At least on youtube he is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hTiRnqnvDs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgeeksofdoom.com%2F2009%2F05%2F24%2Ffakey-trailer-sunday-nathan-fillion-as-green-lantern-bioshock-movie-trailer%2F&feature=player_embedded
My review
Star Trek filtered through a Star Wars mentality.
I totally get what J.J. Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are trying to do here, and I support it. Without giving too much away, they’re trying to restart the Star Trek franchise by going back and focusing on the iconic, beloved, original characters who put Star Trek on the cultural map in the first place. And they want to do it without being locked in to what was established so definitively in the 79 episodes of The Original Series (TOS), six movies, and even in the spin-off TV shows The Next Generation (TNG), Deep Space Nine (DS9), Voyager (VOY), and Enterprise (ENT).
It makes sense to go back to the original crew. With the TNG crew played out after 2002’s execrable STAR TREK: NEMESIS and none of the other spin-off shows warranting a promotion to the big screen, Abrams and company really had only two choices: create an entirely new crew and concept and risk audience apathy, or go back to the familiar but put a whole new coat of paint on it. Let’s face it: it was not that difficult a choice to make. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov are still the best-known characters of the franchise. It’s been many years since anything significant has been done with them on screen. And it would be very difficult to pass up the chance to tackle these classic characters and put a fresh new spin on them and the universe they inhabit.
In taking this approach, Abrams and company did neither a total reboot, a la the Sci-Fi Channel’s recently completed Battlestar Galactica TV series, nor a proper prequel that ties in directly and adheres faithfully to the established continuity. It’s a little of both--the filmmakers try to have it both ways. And for the most part, they succeed.
The fates of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest are now unwritten. Anything can happen to them. Some can die, or leave Starfleet in a huff, or lose a limb. This adds a tremendous amount of suspense and drama to the proceedings, because you CAN’T rely on prior knowledge--what you know from the TV series and the movies is no longer applicable. So this movie is not really a prequel in that it doesn’t set the stage for TOS. It simply CAN’T. You won’t be able to walk out of this movie and then sit down and start watching the original TV series and the original-cast movies and have it feel like a seamless fit.
And that doesn’t bother me, really. Why bother going back to Kirk and his crew and making new movies about them if we already know exactly how their lives are going to play out over time? The good news for longtime fans is that this movie doesn’t negate or wipe out what has come before. Abrams and Co. make it fairly clear that the original timeline is still in place, still intact, and if you want to revisit it, just pop in your DVDs of TOS, TNG, DS9, etc. It’s all still there. We even get a new detail about Kirk’s personal backstory as it exists in the original timeline.
But if you want to follow the NEW adventures, you’d better go in with an open mind. Because Abrams and Co. don’t pull their punches. They are not afraid to upset the apple cart and depict sweeping, drastic, and, quite frankly, shocking events that bring significant changes to the Star Trek universe as a whole. With all that out of the way, I’ll get to the FUN stuff.
As for the cast--by and large, they’re terrific. Abrams makes it sing. He's assembled a cast that is terrific, and - for the first time in Trek history - actually gives each and every one of them something to do that helps define them as characters.
Chris Pine shows us a somewhat different James Kirk from what we’re used to, which is only natural given the nature of the film, but by the end, you can see him settling in to being the Kirk we know and love. Pine also carries himself well during the action and fight scenes, and he's good at portraying a rough-around-the-edges Kirk who’s developing his notorious magic with the ladies. He is also good during the more comedic moments. And during his scenes with Leonard Nimoy as the elderly Spock, he more than holds his own. What I WOULD like to see in future films is Kirk portrayed as a bit more intelligent, more thoughtful, more cultured, and more strategic than he’s shown here. We get to see plenty of Kirk as a rough-and-tumble man of action in this movie, but there’s a lot more to him than that.
Simon Pegg is hilarious as Scotty, but his slightly manic version of the character doesn't really gibe with the laid back, always a little toasted version from the show and the original movies. But whatever, he's great and he makes the character work. He’s played mostly for comic relief here. My main criticism with regard to Scotty is that he falls into his familiar place just a little too quickly and easily, given the circumstances surrounding his arrival aboard the Enterprise. The establishment of his relationship with Kirk--right down to Kirk calling him “Scotty”--came off, at least to me, as just a wee bit rushed.
As the young Spock, Zachary Quinto doesn’t quite capture the essence of Nimoy--I found his delivery to be a bit on the robotic side on occasion, and even arrogant at times. (Nimoy played Spock as a Zen master, while Quinto plays him as almost a sociopath. He's simply unsettling), It’s not a bad performance by any means, just a different interpretation of the character. In the future, though, I would like to see Quinto try to incorporate more of the wisdom, the dignified demeanor, and the gentle wit that Nimoy brought to Spock.
Karl Urban is WONDERFUL as Leonard McCoy, from start to finish. Karl Urban is astonishing as Bones. He captures the spirit of the late great DeForest Kelly marvelously. The irascible nature, the sarcasm, the irreverence, the nervous raise of his eyebrow--it’s all there. One thing is certain: Urban MUST have a bigger, more central role in future films.
My prediction is that the breakout character in this movie will be Zoe Saldana's Uhura. She's absolutely gorgeous--you can't take your eyes off of her. She carries herself extremely well, projects an air of confidence and ability, has a lovely speaking voice, and has good chemistry with both Pine and Quinto. It's a really strong performance, and I think she’s given more to do and more of a characterization than Nichelle Nichols was given in all six original movies combined--and maybe even the TV series, as well.
Anton Yelchin is my only complaint...as Chekov and has a great scene where he really shines. He’s a bit more of a charterer than a character.
As Sulu, John Cho gets less of a chance to make a strong impression but has a few very nice moments and gets to take part in one of the film’s most thrilling sequences.
Bruce Greenwood is very effective and likable as Captain Christopher Pike. His performance is more or less consistent with Jeffrey Hunter's, and I wouldn’t mind at all if he returned in a future film. His relationship with Kirk, as portrayed in this film, shows lots of potential for further exploration.
Eric Bana’s obsessed Captain Nero does not rank among the best-developed or most compelling antagonists we’ve ever seen in Star Trek. He’s certainly no Khan, who without a doubt remains the most memorable and dramatic villain ever faced by an Enterprise crew. But I wouldn’t place Nero among the utterly forgettable and inadequate bad guys from the last couple of Next Generation movies, either. He’s okay. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for Leonard Nimoy... it almost would have been enough just to see him back on the screen as Spock after 18 years. But to see him play such an important role--one that doesn’t give him a lot of screen time but is nonetheless absolutely essential to the story (unlike Shatner’s return as Kirk in the ill-conceived mess that was STAR TREK GENERATIONS)--makes it all the more special and essential. It’s clear that Nimoy had a good time playing Spock again. There's a warmth, a sense of comfort, and a level of gravitas in his performance that I don't think we've really seen since STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN. Nimoy’s Spock (referred to in the end credits as “Spock Prime”) is shown the utmost respect and treated with dignity--again, unlike Kirk in GENERATIONS. And there are two moments--one between Nimoy and Pine and one between Nimoy and Quinto--that are really quite touching.
Overall, I found STAR TREK to be a high-octane, fast-paced, exciting, funny, and even poignant adventure. It does what it set out to do, which is make Star Trek accessible to a new audience and forge a new direction without being constrained by the franchise’s history--while respecting and acknowledging everything that came before . There are some rough spots here, to be sure, but I think Star Trek has gotten the shot in the arm that it’s needed for quite some time.
At the end of the movie, as Pine walks onto the bridge of the Enterprise in that yellow tunic, Chris Pine IS Captain Kirk. And that is all that matters.
With its release on DVD I’d thought I I would share my review:
Synopsis: STAR WARS zealots, rejoice, for thy movie is at hand: an odyssey across America with a van full of hardcore science-fiction-loving geeks that drop STAR WARS quotes at the drop of a vintage… STAR WARS zealots, rejoice, for thy movie is at hand: an odyssey across America with a van full of hardcore science-fiction-loving geeks. Their mission: to infiltrate Skywalker ranch–or die trying–and heist a pre-release print of THE PHANTOM MENACE. Oh, the days before screeners and work prints would show up on bit torrent sites. The days when you could still get surprised… before every website and blog nitpicked and spoiled ever detail. The days of old when Star Wars Episode 1 was something we wanted to see.
The long, long history of a movie being made: Make a movie about the release of Star Wars The Phantom Menace? Sounds simple…right? Well, the history of this film is a story to itself. Too bad the filmers of Lost in La Mancha weren’t there to catch it all. The film was originally to be released on August 17, 2007. The movie was pushed back once more to January 2008 because director Kyle Newman was given more funding to shoot additional scenes. Getting the cast back together would only be possible in September 2007, thus the movie’s release date had to be moved to 2008. The movie was again pushed back because the reshoots could not take place before November/December 2007. After George Lucas was given an advanced screening he offered the original Star Wars sound effects for use in the movie. Hollywood’s resident fanboy filmmaker Kevin Smith also viewed an early version of the film and asked for (and was given) a cameo in the film. ( He originally was supposed to play Harry Knowles but so was Jorge Garcia aka Hurley from Lost.) On January 14, web blogger The CineManiac broke the story that the movie was being re-edited to remove the cancer plot from the movie and replace much of it with raunchy, vulgar humor. Upon hearing about the changes being made to the movie, dedicated Star Wars fanboys united and started an internet ( no surprised there) campaign where fans rebel against the plot changes and demand that the original version that includes the cancer storyline be released in theaters The final cut of the film was screened on July 24, 2008, in San Diego at Comic-Con It was announced there that Fanboys would be released to theaters on September 19, 2008 On Sep 4, 2008 a new release date was announced: November 26, 2008. The final release date was pushed to February 6, 2009. Then more select cities were added later. (Fuck…it’s amazing it didn’t go straight to DVD).
Review. This movie is for fanboys by fanboys. I took my girlfriend who liked it but hated Kristen Bell’s wig so much she lost interest in it. Due to the limited release we had to drive nearly an hour to see it. We were delayed from the opening due to the weather but we made it finally. We arrived at an old style theater without stadium seating and the nine thousand types of overpriced candies. The kind of theater that is nearly gone in America. The type of theater you may have seen Star Wars in. Somehow it was fitting.
It has been awhile since I watched a movie that made me laugh several times and held my attention throughout the movie. I make no pretense though, this movie is for Star Wars fans. The casual fan may enjoy it but the audience is for the diehard fans. Never does this movie talk down to the audience or try to explain the phenomenon of Star Wars. Either you have loved Star Wars from the first viewing and went back and saw it as many times as you could or you didn’t. And for those of that did, it was our first love. Star Wars came into our lives and then left us wanting more, and we didn’t get more it until 1998. Fanboys picks up right there. Six months before the release of Episode 1. Old friends are reunited, and an adventure awaits them that will change their lives. Eric (Sam Huntington), Windows (Jay Baruchel), Zoe (Kristen Bell), Linus (Chris Marquette) and Hutch (Dan Fogler), hit the open road from Ohio to California on a mission to steal a print of Star Wars: Episode I, The Phantom Menace from George Lucas’ Skywalker Ranch. Each of those teenagers has their own issues to deal with. Eric doesn’t want to be a part of his dad’s business at a car dealership and would rather be a comic book artist. Linus is terminally ill with cancer. Zoe must come to terms with the fact that even though she’s in love with a guy, he’s just not that into her. ( A weak ass plot point and a wate of Kristen Bell.) Hutch wants to move out of his mother’s garage while Windows feels like a dorky, social outcast and plans to meet his online girlfriend during the road trip. The actors seem to be having a great time in their roles, so their comic energy and enthusiasm often radiates from the screen. There are several guest stars ( I won’t list them here but they are in the trailer on Youtube.) and scenes that seem to have been inserted into the loose plot but it works. Co-screenwriters Ernest Cline and Adam F. Goldberg do a great job of blending outrageous humor with tongue-in-cheek and witty humor from the very first scene until the last, although there are a few scenes that tend to fall flat with recycled and forced ( no pun intended) humor. As funny as Fanboys often is, it’s not particularly graceful — possibly because it had a troubled production history.
Would you really want a The 40 Year old Virgin meets Han Solo geek-fest to feel state of the art?
IMDB Page: Fanboys
My review
Thar be Spoilers below:
"The Incident"
Season 5 finale
Lost
ABC
What lies in the shadow of the statue?
“Ille qui nos omnes servabit”
“He who will save us”
Genesis, Sigmund Freud, the Odyssey, Flannery O’Connor, Carl Jung, “Dr. Strangelove” — Wednesday night’s season finale of “Lost” was so chockablock with archetype, mythology and cultural references it was like watching Joseph Campbell on crack. A better look at the statue would seemingly lead one away from the gods Tawaret and Anubis, introducing another Egyptian Diety as the island’s potential avatar… Sobek.
A powerful and frightening deity, it was Sobek who first came out of the dark waters of chaos to create the world. Sobek was often thought of as being beyond good or evil, though he was seen as a repairer of evil that had been done. In one reference, Sobek was also said to call on suitable gods and goddesses required for protecting people in need, effectively having a more distant role, nudging things along, rather than taking an active part.
Sound familiar? If you watch Lost it does.
It opened with a man (in a cave, so throw in Plato) hunched over a spinning wheel (Ghandi? Penelope at her loom? Or just a reference to the Blood, Sweat and Tears song?), then cut to two men on a beach. Their garments vaguely period, their speech decidedly modern, they argue over a frigate in full sail on the horizon. One man (in black) says in disgust that he knows they are coming because the other man (in white) brought them.
Clearly Jacob, previously a mysterious authority, has been around for a while. (We later learn that he has in fact visited each of the key characters at significant moments of their life.) But who is he really? God? And does that make Mr. Black some incarnation of Satan, the two perpetually battling over the basic nature of the human soul? Is the island then Eden, existing outside space and time to serve as a kind of spiritual laboratory?
The rest of the episode never quite lived up to the opening.
You’re trying to prove me wrong.
You are wrong.
They come, they fight, they destroy, they corrupt.
It always ends the same.
It can only end once. Everything before that is progress.
~Jacob and The Man in Black
And so it goes, the eternal back and forth between these two timeless adversaries. Both manipulating people and events in an ongoing conflict that is a game with set rules, not the least of which being that they are barred from killing one another. It’s been hinted at as far back as season one, when John Locke explained the game of backgammon to Walt as being a contest between two players, on black and one white.
The Man in Black finding the loophole and, in the guise of John Locke, leading Ben to slaughter Jacob. But Jacob seemed almost eager for the killing blow, offering himself up like an aged Jedi prepared to “become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.
Jacob was assembling his army, pushing and prodding the Losties toward their destined Island venture so that they in turn could be his chess pieces in his little game of redemption, absolution, and perhaps the exercise in free will.
Look more closely at the paths he laid out for them.
Kate: Busted for shoplifting, he paid off the shop owner to keep him from calling her parents. Had she been disciplined, how different would Kate have been?
James: Jacob offered up the pen in which the boy could write his vengeance-fueled letter, the defining moment in the young boy’s life, that carried him through to adulthood and forging him into a mirror of that which he hated most.
Locke: Forgiveness and hope offered to a broken man betrayed by his father.
Jack: A little push in the right direction, with an Apollo bar no less.
Sayid: Poor Sayid, was culled from harm's way as Nadia was struck down, opening up for him his path to revenge-fueled, killing machine madness.
Is Jacob good or evil? Is he beyond these simplistic classifications?
“It’s always something with you people.”
~Rose Henderson
Rose and Bernard who quickly inform them the fresh off the sub Sawyer, Kate and Juliet that they are not at all interested in either the Dharma/anti-Dharma, the hydrogen bomb/no hydrogen bomb or even the old favorite Jack/Sawyer conflict. They are “retired” and disappointed to find that their old beach comrades are still looking for ways to shoot each other. Bernard and Rose, the island’s John and Yoko, just want to be together.
Sawyer and Juliet’s relationship was tossed into the abyss last night, with destiny and a hydrogen bomb. She dies wearing a red shirt and I could care less. Their relationship seemed contrived and ridiculous and her poorly acted death ( on Josh Holloway's part, god his acting was so bad in that scene)
Of course there was another little matter that took me no time to figure out…
R.I.P. John Locke. In the end, John Locke… the real John Locke, not the black shirted, smoke monstered doppelganger… was what he’d always been: a failure. A led around by a ring in his nose, self-defeating, screw up who was played and manipulated by everyone and everything. The Man of Faith… and in the end, he was weak and pathetic, despite how hard he tried to be otherwise. Is there still hope for redemption for John Locke? God, I hope so, he deserves better, and as Jack said never give up on John Locke.
Did they succeed in resetting Time? How has the nuclear detonation effected the present? In a nutshell, where do they go from here?
The writers have positioned themselves perfectly. At this point, anything can happen. We are now completely and utterly lost… cast adrift in a sea of uncertainty. Much like the new Star Trek. We are connected but nothing we know works anymore.
And it’s a odd feeling.
In a negative reflection of “The Sopranos” finale, the screen goes white.
One thing we know for sure, there is a war coming and season six can't come quick enough.
Movie Review
Terminator Salvation (2009)
Thar be Spoilers below:
Christian Bale a grimacing, smoldering, action-cypher for most of the movie. The problem is that the guy who plays Marcus is much better at doing the same thing. John Connor has become a quasi-mesiah type figure who gives fireside chats like FDR did during the war. The notion that he's seen as a false prophet by some (including a sadly misused Michael Ironside) doesn't ring true. The mythology of the first film indicated that humankind was near extinction when Connor took charge and brought things back from the brink. He thus presumably organized the resistance himself--he didn't rise to leadership after other, less effective leaders were killed. And the masses didn't follow him because he was a "messiah". As far as they knew, he was just an everyman who rose to a potion of greatness because he merited it.
I did kinda like Connor's "fireside chats", though. I can totally see that working in the context of what we're told about him in the first two movies. While John was not really a commander in the movie, he was a big deal in the alliance resistance as a communications personality, a consultant, and as the leader of his own outfit that had A-10's assorted helicopters, and experience in overwhelming machines and rescuing human captives. The actual commanders seemed to think he was nuts and a loose cannon but they did value his participation and contributions in the war against Skynet. By the end he is in a reasonable position to assume command and probably tighten the organization up and formalize it into the force that would eventually defeat Skynet.
Sam Worthington is pretty solid, and his character's arc is interesting, but the whole notion of this elaborate infiltration plan is utterly absurd. I would have preferred he stayed a mystery but overall the movie gives the audience enough to be satisfied. Marcus is a tragic figure part machine-part man. A man out of time. He finds a cause in his new life that he seems a little too eager to give up his heart and get out of this future that he never should have seen. (I guess that in 2018 there is no available artificial heart technology.)
The young Arnold CGI is really impressive. The T-800 battle at the end is pretty darn good, and is a solid reminder of just how cool the original Terminator was--who needs the gimmicks of the T-1000 or T-X? That classic design still works. Of course, Reese (from 2029) said in the first movie that the T-800s were new, but here, we see that they were developed 11 years earlier. Also, Reese said that the T-600s had rubber skin, but here, they just wear rubber masks and tattered clothes.
There are many visual references to the previous films: The origin of Connor's scar, the T-800 struggling to walk as it's being frozen, "I'll be back", etc. To the filmmakers' credit, some of these are more subtle than they could have been. Others aren't.
The problems
It's not clear whether SkyNet knows that Reese is Connor's father. At the very least, SkyNet seems to know that Connor has some kind of vested interest in Reese, and therefore uses him as bait. If it does know that he's Connor's father, then the movie is completely and utterly stupid, because SkyNet should have taken the opportunity to kill Reese and change the future instead of crafting elaborate plots to lure Connor to SkyNet Central or sending Terminators back in time.
Also, why would Connor be stupid enough to tell anyone about his knowledge of Reese's eventual role as his father? That's a major tactical boo-boo, since that info could possibly get back to SkyNet. The first two films make it clear that Connor knows everything about Reese and the paradox, and has to keep quiet so as to allow Reese to live and volunteer to be sent back in time and complete the circle.
I have a hard time believing that the resistance command didn't consider that Skynet might have a really simple defense against the shortwave shut down code like rotating the codes, having a time period in which shut down was not accepted, or jamming the shortwave signal or whatever. No one seems to really know how radio signals and tracking them should work in this movie. Subs broadcast theatre-wide short wave signals while under water? Why was resistance command directly involved in the operation at all? Have they never heard of compartmentalization? And wasn't it established that John is a super computer geek. He shoulda at least known. It just seemed like a really lame plan. Sure it was a ruse but who'd fall for it? The Resistance is an informal and voluntary as it seems to be. "Sir, the bombers won't launch until Conner gives the order" is kinda odd in this harsh realm.
Why was Skynet using the captured people held in the hole under the radar site as nuke bait for Conner's Tech-Com force or for T-800 style cyborg tissue/behavior research ? Was skynet hauling people to its Tower/T-800 production base as bait to draw out Conner, as human shields for the expected Resistance bombing mission, for research purposes, or to train them to work in extermination centers? Maybe they needed some people for the T-800 to hang out with to see if they'd notice he wasn't one of them? Kyle was supposed to have been a super commando at an extermination facility where he got his barcode brand. That doesn't seem to have happened yet. He just got picked out, tossed into a cell, and rescued. I also note that no mention was made of his having a brother named Derek so I guess that's a signal about the importance of the TV show. A real missed opportunity in my opinion.
Did John, by mouthing off to the unknowingly wired Marcus, make Skynet AWARE of him and his destiny and the upcoming time travel capability ? Why would Skynet believe him ? It seems like Resistance Command already knew about a Skynet kill list that had Kyle at #1 and John as #2. If the TV show didn't happen then how does younger Skynet even know about John Conner ? Are Conner's Tech-Com buddies a threat because they are so effective or does Skynet already know the future?
The movie is very choppy, without a genuinely engaging through-line. It doesn't have the same emotional pull that the first two movies had. It feels more like a story constructed around setpieces and plot twists, and looks like a video game. As many reviewers have said, the humanity so crucial to Cameron's films is missing. And we really don't even get any good Terminator action until the end. So what's the point, besides setting up a few more lifeless sequels?
Nanner Split said:I do believe if you go to Symantec's website, you can do a search for a particular virus and various ways to remove it.
you go to the clinic...
YES!!!!!!!!!
i think the show would be better if they killed off john thro some kind of temporal cold fusion
PSYCHO_DAYV said:
BANG !!!
DEAD AGAIN, AND NEVER TO RETURN.
but he came back
bye warbles