Friday, May 29, 2009

Horror Insanity!!!The Mist and Drag Me To Hell Review

Last week Sky Premiere released the Stephen King novel/into film The Mist.Although it sounds like another fail in the latest King books into films,this one acctually does quite a good job,acctually a real good job.The Mist is about a middle aged man named David Drayton(Thomas Jane) and his son(Nathan Gamble) and wife his Sally(Alexa Davalos).The family survive a freak storm on there house beside the neighbourhood lake,as they view the reckage they relise there garage is completely destroyed by the neighbours tree(Andre Braugher),as he was leaving for the store they witness some huge mist coming from the mountains,unaware of the dangers David,his son and there neighbours proceed to the store.As they where driving they witness huge US guard troops moving towards the lake as they get to the store the electricity was all down,as David was proceeding with his shoping they see Dan Miller runing away from the direction of the lake with huge amounts of blood on his shirt.
He ran in to the shopping market to take cover from The Mist that is overcoming the atmosphere,Dan Miller repeats the death of his friend who go suck into the mist and got eaten by something,as he tells the story one man runs out into the mist to go to the car,as he was doing so some giant monster takes the man and eats him.The story advances from there where many of the customers are hideing in the mall for cover from the monsters.
This film is quite the definition of a decent horror film maybe to alot of people a really good horror film,it has nearly everything gore,jumps and tension,in many ways it satisfys anyone who wants to sit down and watch a practical horror film,and that is what the film is,practical,everyone is making very odd horror films trying to mix things up in the most unusual way that it isint even near scary,it even lacks jumps and tension which is the most basic feeling and excitment you should be geting in any horror film.The Mist is a thrill ride for everyone to enjoy and it may be the only good film the Stephen Books will ever get.

The pratical film makes it even more enjoyable


The Raimi brothers are back.Sam Raimi and Ivan Raimi team up to do yet another classic horror film and this is pretty fucked up (excuse my french),it has both a mixture of Horror(like acctually scary horror) and Comedy(Like seriously funny shit).Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) has everything a great job on the verge of promotion,a great boyfriend and a great home,but in three days she is going to be Draged To Hell.Christine works as a loan officer who,like everyone else,wants a promotion,she is up against a co-worker Stu Rubin(Reggie Lee) who is a very tough man who very rarely gives loans,her boss claims he is much more tougher and would most likely get the promotion.So when this strange gypsey named Ms.Ganush wants a 3rd extension on her mortgage,Christene gets advice from her boss who says it is her call on this one,so to impress her boss Christene tells Ms.Ganush that they cannot give her the extension,Ms.Ganush pleads to have the extention on her home and eventually leads to the fight scene in the car to the curse Ms.Ganush gave Christine.She then finds out that the curse is very real and she needs to go through serious consequences to get rid of it.
Charecter development just does not appear in the film,which is quite a relief,it is 99 minutes of on-stop comedy and tension.It is a really funny turn of events,I honestly thought that this film is going to scare the living daylight out of me but suprisingly it did that and made it hillarious at the same time,I wont give alot away but the scene where Christine is lying in bed and wakes up because of the strange noises and goes to lie back down again and the ugly and corpse looking Ms.Ganush is lying right beside her,which then leads to Ms.Ganush sreaming insanely on top of Christine,but then Ms.Ganush vomits loads of maggots right on top of Christine.The whole thing was hillarious I just do not know why the Raimi Brothers thought it was necessary to do that,but I was glad they did because I just couldnt stop laughing and believe me that was not the last hillarious part in the whole film.The effect of the film on a viewer is incredible and the Raimi Brother captures it perfectly,they build the tension up with the albaret music and the very still scene and then hits you with the most bizarre turn of events that is too funny,although by itself its not that funny but the way the tension is builded up and hits you with the bizarre comedy makes it very funny.

The film Is geniously done and gets a well deserved mark from just about everyone including myself.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Dan In Real Life

One family comedy anyone can enjoy.Dan In Real Life is about a man named Dan(Steve Carrel) who writes a column about helping with peoples problems,he has 3 daughters around the age of 10,15 and 17 and is barely copeing with raiseing them on his own,his wife however dies due to sickness un-described.The family takes a trip to Dan parents home where he meets with his relatives and brothers,being at the home Dan on the second day being at the home goes to the book store and meets a beautiful woman named Marie(Juliette Binoche) eventualy the two talk and seem to be enjoying each others company.However there nice conversation is ruined when Marie gets a call from her boyfriend.Dan returns home talking to his brothers about the nice time he had with Marie but things change when Dan finds out that one of his brothers Mitch(Dane Cook) is Maries boyfriend.
The film have a rich storyline to it and is quite new there really isint any cliche about it and its quite funny,my favorite scenes is when Dan finds his 15 year old daughter kissing her boyfriend who came from New Jersey just to see her,Ciara trys too calm her father down by saying there realationship isint ready to have sex yet which she thinks this would calm Dan down and also asking if her boyfriend can stay,Dan gets one of his brother to drive Ciaras boyfriend to his grandparents house and Ciara runs after the car crying and shouts back to her father "YOU ARE A MUDERER OF LOVE!",the scene is my favorite through the whole film and the way she said it was hillarious.There were two things I would have changed in the film the scenes where Steve Carell is doing some of his stupidness I would change,he does well throughout the film but his pathec idiotic comedy is anoying and it only works in The 40 Year Old Virgin.The ending wasnt the best the whole idea of ending suddenly was something I defeintly didnt like it should of had at least one cliche speech at the end for woman to enjoy.

Overall I very much enjoyed the film and is defiant watch to me 

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Lord Of The Rings Online Review

Me being quite a big fan of The Lord Of The Rings enterprise I thought why the hell not try out the game for 10 days,so I did :) The game Itself is alot like WoW the layout I mean is alot like WoW so no arugeing on that,the game is similar and sometimes it doesnt really feel like your playing LOTR and thinking your playing WoW.You see the funny thing is I dont like WoW that much I thought it was good but you really needed alot of time to play it so I didnt really enjoy that,In LOTR each race you play as has an awsome intro the elves are under siege and if your a man you get captured and must save some hobbits in each your able to at least see a Nazgul,Elrond or a Snow Troll and that makes you play even more as you continue into the game.
The game is an MMO/RPG so there isint much to explain other than that you go around doing quests and kill beasts pretty simple,so this game is cliche but its much more fun than WoW in my taste and I have read the books and I have seen the movie more than 100 times.....each :P
So possibly this might be the reason why I like it so much,the quests are pretty sweet where you start off in one day I got to lvl 6 and manage to get full body armour so I was happy with that achievement.

Angels And Demons

Tom Hanks returns as Robert Langdon to do the sequel to The Da Vinci Code,althouh it should be the opposite way around according to the books you dont need to read one to read the other.Ewan McGregor also stars in the film as Camerlengo Patrick McKeenna which in my taste seems like a good choice.Unlike some people who went to see the film,I acctually read the book the book itself and well is quite awfull and after the end I started to call it Horse Shit and Bull Shit,because A) the Illuminati dont do any shit like that,B) The Illuminati was founded around the 1700 and not in the 1600 (Please take note that all facts seem to be Inconclusive and most people belive that the Illuminati were founded in 1700),C)There is no path of Illumination,D)Dan Brown cannot write! and E)A horrid ending.
All these made me resent the book,but the idea was prety badass.An assassin going around killing bishops? Yea,that is badass,so that was one of the reasons I read it and I was very disapointed with the book.The Film however wasnt too bad,put it this way,they ditched some charecters and they changed the storyline a bit,but the funny thing is,by doing this they acctually made it better (*Gasp*).The Assassin was prety cool and there was much more deaths in the film than there was in the book the only down side is,this guy is killing Swiss guards these are the number one trained force in the world!And this guy is going around killing them as if he is hunting a paralyzed cat (Yea,I know random) so that was sort of the downside of that.Also they got rid of the pointless fight scenes of Robert Langdon and The Hassassin so that was an upside seriously they were really stupid,this Robert Langdon is such a badass Harvard proffessor that studys symbols,and he could take down anybody :O.Yea not really,in this movie he acctually acts like a proffesor.Ayelet Zurer who played Vittoria Vettra was quite awfull,through the whole film she was nearly as unnecesary as one of the as Ron Howards assistants,that right assistants of nothing just a assistant.She was more neccesary in the books and in the film it just seemed pretty stupid.
As for the ending it didnt suck they didnt tell Camerlengo that the dead Pope was his acctual father Uooopppssss :D,and that his mother was a nun :O and there was no long talk about how the Church is weak and that they need a new pope to lead them against science,such a riddiculous ending the book was but the film wasnt too bad im just saying if I was Langdon i defiently would ask for money instead of that piece if Gallilios book which im prety sure is published now.So overall the film wasnt too bad it had alot of ups and downs but overall the film was quite good its a good watch for commoners that just want to relax but since I know some bit about the Illuminati the film was ok,I just would have thought they could make the attackers satanists perios not some secret brootherhood.

Overall 2.2/5

Take this into account

BROTHERHOOD OF THE ILLUMINATI: MILTON, GALILEO, AND THE POETICS OF CONSPIRACY Michael Lieb o I IAngels and Demons, Dan Brown envisions a sinister world of intrigue and conspiracy, danger and duplicity.∞ At the center of this world is a clandestine movement called the Brotherhood of the Illuminati, putatively one of the most influential secret societies in history.≤ The protagonist of the narrative is an internationally recognized Harvard ‘‘symbologist,’’ Robert Langdon (who also appears in Brown’s later bestseller, The Da Vinci Code).≥ In the earlier novel, Langdon is enlisted by an organization known as CERN (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) to investigate the assassination of one of its most prominent physicists, Leonardo Vetra, who has discovered the means of harnessing the power of antimatter. Responsible for the assassination, the Illuminati henchman makes off with the antimatter and its secrets. The dastardly goal of the Brotherhood is in effect to destroy the Catholic Church, along with its monuments, by placing a bomb (in the form of the antimatter) in a secret location in Vatican City. To save the Church as an institution, as well as to apprehend the assassin, Langdon seeks to discover where the antimatter has been buried. Racing against time, he and Leonardo Vetra’s daughter Vittoria undertake a frantic search for the explosive substance. The quest draws upon all of Langdon’s abilities as a symbologist. Securing the antimatter requires the consummate task of decoding enigmas, which in Brown’s novel assume the form of messages left by the Illuminati in its wake. To that end, Langdon and his companion gain entrance into a secret Vatican vault, where they discover long-sequestered, occult documents that will provide information on the Illuminati and its practices. Searching the secret archives, they come upon an obscure papyrus written by the great astronomer Galileo Galilei while under house arrest during the Inquisition. Titled Diagramma della Verità, this most arcane of papyri proves to be the solution to their quest.∂ To understand the lingua pura in which the papyrus is cast, however, © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. Brotherhood of the Illuminati ΣΣ Langdon and his companion must first locate the ‘‘key’’ to its meanings. With this key, they can then gain insight into the hidden meanings of Galileo’s discourse. Within the margins of the long-sequestered text, they discover that key, which appears in the form of a quatrain remarkably inscribed not in Latin nor in Italian, but in English:
From Santi’s earthly tomb with demon’s hole, ’Cross Rome the mystic elements unfold. The path of light is laid, the sacred test, Let angels guide you on your lofty quest.

(222) Precisely what this quatrain means, what its various terms encode, is itself a mystery. What is ‘‘Santi’s earthly tomb’’ with its ‘‘demon’s hole’’? What are these so-called ‘‘mystic elements’’ or the ‘‘path of light’’? To what ‘‘sacred test’’ does the quatrain allude? And what are the circumstances by which an English quatrain replete with coded signifiers makes its appearance in a treatise by Galileo Galilei? The remainder of the novel represents an act of decoding the meanings implicit in this quatrain. For only by decoding the terms of the riddle will the symbologist and his companion be able to find the location of the antimatter hidden by the Illuminati in its devilish plot to destroy the Catholic Church and all that it represents.Σ What makes this bit of chicanery so interesting for our purposes is the ‘‘discovery’’ that the quatrain encoded in the margins of the Diagramma della Verità is by none other than John Milton, whose signature Langdon at once recognizes. Milton, it would seem, is at long last revealed as one fully schooled in the ‘‘Path of Illumination,’’ which has been traversed by every upstanding member of the Illuminati since the founding of the order. Clearly, ‘‘the influential English poet who wrote Paradise Lost,’’ Langdon observes, was himself a member of the Illuminati. ‘‘A contemporary of Galileo’s and a savant,’’ this poet proved true to his calling. His ‘‘alleged affiliation with Galileo’s Illuminati was one legend’’ that Langdon suspected was true. ‘‘Not only had Milton made a well-documented 1638 pilgrimage to Rome in order to ‘commune with enlightened men,’ but he had held meetings with Galileo during the scientist’s house arrest, meetings portrayed in many Renaissance paintings, including Annibale Gatti’s famous Galileo and Milton, which hung even now in the IMSS Museum in Florence’’ (219).Π I invoke Dan Brown’s novel not to endorse the notion that either Milton or Galileo is to be numbered among the so-called Brotherhood of the Illuminati. Nor do I wish to suggest the viability of a clandestine or conspiratorial relationship between poet and astronomer. Such is the stuff of fantasy. Nonetheless, I do invite us to engage in a willing suspension of disbelief in order to entertain (even if momentarily) the ‘‘wisdom’’ of Robert Langdon’s © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. ΣΠ michael lieb ‘‘discovery.’’ Acceding to the spirit, if not the fact, of that discovery will provide the means by which we may gain insight not only into how Milton works but also into how the concept of his relationships (conspiratorial or otherwise) is represented by the scholarly (and perhaps not so scholarly) community from one generation to the next. Specifically, I wish to explore the way in which the various accounts surrounding the relationship between Milton and Galileo assume a life of their own.π From the perspective of the ‘‘afterlife’’ represented by those accounts, I shall then address the kinds of interpretive issues that arise in an attempt to understand Milton’s incorporation of Galileo into the fabric of his great epic, Paradise Lost. Approaching Milton from this perspective should prove fruitful in coming to terms with the complex relationship between poet and astronomer in the fashioning of Milton’s epic.∫ At the same time, such an approach should sensitize us to the intimate connection between how we construe Milton and his world, on the one hand, and the nature of his poetic practices, on the other. What will emerge is a Milton whose works and sensibility become the focal point of speculation, of uncertainty, and of the creation of critical conundrums that at times appear to be as much the product of Milton’s readers as they are the construction of the author himself. These two modes of production (that of the reader and that of the author), I shall argue, complement each other, indeed, aid and abet each other. Both author and reader are complicit in the construction of Milton as the site of relationships that are themselves ‘‘conspiratorial,’’ not simply in the sense in which the term ‘‘conspiracy’’ is customarily understood—as that which implies sedition, secrecy, and crisis—but also in the sense in which the term was likewise used during Milton’s era—as that which implies the possibility of a productive union or even the idea of working in harmony.Ω Both senses are already present in the root conspirare, which denotes the act of ‘‘breathing together,’’ uniting in a common enterprise.∞≠ Although Milton was inclined to draw upon the darker, more threatening implications of the term throughout his works, the more positive implications appear to obtain as part of the interpretive dynamics through which his relationship with Galileo may be said to arise. What I call a poetics of conspiracy is present both in Milton’s own direct and oblique references to Galileo during the poet’s lifetime and in the fictions that represent a crucial dimension of the afterlife through which Milton’s relationship with the astronomer is construed. As a means of exploring that relationship, we return to our brilliant symbologist, Robert Langdon. In his response to the so-called meetings that Milton held with Galileo, our symbologist no doubt has in mind Milton’s claim in Areopagitica that during his trip to the Continent he ‘‘found and visited the famous Galileo grown old, a prisner to the Inquisition, for thinking © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. Brotherhood of the Illuminati Σπ in Astronomy otherwise then the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought’’ (YP 4:538). As is well known, that claim has fostered no end of scholarly debate. As early as S. B. Liljegren’s indictment of the claim (along with Milton in general), scholars have debated whether or not Milton actually had such an encounter with the great astronomer.∞∞ Those who have sought to call Milton’s veracity into question ask why this is the only reference to the visit that appears in his works, especially since he had the opportunity to allude to the encounter on other occasions. (One thinks, for example, of Defensio Secunda, in which he excludes any mention of Galileo in defense of his standing but does include a list of illustrious personages such as Hugo Grotius, Jacopo Gaddi, Carlo Gati, and others who welcomed him in his Continental sojourn [YP 4:614–19].)∞≤ More surprising still for these critics is that at the very point of describing the astronomer as ‘‘the famous Galileo grown old’’ and ‘‘a prisner to the Inquisition,’’ Milton says nothing about Galileo’s blindness, a condition that would most certainly have made an impression on the young visitor, even had he not had premonitions of what was to be his own blindness in the years ahead.∞≥ (Once again, one thinks of Defensio Secunda, this time in the context of Milton’s act of defending his own blindness by reciting a list of all those illustrious figures whose blindness was a sign not of their failings but rather of their ‘‘special status’’ as true servants of God [YP 4:584–87].) Although the list includes such notables as Tiresias, Phineas, Timoleus of Corinth, Appius Claudius, John Zizka, Jerome Zanchius, among others, no mention is made of Galileo Galilei, a remarkable omission, under the circumstances. Additional arguments have been advanced in the cause of those who seek to cast doubt on the veracity of Milton’s claim. In short, the issue of his visit with Galileo has been transformed into a veritable conundrum. The entry on Galileo in the Milton Encyclopedia by Frank B. Young effectively canonizes the issue: ‘‘It is generally assumed that Milton met Galileo during his Italian journey, 1638–39. There is, however, considerable mystery surrounding the visit. Indeed, it cannot be proved from external evidence that Milton actually met and talked with the old astronomer.’’∞∂ Accordingly, one must be careful not to take Milton at his word, even in a treatise such as Areopagitica, which professes so dramatically its belief that in the wars of truth, one must have faith that truth will triumph over falsehood ‘‘in a free and open encounter’’ (YP 4:151).∞Σ The discursive context through which Milton alludes to the visit with Galileo is revealing. Addressing the Lords and Commons throughout Areopagitica, Milton as orator argues on behalf of ‘‘the Liberty of Vnlicenc’d Printing’’ (as the full title of his treatise indicates) by distinguishing between the freedom that his own country enjoys as opposed to the tyranny (tantamount to the Inquisition) under which other countries labor. In the passage © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. Σ∫ michael lieb under consideration, Milton draws upon his personal experience to support his position: ‘‘I could,’’ he avers, recount what I have seen and heard in other Countries, where this kind of Inquisition tyrannizes; when I have sat among their lerned men, for that honor I had, and bin counted to be born in such a place of Philosophic freedom, as they suppos’d England was, while themselvs did nothing but bemoan the servil condition into which learning amongst them was brought; that this was it which dampt the glory of Italian wits; that nothing had bin there writt’n now these many years but flattery and fustian. There it was that I found and visited the famous Galileo grown old, a prisner to the Inquisition, for thinking in Astronomy otherwise then the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought. (YP 2:537–38) From the perspective of one who portrays himself in his prose treatise as a figure doing battle against an oppressive institution, Milton recalls his visit with Galileo as a means of supporting his overall contention that by imposing their licensing orders, the Lords and Commons are unwittingly subjecting their own citizens to the travails that beset those seekers after truth subject to the tyrannical excesses of popery in other lands. Rhetorically, Milton portrays himself not simply as a visitor but as a confidant, that is, as one invited into the inner circles of those willing to disclose to this outsider their most secret of thoughts as he sits among them. For those who have taken this visitor into their confidence, the act of disclosing such sensitive matters is itself potentially perilous in the atmosphere fostered by the Inquisition. It is dangerous enough to bemoan (even in secret) one’s servile condition among one’s fellow citizens, but to do so in the presence of one who hails from a world that looks upon the beliefs represented by the Catholic Church as the seat of the Antichrist is another matter altogether. Nor does one have the impression that Milton was particularly circumspect among those who received him, and perhaps his determination to be outspoken on matters of religion while abroad might have justified his fears that plots had been laid against him as one who had ‘‘seen’’ and ‘‘heard’’ matters that were best left untold.∞Π How, then, is one to understand Milton’s claim to have visited Galileo? If the claim is misleading or indeed a falsehood, is there something at work in the discourse to promote our suspicions and to elicit our distrust? Must we indeed approach Milton’s discourse through what has been termed a ‘‘hermeneutics of suspicion’’?∞π If so, what are the repercussions of such a reading? Until the external evidence that Milton actually met and talked with the ‘‘old astronomer’’ is brought forward to clarify the matter, the mystery surrounding the visit will remain at the forefront.∞∫ However one responds to the discursive context through which Milton claims in Areopagitica to have visited Galileo, the response among those © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. Brotherhood of the Illuminati ΣΩ inclined to take Milton at his word has been one of crafting accounts of various sorts in order to flesh out the details of the putative encounter. These accounts provide insight into the afterlife of the encounter that has entered into the imagination of the interpretive community.∞Ω Milton’s great nineteenth-century biographer, David Masson, represents a case in point. In Masson’s account of the visit, Milton is conceived as one who, ‘‘in the company of Malatesti, or Gaddi, or Buommatei, or some one else of the Florentine group,’’ is determined to undertake ‘‘a sojourn to Galileo’s delightful villa at Arcetri, just beyond the walls of Florence.’’ There, Milton is formally introduced to the blind sage, who greets the poet cordially ‘‘according to his wont in such cases.’’ This formality is followed by ‘‘a stroll perhaps, under the guidance of one of the disciples in attendance, to the adjacent observatory, a conversation afterwards with the assembled little party over some of the fine wines produced in welcome, and all the while, surely, a reverent attention by the visitor to the features and the mien of Italy’s most famous son, who could judge reciprocally of him only through courteous old mind and ear, unable to return his visual glance.’’ From this narrative, Masson proceeds to view the relationship between the poet and the astronomer as one in which Milton, even at this juncture in his early years, gains a sense of what will befall him in later life. ‘‘Already in Milton’s writing,’’ Masson observes, ‘‘there may have been observed a certain fascination of the fancy, as if by unconscious presentiment on the subject of blindness. How in men like Homer and Tiresias a higher and more prophetic vision had come when terrestrial vision was denied, and the eyes had to roll in a less bounded world within, was an idea . . . vivid with Milton from the first, and cherished imaginatively by verbal repetition.’’ In Galileo, ‘‘frail and old,’’ Milton had ‘‘seen one of those blind illustrious of whom he had so often dreamt, and of whom he was to be himself another. The sight was one which he could never forget’’ (1:788). Masson’s observation is of interest not only because of its acuity in suggesting that the visit was somehow prophetic of what would befall Milton in later life but also because of its failure to take into account the significance of the lack of any reference to Galileo’s blindness in the passage from Areopagitica. If the sight of the astronomer in his blindness was one Milton could never forget, it is, ironically, one he never acknowledged in the first place. Had Milton in fact visited Galileo, he may well have experienced the ‘‘unconscious presentiment’’ of his own future blindness, but if he did experience this presentiment, he never took the occasion to register it in any form in his allusion to the visit.≤≠ Once again, this is not to say that Milton did not undertake the visit and, if he had, that Galileo’s blindness had no effect on him. Rather, I am simply suggesting that Milton’s silence on the subject of Galileo’s blindness is remarkable, considering the poet’s habits of mind both © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. Π≠ michael lieb before and after his own blindness, habits that prompted him to associate himself throughout his career (early and late) with ‘‘blind’’ visionaries such as Homer and Tiresias.≤∞ What is one to make of Milton’s silence on an issue that would loom so large in his life and writings? It is impossible to say. What is not impossible to say is that, if Milton failed to acknowledge Galileo’s blindness in his own authentic writings, there were others more than willing to have him acknowledge it in his apocryphal writings. Not long before the publication of Masson’s biography, there appeared an allegedly ‘‘new discovery’’ in the form of a series of letters between Milton and Galileo, among other contemporaries, including Louis XIV, and Molière. Although the letters are considered to be outright forgeries, they are nonetheless what J. Milton French calls an ‘‘interesting fiction.’’≤≤ As such, they augment and complement the ‘‘interesting fiction’’ that Masson devises in his own account of the visit. In the process, they provide a voice for the silence through which the ‘‘presentiment’’ of Milton’s own future blindness emerges. Thus, in one of the letters addressed to the king (putatively to Louis XIV), dated August 23, 1642, Milton recounts his visit with Galileo in a manner that brings to bear the whole issue of blindness. The letter begins by acknowledging the king’s desire to have Milton describe his trip to Italy and in particular to recount his visit with the ‘‘very illustrious Galileo.’’≤≥ Traveling to Florence and from there to Arcetri, Milton found Galileo ‘‘at home busy at work on a telescope’’ that the astronomer informed Milton he wished to perfect in order to study Saturn and its satellites. Milton then dined with Galileo, who insisted that Milton return to see him often during the time he remained in Florence. Galileo even kept Milton several days at Arcetri, during which the astronomer acquainted Milton with his ‘‘precious writings.’’ In short, Milton becomes one of Galileo’s trusted friends, indeed, one of Galileo’s intimates. Relating other remarkable experiences he enjoyed after he departed from Florence, Milton recounts his final visits with Galileo on the eve of his return to England. These visits become the occasion by which Milton is made aware of the problems with Galileo’s eyesight. The astronomer, it appears, is not totally blind, but his eyesight is definitely failing. ‘‘The too great intensity with which he [Galileo] had studied the stars . . . had so tired his eyesight that he had to give up this study.’’ His eyes were so weak ‘‘that he could no longer see the sky.’’ When Milton visited him, Galileo was ‘‘busy putting his papers in order’’ because ‘‘he foresaw that after his death, if these papers remained in the hands of his enemies, they would run the risk of being destroyed.’’ So ‘‘he took steps to prevent that catastrophe.’’ While Milton was with Galileo, he shared with Milton ‘‘an infinity of notes which he had extracted from a manuscript . . . on the paradoxes of mechanics, a manuscript located in the Vatican’’ (LR 2:74– © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. Brotherhood of the Illuminati Π∞ 77). Should we, like Robert Langdon, perform a search of the secret archives of the Vatican, we would no doubt find that this manuscript discloses to us the encoded quatrain through which we might discover the location of the antimatter. The point is that the accounts that emerge as a result of Milton’s claim in Areopagitica tend to align Milton as a young man and Galileo as an old man in the pursuit of some secret knowledge, some ‘‘truths’’ that had to be kept from the prying eyes of the inquisitorial ‘‘enemies,’’ who would have surely sought the undoing of both visitor and host had their relationship come to light. If fictive, such accounts become the means through which the terrible presentiment of blindness, struggle, and adversity is embodied in the alignment between poet and astronomer. Likewise implicit in this alignment is the emphasis upon codes or coded discourse. A sense of this dimension is present in the Imaginary Conversations (1824–29) of Walter Savage Landor (1755–1864), a poet of considerable import, as well as of immense learning.≤∂ Projecting himself and his outlook into circumstances of his own devising, he provided occasions through which prominent men of letters and statesmen might have their say. In the process, he opened a space through which his own dramatic sensibility found apt expression. Ranging over the centuries, the figures who populate this theatrical space include such notables as Hume, Rousseau, Scaliger, Montaigne, Boccaccio, Petrarch, Chaucer, Newton, and even Landor himself. In keeping with this enterprise, Landor fashioned a drama that involves Galileo, Milton, and a Dominican guard whose duty is to watch over Galileo after the sentence of the Inquisition had been handed down. The drama opens with the young Milton approaching the Dominican guard and demanding to gain an audience with the great astronomer: Milton. Friend! let me pass. Dominican. Whither? To whom? Milton. Into the prison; to Galileo Galilei. (384) To this, the Dominican guard protests that, where Galileo is being held, there are no prisons, only confinements of sorts for those guilty of ‘‘heretical pravity’’ and ‘‘other less atrocious crimes.’’ Not to be taken in by such rhetoric, Milton stands his ground and demands (on divine authority) that the gates that confine the great astronomer be opened at once. Responding to the demand, the Dominican guard can only admire the young man who confronts him. To himself the guard exclaims: ‘‘What sweetness! what authority! what a form! what an attitude! what a voice!’’ after which he acknowledges that his ‘‘sight staggers; the walls shake; he must be—do angels ever come hither?’’ (384). Aside from other possible parallels, one thinks of Comus’s response to the Lady in Milton’s masque: ‘‘She fables not, I feel that I do fear / © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. Π≤ michael lieb Her words set off by som superior power’’ (A Mask, 800–801). It is with this ‘‘superior power’’ that Milton enters Galileo’s confines. Upon seeing the famous astronomer, Milton immediately becomes aware of Galileo’s blindness. The astronomer, sensing that his visitor is a person of utmost rectitude, invites Milton to ‘‘speak freely.’’ Despite the sense of openness that distinguishes their conversation, they make a point to occlude what they say in coded language in order not to be understood by the Dominican guard. To that end, they converse in Latin (translated here for the comprehension of the reader of the text), and, as an additional precautionary measure, they couple the Latin with coded discourse. Galileo begins: ‘‘We live among priests and princes and empoisoners. Your dog, by his growling, seems to be taking up the quarrel against them.’’ From this point forward, most of the conversation appears to be about animals. So, Milton responds, ‘‘We think and feel alike in many things. I have observed that the horses and dogs of every country bear a resemblance in character to the men. We English have a wonderful variety of both creatures.’’ In keeping with this coded language, Galileo exclaims, ‘‘Do let us get among the dogs’’ (385–88). Combined with the Latin, the coded discourse about horses and dogs suggests that what emerges is a conspiratorial, or, at least, secret relationship between the prisoner and his guest, one sensitive to the ravages of the Inquisition, whose tortures Milton discovers in the very ‘‘scars and lacerations’’ that Galileo has sustained upon his body (389)—a Landorian touch to be sure, but one that intensifies the conspiratorial dimensions of the encounter still further. This rather bracing conversation provides additional insight into the dark world of fantasy and intrigue that arose in response to Milton’s claim in Areopagitica to have ‘‘visited the famous Galileo grown old, a prisner to the Inquisition.’’ It suggests the extent to which that claim engendered an afterlife of its own, one centered not only in the biographical accounts but also in the pseudepigraphal renderings that assume the form of testimony and dialogic interchange. That afterlife is discernible not only in the nineteenth century but in the twentieth century as well. Artists and poets alike appropriated Milton’s alleged encounter with Galileo into their works. A case in point is Alfred Noyes (1880–1958), the well-known British poet, novelist, scholar. A convert to Catholicism, Noyes was afflicted with partial blindness in his later years. As an author, he was known not only for his lyric poetry but also for his efforts at producing epic poetry as well. What resulted from these efforts was his ambitious blank verse trilogy celebrating the discoveries of science. Titled The Torch Bearers, this trilogy was published in three volumes: Watchers of the Sky (1922), The Book of Earth (1925), and The Last Voyage (1930). For our purposes, the first poem Watchers of the Sky is of immediate impor- © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. Brotherhood of the Illuminati Π≥ tance.≤Σ As Noyes comments in his prefatory note to the poem, this work ‘‘began to take definite shape during what was to [him] an unforgettable experience—the night [he] was privileged to spend on a summit of the Sierra Madre Mountains, when the first trial was made of the new 100-inch telescope’’ (vi). The reference is to the solar observatory located at Mount Wilson, California, a fitting place for Noyes to celebrate the wedding of science and poetry. So Noyes observes in his prefatory note that ‘‘poetry has its own precision of expression and, in modern times, it has been seeking more and more for truth,’’ one in which the activities of the poet and the scientist represent a mutual endeavor (ix). This belief in the ‘‘progress’’ of science and poetry underlies the outlook not only of Watchers of the Sky but also of the trilogy as a whole. Beginning with a prologue that recounts Noyes’s experience at the observatory, the epic devotes its attention to those ‘‘watchers’’ (among them, Nicolaus Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, and Sir Isaac Newton) who transformed astronomy into a science that changed the prevailing views of the universe. The prologue engages in its unabashed celebration of the ‘‘advances’’ of science (and, in particular, the science of astronomy) ever ‘‘Since Galileo, famous, blind, and old, / Talked with [Milton], in that prison, of the sky’’ (2–3). Noyes shares his experience of ascending the mountain to the observatory: ‘‘Over us, like some great cathedral dome, / The observatory loomed against the sky’’ (7). What Noyes portrays is tantamount to a religious experience, a conversion of sorts, as the prologue culminates in a kind of prayer that calls upon his ‘‘celestial guide’’ to bear him aloft into ‘‘the great new age’’ and ‘‘the great new realm,’’ prepared for those capable of understanding the relationship between poetry and science (19). Within this context Noyes delineates his version of Milton’s encounter with Galileo (167–83). Assuming the form of letters among Galileo’s family, friends, and associates, this section is distinguished by a poignancy, an immediacy, and an intimacy that arise from first-person discourse. In the section as a whole, we first come to know Galileo through those whose accounts attest to their understanding of the man and his work. Having been presented in the exchange of letters with the perspectives of such figures as Galileo’s daughter Celeste, Christoph Scheiner, Benedetto Castelli, and even Galileo himself (lamenting his blindness, his imprisonment, and, most of all, the loss of Celeste, who has since died), we move to the final epistle in this section. It is that of Vincenzo Viviani (1622–1703), who, during the blind astronomer’s final years in Arcetri, became Galileo’s student, secretary, and assistant.≤Π Writing to a friend in England, Viviani discloses the nature of his association with the great man: © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. Π∂ michael lieb I was his last disciple, as you say I went to him, at seventeen years of age, And offered him my hands and eyes to use. From this vantage point, Viviani, grown old, looks back over his years with Galileo and recalls the momentous occasion (‘‘that day of days’’), When, quietly as a messenger from heaven, Moving unseen, through his own purer realm, Among the shadows of our mortal world, A young man, with a strange light on his face Knocked at the door of Galileo’s house. His name was Milton. (168) Through the agency of Viviani, Noyes fully idealizes the encounter, which he conceives as a divine visitation of sorts by a ‘‘starry messenger’’ in the form of John Milton. This event represents a turning point in the lives of both poet and astronomer. Destiny is at work in all of this, a divinity that shapes the ends of this ‘‘monumental’’ drama. Thus, led ‘‘by the hand of God’’ through Italy to Galileo’s prison door, Milton is ‘‘the one living soul on earth with power / To read the starry soul of this blind man.’’ Noyes depicts Milton as looking on Galileo, touching his hand, and, as if in anticipation of his own future blindness, foreseeing that the lines from Samson Agonistes—‘‘O, dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon, / Irrecoverably dark’’ (80–81)—best describe the situation here: ‘‘In after days,’’ Milton composed his drama, ‘‘but it pulsed within him then.’’ In accord with this idealized portrayal, Galileo rises to his feet, and turning toward Milton, ‘‘those unseeing eyes / That had searched heaven and seen so many worlds,’’ welcomes the young visitor with the declaration: ‘‘You have found me.’’ It is all so rehearsed, so overdetermined, and so histrionic. Reflecting upon this visit, Viviani confirms how much it meant to his master, how, even in ‘‘those last sad months’’ of Galileo’s life, the great astronomer would attest to the sense of peace the encounter brought to him and to the sense of satisfaction that he would experience in knowing that ‘‘In other lands, the truth he had proclaimed / Was gathering power.’’ After an apologetic interlude defending the Catholic Church, Noyes has Viviani conclude his letter with a paean to his master, to the poet who visited his master, and to the future of astronomy itself (181–83). The foregoing accounts are interesting in the extent to which they intercede in the ‘‘silences’’ of Milton’s reference to Galileo in Areopagitica and, in place of those silences, forge narratives of their own devising. Particularly engaging in this respect is the uncompromising insistence upon the crucial issue of blindness, which Milton never mentions but which plays so heavily © 2008 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved.

I did not write this

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Call Of Duty:Modern Warfare 2 Leaked Information!

Here is apparent leaked info about the upcoming game Modern Warfare 2 by Infinidy Ward.

*Vehicles will be in MW2
*M16 will return, using stopping power will only be OHK at head, neck, and torso (abdomen, limbs, and hands/feet will not)
*Ak47 and M4 will return, unknown if there are any changes
*M40 will return, ACOG damage boost will be fixed
*Scorpion, P90, M21, R700, G3, G360 will not return
*There are more unknown weapons that will not return
*New sniper rifle: SR25M (United states forces)
*New Assault rifle: Diemeco C8 (Canadian forces M4 equivelant)
*New Assault rifle: L85A2 (United Kingdom forces)
*Total weapons in multiplayer are said to be around 35
*Favourite Modern warfare 1 maps will return
*Helicopters, air strikes, UAV will return
*Red dot sightings will come in different shapes for multiplayer (circular, square, original)
*Snipers will have special grass camouflage (As seen in Modern warfare 1’s campaign)
*All perks will return from MW except eavesdrop and others will be altered
*All gametypes will return from MW and all will have hardcore versions
*New gametype: Secure (Call of duty version of capture the flag, however you capture the enemy’s Intel)
*New gametype unconfirmed name, similar to search and destroy, however instead of trying to plant a bomb, you try to kill a specified enemy
*Solider customization for each class (and each country)
*Sniper with silencers will NOT be in multiplayer
*There are NO bots in local multiplayer
*Similar version to Nazi Zombies, however details are unknown
*NO guest players online, 1 player per console
*Killcam save feature
*There is blood and gore
*Offline/Online Co-op
*Story takes place in the Middle East
*Role as US marines return
*Ken Lally voice work in campaign
*Release is set for sometime in November
*New army tags will be available to add different elements in campaign (similar to halo skulls)
*Campaign-only weapons


MGL 140
TAR 21


Tactility - Allows players to have more than one weapon attachment.Excludeing gernade launcher
Decoy - Produces nother red dot on the enemy radar that leads to nothing
Ghillie Suit - Allows players to have a ghillie suit even when they dont have a sniper class.
Dominator - Gives players the ability to repeat a kill streak in the same life.


The new gameplay footage of MW:2 shows some interesting hints,nice try Infinidy Ward but we found them :D


MH-6 Little Birds
F-15 Eagle
Hip Toss(New melee move?)
Improved Ragdoll Physics?
Steyr Aug A1
Mil-Mi 24-Hind
Colt AR-15 w/Silencer
Seal Deliver Vehicle
Swimming Gameplay?
Snow Mobile Gameplay?
Glock 22 Pistol
Old Style Russian Red Star
Urban Environmnt
Laser Guided Missile Gameplay?
Operational Detachment Alpha

They are all the possible weapons,vehicles and gameplay we might be able to do.
Enjoy :D

Zombie Ants!

The the most disturbing experiment was tested in Dallas Texas recently to try control the ant situation in the city.The test was to reduce the population in the city,it cost around 1 Billion$!
They used a type of specious of flies to control the amount Fire Ants in the city.Basically the flie lays egg's and these small maggots crawl into the brain of the ants feeding on it!This continues for a month with the ant walking randomly around the place,after a month the ants head eventually falls off!

Flies lay egg's----->Maggot's appear on Ants Brains-------->Maggot's feed on Brain---->Ants Head falls off!

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Star Trek The Movie (2009) - The Trekkies and The Normals

 Star Trek is the popular nerdy series from the 70’s and 80’s I think and by that statement you have noticed that I am not a Trekkie. Ok glad we got that out in the open so I’m going to talk about the difference from the original series and this huge blockbuster film and of course the film itself.
I honestly don’t know much about the Star Trek series, never knew who actors were, never knew the storyline I avoided it so much its unbelievable, sometimes I wouldn’t even know what Clingong if that’s how you spell it was, my friends always had to tell me what the hell it was, so by that statement you can tell I probably hated it. True. So I may not know what the series meaning was to many fans I will never understand it but I do have knowledge of a favourite film, series, book being done into Hollywood stuff. My father strongly believe that classics should always remain as they are, in some sense I agree with him but the problem with that is, what if it was sort of made for master effects and good actors and amazing settings? Will it then be ok?
A lot of Star Trek fans look at the advertisement and just say “This is going to be Shit” I hate when people do that, they criticise something they haven’t seen yet. I’m basically saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover” that’s what you should reply to any stupid comments about the film, because the film was absolutely outstanding!
Apparently the movie doesn’t capture the feeling of Star Trek, fair enough; I haven’t got a clue what the feeling is and I don’t want to know. However I am going to take a guess for many fans I am guessing the meaning would be something to do with the subtitles for the Clingong language and the new special effects that have been added, but lets face it the series was terrible effects with overweight men beating a man in a Godzilla suit, when I saw that clip i thought it was a joke, ok fair enough it was a long time ago and everything wasn’t great, But I thought Star Trek fans would love the fact that everything is polished and written, directed and performed by better people.
But no they didn’t like it. I honestly think that the fans are doing this to be separated from the rest of the world, but no they are stubborn and they choose not to like it because non-Trekkie fans actually like it. For people who are actually like that, seriously get a life!

 Ok J.J Abrahams is the J.R.R Tolkien of films, if he could turn something so old and dusty from the shelves and make it colourful then I would defiantly buy him a drink he likes in a bar. The film is going to be known for its wonderful special effects and powerful storyline, oh and the character selection when I saw them at first I couldn’t actually believe it, they were so, well bad, Simon Pegg was the only character I would have kind of recognised and like, but they all seemed to fit there parts wonderfully and they actually understand the characters they were playing perfectly, the doubts I had about the film was the actors and how they would fit there characters and they topped it wonderfully.
The special effects were amazing you must see this is the actual cinema to understand and get the full effect of the audio and explosions etc. I would say that the special effects where the best I have ever seen, and it defiantly must have taken at least 9 months too get it all done, and I would be very surprise if they didn’t get an Oscar for best editing.
The storyline was very powerful, it wasn’t everything a trekkie would ask for the films bad guy which name I can’t remember was not very big in the series; however they put him in the movie and it worked quite well for me anyway but if he wasn’t a very serious bad guy I wonder what they will put in the sequel(if they make one that is).The main characters from the series all have there moments in the film and there really good moments which drives you to want more.
Overall Star Trek gets 4.5/5

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More

Powered by Blogger | Printable Coupons