even if a memorial is built. 

That point aside, I find myself wondering: What in god's name do you do with a memorial of that size? What's the point?

We here in the US have a right, inalienable, to own property. The government has no right to take our property away from us. Yet, here we are with the government poised to step into territory strictly forbidden by the document that governs it. What else is new, right?

From the article, Phil Sheridan, park service spokesperson, had the following to say: "We had a group of people who took some very heroic actions. It's just fitting and right that we get this done in time for the 10th anniversary."

First, do the dead folks care? No. They're dead. Their actions are remembered. Do we need a memorial to help us remember? No. What they did was brave and will live on through history as such. 

Scary thing is, the family members of the heroes on Flight 93 were pushing for the government to bring eminent domain to bear. Hell, they've even formed a group, Flight 93 Families, with a president and a vice president even. Patrick White, VP of F93F, supports the government's actions here and was even planning on asking for eminent domain to be wielded. Apparently both he and the families of the dead have forgotten what it means to be a citizen of the US, so swept up are they in their greed. 

Civil rights be damned, give us a meaningless memorial. 

I eagerly await the nasty emails that will come from that comment.

Thing is, the folks aboard Flight 93 died protecting the people of this country, because they believed in what this country stands for. Perhaps this is a lesson the government (and Flight 93 Families) should take to heart. 

Deadpool News

This makes my day.



In more Deadpool news, here's Ryan Reynolds talking about his role in the recent X-Men movie. I love the part at the end... it seems a bit like a jab at the folks responsible for f-ing up the character in the Origins film. I hope they do a spinoff, I hope he stars in it, and I hope they fix the character. Like Reynolds says, 100% accurate to the comic books.

Edit: I was browsing the web, and I came across some interesting news. We now have confirmation (here, here, and here) that there IS going to be a Deadpool spinoff movie. That's right, a movie about Marvel's most badass comic book superstar (er... cult hit). Better yet, it will (supposedly) star Ryan Reynolds as the main man. Given that his 15 minutes on screen was the best part of Origins (he positively stole the show, imo), this could be awesome. Of course, if the Fox producers get too much say in this shizzle, we're going to end up with Baraka-Cyclops-Pool again, and that would be sad days indeed.

Here's to hoping Reynolds' Deadpool intent wins out here and he gets the true-to-the-comics adaptation he and all the rest of the Deadpool fans out there truly want. 

US Government Using Patriot Act Against its Own Citizens

Pandora is playing "Capital G" by NIN right now... Irony!

I ran across this hoprrifying story while browsing the web this morning. I'm not sure horrifying is the correct term for it either. It goes so far beyond merely "horrifying"...

Back when the Patriot Act was rushed through the House and Senate following the 9/11, the law scared me. Never, EVER, should a law have been passed that supercedes the Constitution. Yet, utilizing the country's general state of panic and lust for revenge, our government pushed through a law that allows them to suspend the rights of anybody they suspect (or claim to suspect) of being a terrorist. It gives law enforcement officials, among other things, unlimited rights to hold prisoners without representation, without proof, and without cause. One utterance of "terrorist" and your rights are magically gone. Poof. You aren't protected, you have nowhere to turn.

That's what this story is about. Federal officials came one night and arrested a tenth grade kid for being a terrorist threat. He's been held now for two months without legal representation and limited contact with his family. His hearings are delayed, then delayed again, all the while this poor kid is being denied his Constitutional rights. 

Pardon my French, but what the fuck is this country coming to? This is not the United States the forefathers envisioned, this is more like the various foreign regimes we have been horrified of in the past. Perhaps this has become cliche by now, but only because it is true. We are moving at an ever more rapis pace towards the world envisioned by George Orwell when he penned 1984. The fate of Winston Smith is scarily close to what this kid is going through right now. 

If that doesn't send chills up your spine, you should get your pulse checked. 

Seriously, folks, anybody reading this and watching this video must acknowledge that this is ridiculous. This is not what the USA is all about. We elected a man who promised us change, yet one of the most atrocious things left over by the Bush administration was the Patriot Act, and he is doing nothing to rectify this problem. He's busying himself with spending record amounts of money and doing more than perhaps any other President before him to socialize this country, but when it comes to the basic rights of the people he was elected to lead, he turns away and refuses to do anything. 

I will inevitably get an email or two about how the Patriot Act is necessary to combat the threat of terrorism, and to that I say bullshit. I didn't believe that back in 2001 and I sure as hell don't believe that now. This Act serves no purpose other than stealing away the few rights that remain to us as citizens of the United States. It gives the government far too much power, and that power is wholly abusable due to an utter lack of checks and balances. 

It's been said that terrorists attack us because they are jealous of the way we are able to live. If you believe that, perhaps you should take a step back and look at this story from the perspective of a terrorist. They are jealous of our freedoms and our rights, yet the government is stripping those freedoms and rights away from us, little by little, so really, the terrorists are winning. Hell, perhaps they've won already. 

If this story horrifies you as much as it does me, do something about it. The Campaign for Liberty is educating people about what their rights are and how they can stand up for them. They are fighting to stem the tide of big government that is slowly eroding our great country and standing up for the Constitution and the rights we have under it. Head on over and educate yourself, then stand up for your rights.

Star Trek in TWO Days!

It just might be the movie event of the summer, and it is suddenly upon us. 2 days to go. Whet your appetites here:

More Random News

So, they're already talking about both Gambit and Deadpool spinoff movies. Don't believe me? Check it out here. I'm down for both, assuming they can find a way to take the shitstorm of crap they dished on the Deadpool character back and do it correctly this time. And bring Ryan Reynolds back as Deadpool. 

It's with a heavy heart that I tell you Kings has been cancelled. I am tremendously sad that more people didn't start weatching that show. NBC will air the remaining episodes later this summer. It will be on again Saturdays starting June 13 and will run through its remaining episodse. :(

Heroes has avoided the NBC chopping block for now. NBC has renewed the show for next season, though they are debating how many episodes it will be. They also renewed Southland (YAY!) and Friday Night Lights (another YAY!)

All you Chuck fans out there can breath a sigh of relief, since NBC has confirmed that this cult hit is being renewed as well. 

More Movies - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and Transformers: Rise of the Fallen

One quick aside: there is a lot of "rising" going on with this summer's movies.

The X-Men movie, though piss-poor, was definitely not bad enough to dampen my spirits about this summer. There are still a tremendous number of great movies slated for release in the coming months, and I can't wait to keep it going. This Friday gives us Star Trek, which, if the critics are to be believed, is phenomenal. 

Also, we finally have an actual trailer for G.I. Joe, which you can view right here on this very blog:

As I watch the trailer, I'm struck by the notion that the film has potential to be a special effects bonanza that falls short in the story department. While that approach works for some movies (read: Die Hard), it will fail with this one, I think. G.I. Joe has a great and rich background from which to pull material, so it will be disappointing if the folks behind this movie don't bother pulling any of it. 

Also, the first Transformers movie stole the Best Movie of 2007 on my old MySpace blog, so I'm understating when I say I can't wait for the followup. Everything worked for me about the first one, especially the soundtrack, composed by Steve Jablonsky. The movie roared into theaters with a big story, fascinating and well-acted characters, stupifying special effects, and a score that brought everything together and stole many, many hours away from my life. 

Well, we've got the same cast, same crew, and same composer* back for the second, so it should be exciting. 

* In addition to Steve Jablonsky, the rumor mill has Hans Zimmer working on the score as well. I'm down with this so long as Zimmer doesn't fiddle with the things that made Jablonsky's score to the original so good. Also, Linkin Park will be back, throwing their garbage in for the Official Music From and Inspired By soundtrack... barf. I'll wait for the score.

I saw the new trailer for Transformers 2 prior to X-Men, so I figured I'd post that here too. Enjoy!

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - The Review

This review really pains me. It really, really does. I liked the first 3 X-Men movies - they were fun, action-y, and told a good story. Yeah, there were some complaints about the third one, but that hardly precluded it from being an entertaining movie. 

So, imagine my excitement when I heard that there was going to be yet another X-Men movie. When I first posted the trailer here, I was all giddy and excited. More to the point though, I was pumped about Ryan Reynolds playing one of my favorite comic book characters of all time!!! Ryan Reynolds is one of my favorite actors, and he seemed to fit the young Deadpool perfectly - pretty boy with a sarcastic, dark humor. I liked where that was going. Throw in Hugh Jackman reprising his role as Wolverine, and it seemed like a can't-lose proposition.

Enter, then, the movie itself. I'll admit that I went in with mixed expectations; I mean, come on, the movie was clocking in with a whopping 37% on the tomatometer. Anyway, enough preface, let's jump into this one.

First, the good. And this is a mighty short list.

• Ryan Reynolds is a complete badass - at least he is for the whole 15 mintues he's on screen as Deadpool.
• Hugh Jackman can act. This movie would have been a complete bust if it weren't for his great acting talent. He really gets into the Wolverine part, and he plays it with passion that really shows.
• Several members of the supporting cast were also very good in their roles. Of note, Leiv Schreiber plays a great Sabretooth, and Danny Huston was a passable Stryker. 

The best moment in the entire movie right here!

And that about covers it. The first 15-20 minutes or so was completely sweet. The beginning was everything I expected from the movie, plus Deadpool brought to amusing and badass life by Mr. Reynolds. Then the movie went downhill, sharply. The action disappeared, and the movie slowed to a crawl as we explored Wolverine's life  with his wife, leared where the name came from, watched Hugh Jackman cutting down some trees, were exposed to his bare chest as often as possible, and just plain stopped caring. Anybody who knows me knows that I'm all for dropping action for character development, but the writing in this movie is sloppy and riddled with cliche, and not even Jackman's passionate portrayal of his character could mop up this mess. We are introduced to Gambit, who is awesome for about 10 seconds, there are a couple of clashes between Wolverine and Sabretooth, a couple of people die, and all along, Stryker is plotting away. What his ultimate intention is is anybody's guess (though if you're paying attention you guessed correctly far too soon). 

Anyway, during this entire time, we're missing half the point of my seeing this movie: Deadpool. He just isn't here, and I was thoroughly disappointed, but the biggest let-down was still in store. 

I'd like to preface my next remarks by saying that I now understand all the people who hated the third X-Men movie for not sticking to the story line. Though I'll make an exception here in that what they did in Origins was on a far different level. In The Last Stand, they f-ed up the plot line, but stayed relatively true to the characters (well, the important ones at least). Here, they just messed everything up, including main characters. End preface.

Enter the end of the movie, the climactic battle - the movie has finally started to pick itself up again (after several utterly lame "plot twists") and I am excited to see Deadpool again. And here is where the movie fails in the most epic way possible. Stop reading now if you would rather subject yourself to the heaping doses of FAIL first hand.

We are introduced to the mutant killer (formerly Deadpool - he no longer deserves that name at this point in the movie). Here is bald Ryan Reynolds, bare-chested (why is everybody bare-chested in this movie all the time?????) and hideous in an experimented-on way. Not to mention they, uh, "stitched" his mouth closed, depriving us of the most defining thing about the Deadpool character. As if that wasn't enough, the movie barely gives us enough time to digest this before, in a further act of WTF, he sprouts sword blades from his knuckles, Wolvy-style. 

...

...

...

...

Ummm, the movie completely lost me at this point. There's about 5 minutes of this thing beating the ever-loving crap out of our protagonist, then they climb up the exhaust pipe (for lack of a better term) for the nuclear reactor and epic battle ensues up there. We are introduced to the experiment's newest ability, Nightcrawler teleporting. More fighting. Just as it looks like mutant aberration is going to win, Sabretooth joines the battle and the mutant killer beats the snot out of both of them at the same time, employing much teleporting tactics. In the final straw, mutant-thingy teleports away and unleashes a volley of Cyclops-laser. 

...

...

...

Is there no saving this movie? Anyway, Wolvy ends up decapitating the thing, losing his memory, not recognizing his wife's dead body, walking away, and thus the movie is (finally) over. I and the group of friends I came with wander angrily out of the theater, wondering why we wasted our money on such a terrible movie. 

After the credits, the mutant killer's body attaches it's head again. Who cares.

My personal opinions about their borking up Deadpool aside, the movie was just bad. The story was cliched, the action was all-too brief, the character development was shallow (especially considering the time they alotted for it), the plot twists were predictable and stale. 

When I see a movie for which I can say that not even Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds can save it, there is something very wrong with that movie. Unfortunately, between the story being lame, the characters being one dimensional, and Deadpool being butchered, there's just not much left to appreciate about the latest X-Men outing.

Score: 2.5/10.0 

It is nice to see that it being a terrible movie didn't stop it from making bank to the tune of $87.0M. I expect that the numbers won't look even remotely that good next weekend. 

The next day, I watched The Nines to make myself feel better. It worked wonders. On the upside, Star Trek comes out on Friday, and the Tomatometer is giving it a truly whopping 100% thusfar. Now there's a movie I can't wait to see.