LOS ANGELES – "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" isn't due in theaters until next month, but the prequel has already hacked its way online.

A high-quality, full-length work print of the 20th Century Fox film appeared online Tuesday evening. The studio said it had the file removed, but copies quickly propagated and continue to appear on several file-sharing Web sites.

The movie focuses on the beginnings of Hugh Jackman's clawed Marvel superhero Wolverine and is set for a May 1 release.

Fox vowed in a statement Wednesday that the source of the "stolen, incomplete and early version" of the movie would be prosecuted and said the FBI and MPAA are investigating. The studio also insisted that the version of the film posted online was "was without many effects, had missing and unedited scenes and temporary sound and music."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090401/ap_ … erine_leak

I usually like to go to the theater to watch major films for the ambience factor but this one could be interesting to watch if only to compare with the finished product. 

Oh yeah, watch out for those fake torrents the MPAA likes to plant.  They tried to plant a fake copy of Ice Age 3 last week.:flame:

I hope this isn't directed at me since all I did was make a post on something I found funny with that last picture.  There's no real hate in my comment I just found it funny that he seemed more interested in his PDA.

Regarding your second point, most of that bs--Slash bashing--is far worse on the other two sites.  I remember reading a thread last year where they had an entire thread on the inaccuracies of Slash's autobiography.  That thread quickly turned into a shitfest on Slash.  I do think we should be able to be critical on a person's actions be it Axl, Slash, Steven or whomever without being called a hater. 

Most of my comments on Slash have been positive and my screen name is an homage to his guitar playing.  I do have some issues with his stuff since Snakepit though.

Estranged

The guy who played the villain--Mathieu Amalric--was also in Munich and I thought he was very good as the sleazy, information dealer Louie.  Here he's not as believable. 

Onto your other point, I think I'm probably guilty of expecting at least as good a film as Casino Royale.  However, if a portion of the film deals with Vesper's death and the fallout on Bond then I have no choice but to at least make a comparison to the film.  Most of my issues with the film were plot wise as the damn thing seemed to make no sense--even for a Bond film.  I don't think the action sequences were that good as well.   I'd attribute that to the director--Marc Forster as he makes primarily drama and comedy films.

Connery had both an intellectual depth and a sense of humor.  The Moore era seemed to lack that extra depth as Roger Moore was extremely charming but I didn't get that extra existential angst--the whole killing people for a living thing and its affect on the character--that I got with Connery.  Nonetheless, I find a lot of his films enjoyable as popcorn films.  I do think the plots with Connery were a tad more believable though.  I haven't seen any of the Dalton films yet so I can't comment.  Now the Brosnan era, character-wise he had that coolness that Moore exuded but there was a little character insight--ala Connery--as well.  This is most evident in Goldeneye, especially in the scene where Alec(Sean Bean) confronts Bond in the cemetary.  Too bad they never followed up on this in the subsequent films.

Now, Craig has the entire existential angst thing down.  It's clear that he has a hard exterior which hides whatever internal pain and issues that come with the job.  I think he does this the expressions on his face.  The only thing that prevents him from coming close to matching Connery is that he lacks the coolness or suaveness and sense of humor that Brosnan and Moore did so well in their characters.  The only negative is that I think at times he can be too dour and unhappy.  Lucky for him, I think they can actually develop this part of his character in the next films.

Civil War