The whole clip I was waiting for the Commando bit. I'm now squealing in glee it got last bit.

This sift has me thinking about this movie again.

It should have been awful. There are so many things wrong with it. The nonsensical plot. The cliches (Leeloo happens to fall into the one cab piloted by ex super commando Korben? The fifth element is love?). Trickys acting (I've seen forests that were less wooden). The card carrying villains. Casting the directors model girlfriend in the title role.
I could go on.

Yet it takes all these things that should make it terrible and somehow makes it work for it by virtue of sheer fucking awesome.

I saw this when it came out in the cinema, and had it on VHS (that was when we magnetically encoded images and sound on tape kids!) for years.

And you know, I haven't seen it in a decade. Tomorrow, I'm going to buy some nice beer, find it on bluray or itunes or whatever and watch it again.

And honestly...

I can't fucking wait

Al the vigilant commando.
What's the forecast today Al?
"Hot and humid with a 30% chance of shart".

While they are reviving things can we have Dark Forces 4 or Jedi Knights 3 (whatever), Republic Commando 2 or failing that how about a new X-Wing game? Tie Fighter HD would do nicely. Get on it Disney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Landrover_Serie_I_von_1952.jpg

hmmmm... Then this guy must be doing it wrong? Besides, your whole damn island puts the steering wheel on the wrong side.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^bmacs27:
>> ^Quboid:
@bmacs27, what's wrong with it?

What are you, British?

Yes, and so was Land Rover when this was designed. Don't mess with me, my Land Rover experience comes from the Commandos: soldiers so badass, they don't wear underpants (I might be getting that that wrong).

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Quboid:
@bmacs27, what's wrong with it?

What are you, British?
Yes, and so was Land Rover when this was designed. Don't mess with me, my Land Rover experience comes from the Commandos: soldiers so badass, they don't wear underpants (I might be getting that that wrong).

As a fan of Lego and a fan of Land Rovers ... fuck yes. Yes yes yes. This is the 2nd most awesome Land Rover thing I've seen all day. Second, because this morning the report came in of my Land Rover 'lightweight' Air-Portable's military service. Royal Marines, 40 Commando. Oh yes baby, my L'over is an ex-commando.

@bmacs27, what's wrong with it?

Gonna see this on Tuesday, can't wait!

Shuac's quotes are perfect examples of why your typical film critic are simply snobby douche bags. I feel sorry for anyone that cannot just have fun with a simple and sometimes awesomely cheesy action film such as Commando, Road House, Shoot 'em Up, Jackie Chan's films, Ong Bak, etc without lamenting the lack of "appreciation for human dimension, meaning, and morality". I'd gladly see those kind of people get round house kicked in the face, stumble backward, crash through a window, fall down flipping end over end until they crash onto a car 3 stories below

>> ^heathen:

>> ^TheSluiceGate:
Actual gameplay: http://www.fraserking.co.uk/spectrum/screenshots/Commando.png

Yeah, it's hard to get much from a pre-rendered cutscene trailer. Fortunately we already have gameplay footage for Farcry 3.
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-far-cry-3/716741


And the difference was incredible. I hate to be a miserable arse, but trailers like this are becoming almost standard. They display absolutely nothing of substance in their advertisement of the game. Trailers like this i only watch for the story, and take nothing away about the game. They may as well film 2 lesbians going at it for 2 minutes with ea's latest title printed across the bottom.

The only thing saving this video from disdain is that it's a nice little machinima. Should be criminal when it's on a tv advert.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

Actual gameplay: http://www.fraserking.co.uk/spectrum/screenshots/Commando.png


Yeah, it's hard to get much from a pre-rendered cutscene trailer. Fortunately we already have gameplay footage for Farcry 3.
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-far-cry-3/716741

Actual gameplay: http://www.fraserking.co.uk/spectrum/screenshots/Commando.png

Easy old man, easy. The war is over.

He reminds me of the Green Beret from 'Commandos' the game.
http://www.freewebs.com/greateuropeantroops/Green%20Beret%20C1_insert%20cd.jpg

I'm going commando, Koch whore.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Don't get your panties in a bunch.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Also, enough with the autoplay.

WAT.

All these years I wasn't even sure about your gender, Lann (OK, I'll be honest, I was convinced you were a dude because of that old commando-kitty avatar of yours - because we all know girls hate guns n stuff, rite?), but this? Whoa. Best news I've heard in ever. Congrats to both of yous, you little rascals!

Well, I'll point to one example. When they went after Scientology I was quite surprised of the organization and setup. In multiple cities in the U.S. and in International places (mostly NATO countries) like London. They got hundreds in some locations and thousands of people/protesters to show up and protest Scientology's right to be a religion (as they're considered one in the U.S--not sure where they are, out of country of course). Usually, their Constitutional right to be a religion, would be something I would fight for, but they have crossed the line more than enough times that they seem like fair game to me. Hell, we had atleast a couple of hundred, maybe even one thousand, protesting the church in Utah of all places! Utah is far off from any of their headquarters or any major "church", installation, and "health" centers.

(Off-topic Sidenote: The Mormon or LDS church also crossed the line with Proposition 8 in California--I've seen the LDS church get involved in other political affairs, but only to the same extent all churches in this country do--block voting is ridiculous and should almost cause your vote to be counted as less-as you're actively using religion as a political pulpit and then voting from that; if a connection could be made I'd think those votes should be countermanded as well as the religion's tax exemption status--especially when you have meetings, literally, before a vote. Mormons do this, I'VE BEEN to them!)

The fact that Anonymous can pull that off over night means a great deal. They're most defiantly not weekend warriors in their mother's basement (although I'm sure there are plenty like that). They must have quite a few people that are highly trained in a wide range of topics as they've gone after many targets; easily separating, for the majority of Anonymous, what's an incorrect target and what deserves their attention. To me this means you can't write them off in any fashion; as they may have "Ivory Tower" support, due to their targets and being able to seem "right" and "innocuous" at every turn--people cheer them on.

If I had to pick, I would wager that Anonymous can and does affect more changes socially than al-Qaeda; al-Qaeda has a poor societal impact except the desperate or those that have nothing to lose--only if it used like-wise tactics, which they won't (likewise tactics meaning: terrorism, like 9-11). Their methodology is *flashy*, so every media outlet focuses their news-time and airtime on them. If Anonymous did these infamous type of events except against an U.S. enemy, would they have the same "deeply rooted" infamy/notoriety in American society? I'd say yes.

Outside the U.S. they may have that attribution (good doers/fighting evil or infamous) already in certain places. Right now, Americans are more concerned if their McMansion will be a viable end solution or if it's another "living beyond your means", moment.

I do agree with you that Anonymous must be worried about their banner being lifted by the wrong person. But, as their is no leader in Anonymous it will lead to inter-anon wars; we've seen a few, but most have ended blindingly fast. You almost never hear about it unless you dig around (and even then you find out it's a year old).

I'm just trying to remind people that if Anonymous whimsically can get Colbert to wear the mask in solidarity and can gets thousands of protesters to show up at your doorbell overnight (with same mask ), they may have power that I doubt they've even tapped into yet.

Plus, I do think China or any country willing to stand toe to toe with the U.S. would be grateful to have a voracious enemy of the U.S. on their side (yes, I agree that China would be bad; I also doubt that they would choose it--maybe more like Russia). Especially, if it ends up being one that knows the U.S. fairly well. Secondly, as before, taking random people off the street in Anonymous's name would only feed the machine. We have yet to see what happens if Anonymous, itself, is attacked. It's always been a side attack due to another on going event. The rules might change for both sides if it became a "war" (how they target and what is targeted, then how does the information become presentable). Yes, the U.S. could cut-off the Internet, but I think we've learned enough that THAT may be a grander problem for the U.S. than what it originally had (it's happened everywhere else; citizens revolting).

Yes, Anonymous "may" be getting too much credit, but since their anonymous... They might loose badly even in a straight up information war. But, none of this has happened yet or been tested... I agree with the majority of what you're saying @Yogi . I'm just reminding people that underestimation of your enemy (do we, as Americans, really want Anonymous as an enemy? The Colbert show seems to show the opposite...)

Get rid of one person and another falls in to place, and the hacks they do can be taught ridiculously fast. The other side requires *tax payers'* money or private contractors (using *tax payers'* money, or someone like Dick Cheney who has Halliburton), all of which seem shady as what they do is kill other Americans, arrest other Americans, kill NATO citizens or extradite NATO citizens, and heaven forbid: use black-ops for non-Western countries (Anonymous has enough foresight to get clear confirmation of any event and spread it virally; like a video).

If these guys lose one person it takes quite a bit of time to replace--even if they become misaligned with the publics' view, like the guy in Colbert's piece. Everyone will question his motives now except for the complete utter sheep with no in-the-know friends (to explain what Anonymous is doing).

All I'm trying to say is that in an age of information the U.S. may find themselves on equal footing in a war they'd have to start. The U.S. tries a physical response it will be posted in full glorious detail on the net with redundancy ad nauseum (one well placed real-time camera or auto-upload camera and it becomes a nightmare). The U.S. employs thousands of people that can barely log into their e-mail account(s)--these people are also responsible for enacting physical responses. Imagine an Anonymous that hacks, but keeps the game running. Key loggers, viruses, worms, trojans, hardware hacks, software hacks, people IN the government in on it...? Anonymous has always pulled their stunt quickly and shown everyone the ramifications; don't you think a prolonged version would be highly dangerous for both sides?

Again this assumes a lot about Anonymous just from what I've seen them accomplish in the past. They are most defiantly not some sort of elite commando force. What they lack is simply made up in their ability to manipulate data; which is HUGE in this day and age... Anyway that's long enough; respond to the areas you think need to be toned downed or clarified upon.

-grammar edit