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.