RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,567
Posts: 5,402,567
Members: 24,865
Currently online: 652
Newest member: shyrim

TrekToday headlines

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

View Poll Results: How do you rate "The Dark Knight Rises"?
Excellent 147 58.33%
Good 61 24.21%
Fair 26 10.32%
Poor 12 4.76%
Terrible 6 2.38%
Voters: 252. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 25 2012, 07:04 PM   #511
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

Guy Gardener wrote: View Post
C4 won't make a bomb go boom.

but this is an active generator continuously processing controlled implosions.

C4 can't (without a stupid amount of luck) create a reaction, but it can surely frack with an existing controlled reaction into an uncontrolled reaction, and even multiple uncontrolled reactions.

Then the point of fusion, supposedly is no radiation, so it's a green WMD... Whoopee?
Nope, fusion reactors still don't work that way. You literally can't turn one into a WMD. All the c4 will do when triggered is shut doen the reactor and blast it into pieces. At best you've created a slightly dirty bomb by spreading the radioactive internal components around with the c4 explosion.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 07:33 PM   #512
Kosh Naranek
Captain
 
Kosh Naranek's Avatar
 
Location: Elwood P. Dowd's House
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

I gave it an Excellent. Granted I have never read the comics. However, I felt that Nolan made 3 good movies and a great trilogy.

I could see Bruce taking himself out of the action for eight years due to the events of TDK. Rachel (other than Alfred) was his only family left. He had made Rachel his hope for a normal life. (Something that she pointed out to him.) Her loss simply gutted him. Because Alfred burned her note in TDK, Bruce did not know that Rachel had chosen a life with Harvey. Bruce had seen Rachel as end all be all, and she died tragically and horribly. He was powerless to stop that. Along with what transpired with Harvey, he began a downward spiral that lasted for years.

Alfred's words to Bruce rang true. Gotham had never brought Bruce happiness. Gotham was where Bruce's parents died; Rachel died, and Alfred feared that Bruce would die.

To me this movie was not so much about an awesome super hero, but a man that had tried to live up to an ideal, while being drained by life's events. The Bruce we meet in TDKR, was a broken man, a husk.

Alfred sees a man/boy/baby that he loves dearly careening headlong to his death. And up until Bane sends him down that hole/prison (highly reminiscent of the well he fell down as a child) Bruce is just that.

The movie tells the story of how Bruce accepts that Gotham will not bring him happiness. Granted he does want to fight for the citizenry, and why not? He feels that his own actions have brought this upon them. He believes Bane to the be son of the man that he killed.

Some of the occupy WallStreet rhetoric fell flat. But I took that as Bane just mouthing words to justify his actions. He did not have a greater political agenda. He said what he thought needed to be said to keep up the smoke screen that hid Talia.

I loved JGL in the movie. He rang true in every scene.

As to the 2nd half of the movie spanning months, I was not bothered by it. Would not any government be stymied/paralyzed by the threat of a nuclear detonation within its borders?

CatWoman worked on all levels for me. She was a woman placed within a certain lifestyle by need. Once she was free from that need she wished to start fresh. The movie shows that she was not one to be unkind or even unjust (if that is not stretching it too far.) She took what she needed from those that had more than enough. Granted she does "dishonorable" things but they are dictated by circumstances rather than character.

I quite enjoyed myself.

I did not even mind all the Dent business. Though said out loud "Harvey Dent Day" sounds funny. Gordon allowed the laws of the land to be built upon a falsehood. Therefore, any good the "Dent Act" did was negated by its less than savory backstory.
__________________
"In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me. - Elwood P. Dowd from Harvey
Kosh Naranek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 08:00 PM   #513
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
The whole Gotham sucks because it's a mob-rub town never quite played out convincingly for me, so it is equally hard for me to buy that Gotham is now a-okay because the mob got put away. I think the overall story ends up feeling very simplistic for asking you to accept that premise in order to have it end happily.
Yeah I never bought that either. The whole idea of Gotham finally being cleaned up once and for all-- so Bruce can be free to retire and sip drinks in Italy-- just seems silly as hell to me.

In all my years of reading Batman comics, that's never even ONCE felt like it could be a possible ending to the character's story.

You've got to cut an awul lot of corners to make that happen, and unfortunately that's exactly what this movie does.
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 08:14 PM   #514
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
The whole Gotham sucks because it's a mob-rub town never quite played out convincingly for me, so it is equally hard for me to buy that Gotham is now a-okay because the mob got put away. I think the overall story ends up feeling very simplistic for asking you to accept that premise in order to have it end happily.
Except the whole idea was that Gotham was not a-okay just because organized crime had finally been tamed. Gotham's wealthy elite may not have been breaking the law, but they were oppressing the people of Gotham just as surely as Carmine Falcone had, once upon a time. That's why Bane was able to take advantage of the pre-existing social tensions to bring about his reign of terror; his solution was wrong, but the problems that led to his ascension were very real. Wealthy plutocrats had just filled the power vacuum left by the fall of the Mafia.
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 08:25 PM   #515
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

But except for the crooks and malcontents the citizenry as a whole certainly didn't look ready and willing to rise up and turn everything upside down.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 08:42 PM   #516
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

Warped9 wrote: View Post
But except for the crooks and malcontents the citizenry as a whole certainly didn't look ready and willing to rise up and turn everything upside down.
Well saying "except for the malcontents" is a meaningless statement; by that definition, anyone who thinks there is a problem is a "malcontent" and therefore can be ignored.

And your statement is questionable. Clearly most Gothamites didn't seem to believe that a violent revolt was the solution -- but we saw from scenes at the orphanage (where even kids were talking about needing to run away and join an underground economy just to find work), and from Selina's statements about the desperation that drove her to take a job from Bane's group, that there were some very, very serious problems with wealth inequality that were hurting most Gothamites.

Bane's "revolution" was clearly able to garner a significant amount of support, even if it didn't have the support of a majority of the people; the sheer numbers of people participating in the expulsion of the rich from their homes and taking over their dwellings demonstrates that. Even if a majority of Gothamites didn't support Bane's "revolution," it's clear that many had become desperate. And as the Joker put it in The Dark Knight, "Let's see how loyal a hungry dog really is."

A majority of Gothamites did not support a violent revolt, but that does not mean that Gotham was "a-okay."
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 08:45 PM   #517
CaptainCanada
Admiral
 
CaptainCanada's Avatar
 
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

davejames wrote: View Post
Yeah I never bought that either. The whole idea of Gotham finally being cleaned up once and for all-- so Bruce can be free to retire and sip drinks in Italy-- just seems silly as hell to me.

In all my years of reading Batman comics, that's never even ONCE felt like it could be a possible ending to the character's story.

You've got to cut an awul lot of corners to make that happen, and unfortunately that's exactly what this movie does.
That was built into the series from the start, though. Bruce returned to Gotham to take on the mafia and the corruption in the city's power structure, and that remained his mission in TDK, where he was talking about a time when the city wouldn't need Batman.
__________________
"I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are!"

- Homer Simpson
CaptainCanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 08:49 PM   #518
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

Sci wrote: View Post
Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
The whole Gotham sucks because it's a mob-rub town never quite played out convincingly for me, so it is equally hard for me to buy that Gotham is now a-okay because the mob got put away. I think the overall story ends up feeling very simplistic for asking you to accept that premise in order to have it end happily.
Except the whole idea was that Gotham was not a-okay just because organized crime had finally been tamed. Gotham's wealthy elite may not have been breaking the law, but they were oppressing the people of Gotham just as surely as Carmine Falcone had, once upon a time. That's why Bane was able to take advantage of the pre-existing social tensions to bring about his reign of terror; his solution was wrong, but the problems that led to his ascension were very real. Wealthy plutocrats had just filled the power vacuum left by the fall of the Mafia.

I think your taking the political commentary of the movie too seriously. At first, watching the trailers and reading about the film, I thought it was going to borrow some OWS ideas, but as it turned out, that wasn't the case.

Bane wasn't a left-wing revolutionary, he was a nihilistic terrorist thug. His "rhetoric" was crap designed to trick gullible Gotham citizens. I don't think he took it seriously for a second. His "solution" wasn't an actual attempt to deal with the problems you mentioned.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 08:54 PM   #519
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Police State
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

davejames wrote: View Post
In all my years of reading Batman comics, that's never even ONCE felt like it could be a possible ending to the character's story.

You've got to cut an awul lot of corners to make that happen, and unfortunately that's exactly what this movie does.
To be fair, something like this outcome was set up throughout the trilogy, starting way back in BB.
__________________
Thank you very much for your concern, sir, but he does not need your religion, he has science and socialism and birthdays.
Set Harth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 08:59 PM   #520
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

sonak wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
The whole Gotham sucks because it's a mob-rub town never quite played out convincingly for me, so it is equally hard for me to buy that Gotham is now a-okay because the mob got put away. I think the overall story ends up feeling very simplistic for asking you to accept that premise in order to have it end happily.
Except the whole idea was that Gotham was not a-okay just because organized crime had finally been tamed. Gotham's wealthy elite may not have been breaking the law, but they were oppressing the people of Gotham just as surely as Carmine Falcone had, once upon a time. That's why Bane was able to take advantage of the pre-existing social tensions to bring about his reign of terror; his solution was wrong, but the problems that led to his ascension were very real. Wealthy plutocrats had just filled the power vacuum left by the fall of the Mafia.
I think your taking the political commentary of the movie too seriously. At first, watching the trailers and reading about the film, I thought it was going to borrow some OWS ideas, but as it turned out, that wasn't the case.
It would be chronologically impossible for it to have borrowed from the Occupy Wall Street movement; OWS began in September 2011, well after the script had been completed and filming began.

Bane wasn't a left-wing revolutionary, he was a nihilistic terrorist thug. His "rhetoric" was crap designed to trick gullible Gotham citizens. I don't think he took it seriously for a second. His "solution" wasn't an actual attempt to deal with the problems you mentioned.
You're talking about a completely different topic. Whether or not Bane actually believes in the ideas he espouses to justify his takeover of Gotham has nothing to do with whether or not the problems he identifies are real, or with whether or not those problems motivated some Gothamites to join his revolt.

Bane is not a true leftist; he doesn't actually believe in social justice. But he's taking advantage of real problems to play Gotham's divided classes against one-another, in order to facilitate his take-over, and in order to provide false hope for a better future to Gotham's oppressed masses -- hope he'll then squash by detonating the bomb. Remember, he talked about the need to give people hope before you crush them in order to truly break their spirits.
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 09:00 PM   #521
Lapis Exilis
Rear Admiral
 
Lapis Exilis's Avatar
 
Location: Underground
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

Sci wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
But except for the crooks and malcontents the citizenry as a whole certainly didn't look ready and willing to rise up and turn everything upside down.
Well saying "except for the malcontents" is a meaningless statement; by that definition, anyone who thinks there is a problem is a "malcontent" and therefore can be ignored.

And your statement is questionable. Clearly most Gothamites didn't seem to believe that a violent revolt was the solution -- but we saw from scenes at the orphanage (where even kids were talking about needing to run away and join an underground economy just to find work), and from Selina's statements about the desperation that drove her to take a job from Bane's group, that there were some very, very serious problems with wealth inequality that were hurting most Gothamites.
The two scenes you cite aren't enough to justify the uprising. Selina is obviously a highly skilled thief - saying that she was forced into her life of crime by social inequality is not particularly convincing. There's no indication that she was ever starving - and if she was, when did she have time to learn how to crack uncrackable safes and do jujitsu in 4 inch heels? As for the kid and his talk - I would have very much liked to have seen more of that storyline, as it was his vague mention of lack of work for his brother as well as his faith in the Batman as a savior figure - a person supposedly considered by the entire city to be a ruthless murderer - seemed very out of left field with no follow up.

Furthermore, if the power structures of Gotham were clearly corrupt and oppressive, who does it make Bruce Wayne for the story to begin with him hosting all of them at his home, apparently not for the first time. This is my very issue with the film - it's full of mixed messages.

Bane's "revolution" was clearly able to garner a significant amount of support, even if it didn't have the support of a majority of the people; the sheer numbers of people participating in the expulsion of the rich from their homes and taking over their dwellings demonstrates that. Even if a majority of Gothamites didn't support Bane's "revolution," it's clear that many had become desperate. And as the Joker put it in The Dark Knight, "Let's see how loyal a hungry dog really is."
It's not at all clear that many had become desperate. That's why the "revolution" feels so bizarre in the middle of the story. A single scene of an orphan who lives in a boy's home saying his brother is having trouble finding work really does not go nearly far enough. The scene in BBegins when Rachel takes Bruce down to Lower Wacker drive and shows him people living on the streets did a much better job of creating the sense that the city was rotting from underneath. You don't get anything like that in TDKR.
__________________
Don't try to win over the haters; you're not the jackass whisperer. - Scott Straten
Lapis Exilis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 09:15 PM   #522
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
But except for the crooks and malcontents the citizenry as a whole certainly didn't look ready and willing to rise up and turn everything upside down.
Well saying "except for the malcontents" is a meaningless statement; by that definition, anyone who thinks there is a problem is a "malcontent" and therefore can be ignored.

And your statement is questionable. Clearly most Gothamites didn't seem to believe that a violent revolt was the solution -- but we saw from scenes at the orphanage (where even kids were talking about needing to run away and join an underground economy just to find work), and from Selina's statements about the desperation that drove her to take a job from Bane's group, that there were some very, very serious problems with wealth inequality that were hurting most Gothamites.
The two scenes you cite aren't enough to justify the uprising.
I didn't say they were enough to justify an uprising; I said they were enough to establish that Gotham is not "a-okay" just because the Mafia's fallen, and that it led many (but not a majority of) Gothamites to participate in Bane's uprising.

That is not the same thing as saying that that uprising was actually justified.

As for the kid and his talk - I would have very much liked to have seen more of that storyline, as it was his vague mention of lack of work for his brother as well as his faith in the Batman as a savior figure - a person supposedly considered by the entire city to be a ruthless murderer - seemed very out of left field with no follow up.
I don't know how you can say the mention of a lack of work for his brother was out of left field; the film very carefully set up the idea that the lower classes in Gotham were in trouble while the rich were living large. It's a theme that permeates much of the first third of the film.

As for the idea that the kid's faith in Batman seemed to come out of left field -- I think the film made it very clear that the actual populace of Gotham was divided in their opinions of Batman, even if the city government was trying to propagate (with Bruce's tacit permission) the idea that Batman was just a murderer.

Furthermore, if the power structures of Gotham were clearly corrupt and oppressive, who does it make Bruce Wayne for the story to begin with him hosting all of them at his home, apparently not for the first time. This is my very issue with the film - it's full of mixed messages.
Is it really so hard to imagine that Bruce is a good man but not perfect? Part of the point of his arc was that he'd become so disconnected from the people of Gotham that he really didn't know what was going on anymore -- that whole bit with him not realizing that the orphanage wasn't getting funded anymore.

The dangers of income inequality have been a theme in this trilogy since Batman Begins -- as has the fact that Bruce's life as a rich man disconnects him from reality. "People in your world have so much to lose. You're Bruce Wayne; you'd have to go a million miles to find someone who didn't know who you were." There's nothing particularly new about the idea that Bruce was in the wrong there.

It's not at all clear that many had become desperate. That's why the "revolution" feels so bizarre in the middle of the story. A single scene of an orphan who lives in a boy's home saying his brother is having trouble finding work really does not go nearly far enough. The scene in BBegins when Rachel takes Bruce down to Lower Wacker drive and shows him people living on the streets did a much better job of creating the sense that the city was rotting from underneath. You don't get anything like that in TDKR.
That goes to the question of how effectively the film depicts what's happening to the working and middle classes in the post-Dent Gotham, not to the question of whether or not it actually establishes what is happening to them. Effectiveness is subjective; what is actually established is objective. The film objectively established that the lower classes were suffering, even if you don't feel it depicted that in the most effective manner.

So the fact remains: At no point in The Dark Knight Rises was Gotham established to be "a-okay" just because the Mafia had fallen.
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 09:42 PM   #523
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Vice Admiral
 
Flying Spaghetti Monster's Avatar
 
Location: Flying Spaghetti Western
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

Ok. I'm also in the camp that believed that Batman's story couldn't just "end' (particularly not after a mere three stories.

But the film tried to end it anyway, by bringing back the basic themes from Batman Begins, particularly themes regarding fear. Normally, I wouldn't mind this but:

It's a really simplistic theme. Seriously. It was nicely simplistic in Batman Begins, as it gave Wayne the start of a real arc, and it got the ball rolling.

The Dark Knight is a flawed film, but I think its greatness is that it is built on more ambitious themes, becoming a crime drama, and it had the ability to stretch out the tension as never before scene in a superhero film. Almost none of what happened in The Dark Knight, from the coming of the White Knight, to the acquisition of Lau to the coming of the Joker would have happened at all had Batman not appeared.. this is all pa part of the idea of Escalation. That's just for starters. Things, had Alfred said, had to get worse before they got better, and The Dark Knight went on from there.

In retrospect, the "fear theme" is so simplistic. The Dark Knight placed Batman in a crime drama. The new film reduces him to Batman Begins explorations while the rest of the audience is ready for something more.
__________________
See, the problem is that you are using your cards to show me what cards you have, and if you can't see that this is viciously circular, then there is no point in continuing
Flying Spaghetti Monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 10:23 PM   #524
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

CaptainCanada wrote: View Post
That was built into the series from the start, though. Bruce returned to Gotham to take on the mafia and the corruption in the city's power structure, and that remained his mission in TDK, where he was talking about a time when the city wouldn't need Batman.
Well it's only natural that Bruce would have doubts or long to have a normal life with a girlfriend-- that idea has been suggested in the comics plenty of times-- but I never expected he would actually go THROUGH with the idea.

By the end of TDK it seemed Bruce had fully re-commited to being Batman and doing what had to be done to protect the city of Gotham. Even if it meant becoming a hated fugitive. Him immediately going into hiding in his mansion and sulking for 8 years is the last thing I expected from the ending of that movie.

And I never got the sense in Begins or TDK that this was only about taking on the mafia or corrupt polititians. They were obviously the main target, and the first people to go after, but it's not like the other criminals and abusers were just going to get a free pass from him after that.
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 10:55 PM   #525
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

davejames wrote: View Post
By the end of TDK it seemed Bruce had fully re-commited to being Batman and doing what had to be done to protect the city of Gotham. Even if it meant becoming a hated fugitive. Him immediately going into hiding in his mansion and sulking for 8 years is the last thing I expected from the ending of that movie.
As much as I liked TDKR this was something I didn't care for. In the least I think they could have taken a middle road to this by having Bruce continue for a few more years before pausing as The Dent Act really began to get traction. It would have seemed much more like the Batman we're familiar with. Hell he didn't need to be retired for the rest of the story to play out as it did.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
batman, christopher nolan, the dark knight, the dark knight rises

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.