"The X-Files: I Want To Believe"

Not unexpectedly, 20th Century Fox's The X-Files: I Want to Believe, based on the '90s iconic TV series, has been panned by the nation's film critics most of whom are pompous asses with self inflated egos.

From Lou Lumenick of the New York Post, who dismissed it as "ho-hum", which describes his film reviews in general, to Claudia Puig in USA who gets it totally wrong when she comments that the film "just can't capture the magic" of the original series" to
Jan Stuart, from the Los Angeles Times, who also gets it totally wrong when comparing the movie with the TV series:

"Even at its stride, The X-Files was a load of malarkey. But it was thoughtful malarkey and compulsively watchable. One could say the same about the first two-thirds of The X-Files: I Want to Believe before it spins out of control and into a delirious plane of awfulness."

One could say the same about Jan's review; alot of malarkey which spins out of control towards just plane awfulness.

And then there is Manohla Dargis of New York Times who proclaimed the film to be:

"Baggy, draggy, oddly timed and strangely off the mark."

That would be a more apt critique of Dargis herself, whose arrogance is only exceeded by her inane stupidity.

In the 2nd Garfield feature, Billy Connolly plays the villainous character of "Lord Dargis" so inspired by Dargis after she give the first feature her typical snotty negative review.
Billy Connolly also stars in this X-Files feature.
Dragon lady give this X-Files her usually snotty negative review.
The Circle of Life is complete.
The NY Times is good for lining your birdcage.
Dargis critiques are good for nothing.

None of the brain dead fuckwits over at the Daily Kos got it. Least of all, the ass, Larry Madill, who"reviews" it by giving away the plot which he mangles and inserting the "de riguer" insults and slurs about the Bush Administration.

Thankfully, John Anderson of Newsday.com gets it.

If you are a true die-hard fan of the The X-Files tv series, from its inception, then you will love this movie. By inception, I mean pre-mythology, which was complex and stretched across the shows 9 seasons. Thankfully, that mythology is absent from this film.

This second feature while cinematic, returns back to the series roots and remains true to the core of what defined X-Files the series: dark, moody, creepy, intense, evocative, wry, quirky, a bit silly, a great mystery, cerebral, sensual. The plots kept us riveted, slightly off balance, they scared us by what they didn't show, and the sexual tension between Scully & Mulder sizzled!

No one does dead pan wit as masterfully as Duchovny. No one does "sexy cerebral" better than Anderson.

In X-Files: I Want To Believe, their sexual chemistry---born in their passionate need to believe; he in paranormal phenomenon, she in the harmony of God & science---still sizzles!
But now, another woman is added to the mix. Edgy younger FBI Agent Dakota Whitney who is enamored with Muldur both professionally and personally. While both chasing a suspect she crosses the line when she calls out for Mulder's by first name "Fox" - a huge faux pas - and as such her demise seems like karmic retribution.

X-Files, the series, consistently brought us some of the BEST sci-fi drama on television. It was a cult phenomena, that made "geek" totally cool! The first feature film bridged Seasons 5 & 6, and tied up many storylines. It was, to quote Peter Travis, impenetrable.

X-Files: I Want To Believe, isn't as strong in comparison to some of the best X-Files plots, but it is classic X-Files; dark, scary, weird, a skillful thriller with touch of humor and slight bit of hope.

I want to believe that this is the start of an X-Files feature film franchise, which will re-unite the strong team of David Nutter as Director, and the Emmy award winning John Bartley as his Cinematographer.

*cue X Files theme* do do do dooooooo

Greg Mitchell: A Liberal Censors A Liberal

For the party that whines endlessly about protecting free speech, that insists they do not believe in censorship ( except for censoring Christians) and that constantly brags about being "progressive", they certainly lack a sense of humor, and they obviously don't walk their talk.

Liberals have now taken to censoring other liberals. As if that comes as a surprise to anyone!

Via Michelle Malkin:

Via Free Republic and Newsbusters comes news that the Austin American Statesman has caved into nutroots pressure to yank a front-page feature poking gentle fun at the Netroots Nation/Kossack blog convention last week. Who led the charge to censor the piece? Editor and Publisher’s Greg Mitchell, who whined about the article in a blog post at the Daily Kos (!) and then gloated about his role in yanking of the “snarky” article in E&P.

From Greg Mitchell over at E & P

Beach described the gathering in stereotypes that better fit the aging Old Left of years ago than the much younger Netroots of today. I mean, how many of these bloggers have ever read much of Chomsky, as he suggested?

When Beach, at the start referred to the crowd as "marauding liberals" I knew it was not to be taken literally. But then we got this:

-- The audience nearly staged a "faint-in" when Gore appeared (note use of '60s term).

-- Pelosi is so far left her title should include "(D-Beijing)." This would come as a surprise to many in the crowd who have criticized her timidity – and posed hostile questions in the Q & A..

-- The liberal blogosphere is "terribly self-confirming" -- not like the mainstream media! In a contradiction, he then noted that at the conference they "critiqued themselves."

-- Paul Krugman, as if to "galvanize stereotypes," wore Birkenstocks -- but Beach throughout the article clearly needed no help in having his own stereotypes galvanized.

-- It's shooting fish in a barrel "to paint liberals as overly intellectual types incapable of having fun unless reading Noam Chomsky counts, and its sure does for them." In fact, the convention was practically "party central," few attendees were "intellectuals," and only a tiny percentage, I would guess, are Chomsky lovers -- again, an outmoded stereotype.

-- Those who protested during the Pelosi/Gore "faint-in" were "shushed" as if they were at a Nanci Griffith concert. I certainly know who she is, but I can imagine most of these particular attendees reading this reference and asking, "Who???"

-- One more reference to Liberals Don't Wanna "have fun." And so on.

It was the front-page placement that irked me.

Let's face it, what really irked Greg was that Patrick Beach was spot on!!

Seems like Greg, along with the rest of the whiny kossacks, can't handle the truth about themselves or their NetRoot Convention.

After the nutroots of Netroot's threw a hissy fit, the Austin American -Statesmen caved into the whiners demands, took down the piece and offered an apology.

So after managing the coup of censoring one of their own, what did the uber enlightened, thin skinned, humorless Greg Mitchell then do?

He took to G- L -O- A -T- I -N- G!

Ahhh...don't you just love "progressive liberals".

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who Watches The Watchmen?

We Do!!!!

OH MY GAWD!!!!!! I m having heart palpitations!!

Check out the 1st AWESOME trailer here.
Update: And check out the latest EVOCATIVE trailer here

After viewing the trailers I know that WATCHMEN -the film - will absolutely transcend it's original medium; the most celebrated graphic novel of the same name.

The screenplay was skillfully adapted by David Hayter, and masterfully brought to the screen by the visionary Zach Synder.

Watchmen is complex, multi-layered mystery adventure, the film is set in an alternate 1985 America in which costumed superheroes are part of the fabric of everyday society, and the “Doomsday Clock” – which charts the USA’s tension with the Soviet Union – is permanently set at five minutes to midnight. When one of his former colleagues is murdered, the washed-up but no less determined masked vigilante Rorschach sets out to uncover a plot to kill and discredit all past and present superheroes. As he reconnects with his former crime-fighting legion – a ragtag group of retired superheroes, only one of whom has true powers – Rorschach glimpses a wide-ranging and disturbing conspiracy with links to their shared past and catastrophic consequences for the future.

Their mission is to watch over humanity…but who is watching the Watchmen?

Related:
Mr. Media interview Dave Gibbons, who illustrated the iconic graphic novel. Listen here
Dave has released a new book, "Watching The Watchmen"
Interview with Zach Synder
Quis Custodiet Ipso Custodes?

Generation Kill: Fact or FIction

This Sunday, July 13th at 9:00 pm HBO ( US) and TMN (Canada) will air a seven part mini-series "Generation Kill" based on the book of the same name by Evan Wright.

Having met one of the Marines who was unfairly disparaged and inaccurately depicted in this book, and having spoken to several other Marines, some of whom where featured in a much better light, and after speaking to other embeds who were there at the same time, as well as respected authors with books on those first weeks of the invasion, all I can say with complete certainty is that Evan Wright has taken alot of creative license with events and in his depiction of several Marines.

That some Marines chose to use the project to advance a career in Hollywood at the expense of truth is not in keeping with the ethos of the Marine Corps.

"The Marine Corps, like the Army, has an office in Hollywood that advises producers, directors and writers working on projects that involve military subjects. But it did not participate in making “Generation Kill” and does not endorse it."

Read More Here.

For a detailed analysis of SOME of the factual errors in the book ( which have been reproduced in the mini series) read this from Lt.Col.Michael Shoup

http://commentaryongenerationkill.blogspot.com/

While Sgt. Daniel “Casey Kasem” Griego also identified a long list of inaccuracies, and has spent the better part of four years trying to set the record straight, he did attend the premiere screening and stated aside from the fact there were plenty of inaccuracies, he mostly liked the film.

Sgt Griego's detailed list of inaccuracies can be found here: http://coinside.blogspot.com/2006/05/generation-kill-full-rebuttal.html


For an honest depiction of our Marines and the historically true story of battle of An Nasiriyah read Marines In The Garden of Eden, by Richard S. Lowry.

Canada's Shame: Judge Robert L.Barnes

While Canadian troops serve in Afghanistan, putting their lives on the line fighting an enemy that hides behind innocent civilians, Judge Robert L.Barnes has allowed the dishonorable, cowardly and no doubt lying war deserter, Joshua Key ---who alleged that certain mishandling of civilians occurred--- to receive asylum in Canada.

Mr Barnes said it "cannot be seriously challenged" that some of the conduct in which Key participated violated the Geneva Convention.

Josh Key alleges that during his home invasions in Iraq he witnessed episodic instances of violence and looting but also "intimidation" of households, "the absence of cultural sensitivity" in dealing with civilians, and "disrespect for human dignity.

I find it very strange how Josh Key would have witnessed anything considering that Josh was a interpreter who interrogated captives. He never fired a weapon at anyone in Iraq.

He provided NO proof for any of these claims( how could he) yet this didn't deter Judge Barnes from allowing a cowardly lying deserter refugee status in a country where honorable & courageous Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan.

It is NOT for Judge Barnes to determine what acts that may have ALLEGEDLY occurred in Iraq violate Geneva Convention, nor is it sufficient grounds for his ruling.

Judge Barnes evident disdain for America, the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq has informed this ludicrous and inane decision. That is was handed down on July 4th is a slap in the face to US troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, His decision is also a slap in the face to our Canadian troops in Afghanistan facing the same challenges fighting an enemy that hides among civilians, and who might possibly take some of the same and necessary actions Key's alleges he was "forced" to undertake.


Jonathan Kay, from The National Post writes:

While the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) had sensibly rejected Mr. Key's asylum application on the basis that the U. S. military had not sought his complicity in war crimes or crimes against humanity, Judge Barnes concluded that this was not where the line should be drawn. By his analysis, virtually any infraction of the Geneva Conventions -- which, as any soldier can report, are daily violated 100 times over by even the most conscientious fighting force, including Canada's -- can be grounds for asylum.

This apparently includes the infractions Mr. Key witnessed during his home invasions in Iraq -- including not only episodic instances of violence and looting, but also "intimidation" of households, "the absence of cultural sensitivity" in dealing with civilians, and "disrespect for human dignity."

Forget Iraq. This is the sort of thing you can see on any episode of COPS.

Judge Barnes' insulting and absurd ruling thankfully does not affect the status of Corey Glass, who served in Iraq and has been ordered to leave Canada by July 10, nor that of the lying deceitful cowardly Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, DESERTERS who failed in their bogus refugee claims stay in Canada as conscientious objectors to the war in Iraq.

Nonetheless, his decision is utterly shameless & completely without merit.

Below is Jonathan Kay's entire piece "A Bogus Refugee" from The National Post:

Since the war in Iraq began, dozens of U. S. military deserters have come to Canada. Thanks to the Federal Court of Canada, that trickle may soon become a flood. The court's decision in the case of Joshua Key -- rendered on Friday -- has so thoroughly dumbed down the criteria for refugee status in this country that it is hard to think of any foreign combat veteran who would not be able to gin up a passable tale of woe.

Mr. Key enlisted in the U. S. Army in 2002. The next year, he was sent to Iraq, where he assisted in raids of Iraqi homes suspected of containing weapons caches or insurgents. As in all anti-insurgent campaigns, this sort of raid proved to be nasty business. Doors got smashed in; children got scared; women, caught without a veil or even a full set of clothing, felt humiliated. Sometimes, people even got hurt.

Much of this is unavoidable -- even for a professional and (by international standards) humane army such as America's. War, after all, is hell -- a balancing of evils. Sometimes, a few residents are subject to humiliating searches so that the terrorists who seek to blow up the whole neighbourhood can be captured or killed.

This grim fact of war seems to have escaped the notice of Robert L. Barnes, who authored Friday's decision. While the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) had sensibly rejected Mr. Key's asylum application on the basis that the U. S. military had not sought his complicity in war crimes or crimes against humanity, Judge Barnes concluded that this was not where the line should be drawn. By his analysis, virtually any infraction of the Geneva Conventions -- which, as any soldier can report, are daily violated 100 times over by even the most conscientious fighting force, including Canada's -- can be grounds for asylum.

This apparently includes the infractions Mr. Key witnessed during his home invasions in Iraq -- including not only episodic instances of violence and looting, but also "intimidation" of households, "the absence of cultural sensitivity" in dealing with civilians, and "disrespect for human dignity."

Forget Iraq. This is the sort of thing you can see on any episode of COPS.

By the loose standard Judge Barnes endorses, just about any soldier in any war could come to Canada and make an arguable claim for asylum. Even if an applicant loses, he will at least be able to hang out in Canada for a few years while his case is before the IRB, and then roll the dice a few more times at the appellate level, where he can hope for the likes of a soft-hearted judge to bail him out … a judge such as, say, Robert L. Barnes.