The ABC's of Death ???/10 26 Directors each covering a letter of the alphabet create shorts focusing on a particular way to die. some of them are humorous, some weird whilst some are truly shocking and made even me cringe. a surreal film indeed and not for the feint of heart.
Uchu Kyodai (Space Brothers) - 8/10 An excellent live-action adaptation of the first part of the still-running anime about a man going through the NASA/JAXA astronaut selection and training program in the mid 2020's, in an attempt to follow his younger brother to the moon. Spoiler including a cameo for a certain Mr. Aldrin about half way through
The Spoiler dog attack one (forgot its name) is fantastic in my opinion. Brilliantly filmed. I haven't seem most of them though but I might check it out.
Chronicle 7.4/10 I felt 7.5 was too high. A bunch of guys find a spaceship and get telekinesis. The plot is somewhat predictable, with few minor twists. Is it entertaining, though? Yes. Dark Skies 5/10 Predictable alien abduction story with absolutely nothing noteworthy save for the (quite exceptionally) bad attempt at a plot twist.
Fast Six 10/10 I thought it was brilliant. They have packed a lot of action into the movie. Spoiler Shocked at the ending!
Garden State - 6.8/10 I liked the pace and tone of this film, but ultimately I didn't really relate to the lead character, the story didn't particularly grab me and Natalie Portman's character just seemed a bit contrived (although having said that, I would still want her as my girlfriend). I like Zach Braff but the story he chose to tell in this was just a little too niche for me. The Hobbit - 6.5/10 I probably need to see it again but my immediate reaction was that it was only worth watching for Gollum. Although it didn't feel as long as I was fearing it would, it failed to capture the essence of the book in my mind and was some way short of the LOTR films. Dwarves were annoying and Martin Freeman is not Bilbo. Also,seemed too many obvious pointers to LOTR that irritated me.
Doctor Who main bulk of the episode 5/10 although the ending was 9/10 Most of the episode felt fairly hum-drum (although I liked the gag of the Doctor playing hot/cold with the kids). The way Clara was tied to the doctor's past was quite clever ( Spoiler and I'm sure Ace looked a lot like Clara in the clip they showed, and I'm not quite sure if they're trying to imply Ace was actually Clara or if I'm just imagining things ) Spoiler So I'm guessing John Hurt is/was the Doctor before he took the name "The Doctor" Anyone know if there was a clip at the end for the next episode/Special? iPlayer didn't show one...
7 Psychopaths - 7/10. Bit of a weird movie, but somehow strangely enjoyable. Not great, but good enough to pass the time. A few slight twists with the characters and story...
Dammit. I've avoided the Matt Smith episodes because he just felt "wrong" to me. However if they are tying in with the Sylvester McCoy / Ace era, I have to watch it. I loved that timeline. I saw Garden State a long time ago. I really felt bad because it was one of the first films where I fell asleep in the cinema. I liked Zach Braff from the Scrubs tv series and I thought Natalie Portman was quite attractive, so why did I fall asleep? However, I've gotten over feeling bad and realised that it was just dull. 2/10 for me. Now then, yesterday I saw Star Trek - Into Darkness. While watching it, I realised that this was the first Star Trek film to use a hyphen as opposed to a colon. All the way from Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Star Trek: Nemesis, all the films were Star Trek colon the title. Then we had simply Star Trek and now Star Trek - Into Darkness. I guess that's the nature of the reboot. I also noticed that the cinema had this weird two-tone fabric on the walls and a raised plasticcy strip about a third of the way up. For a while I wondered whether there were cables underneath, though I couldn't see anything stretching off to the speakers, so maybe it was just for styling. Who knows? Then I drifted off for a snooze. For a ST film, it really wasn't engaging. The plot was good up to a point but it was rather too intricate and felt overly long for my part. Having said this, there were long parts of dullness, with stuff that really didn't need to be there. Spoiler Kirk being dismissed, then found in the bar, for example. As a ST fan, I found myself hating that they used so many lines from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but also not using them properly. For example, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" but leaving out "or the one". Spoiler When they get to the reactor scene, that final phrase becomes so poignant. I'm being generous at 4/10. I didn't like it, I wasn't engaged, and it messed with probably the best Star Trek movie of all time. EDIT: Almost forgot. Nice cameo from Noel Clarke.
Saw this yesterday, also. Spoiler Indeed, they used it early on rather than in the pertinent scene. Also, Kirk dies instead of Spock but comes back in the same movie using Khan's blood... why was his blood so important? They had 73? other members of his clone army/family in stasis. IMHO they could have at least of had the balls to kill him off till the next movie, but I suppose they'd have to incorporate the genesis device again. 6/10 for me. It works as a mindless action flick, but it isn't trek. I'm watching DS9 through at the moment and the difference in tone is jarring.
Star Trek Into Darkness 8/10 minus last 30 mins 9.5/10 Spoiler really didn't need that crap about Khans blood. It would have been better ended with Kirk Dead and starfleet in ruins after taking a starship to the face.
Gangster Squad I really don't know/10 This one is hard for me. Really hard. I normally despise "gangster/mafia flicks". I thought The Godfather was overrated, tiresome drivel that went on forever. That said, this one packs the pace just right. And yet, the characters are (mostly) lacking depth, and the film gets overwhelming when all the shooting starts. It's a matter of "Did I just see X get shot? I thought Y was dead already - wtf is going on here!!??!". It's not often that you hear this from me, but this film would have done better with a slightly slower pace, and possibly as a 5 part series or something. It's not bad watching, it's just that it could be So.Much.Better.
yeah i agree the there coulda been more depth, sepecialy robert patricks gunslinger cop, his back story coulda been epic
Star Trek - Into Darkness. 9/10 Found it engaging and well worth the watch. The only downside being that I finally dragged myself to watch a film in 3D - as per the last time they tried it I found it pretty meh. As a ST fan I loved all the similar lines popping in. Spoiler You say they weren't used properly but you have to remember from the first movie that this is not the same reality - IMO it would have been wrong for them to be used in any other way, different events have happened, the reactor scene here happens much earlier in their time together in the other reality and so on. If I've checked correctly the 'Wrath of Khan' occurs in 2285 and in 'Into Darkness' between 2259 and 2260 , so their relationship and responses would be different I've found both movies to be a refreshing approach to modernising the old films without just rehashing them. Give me these over the last Star Wars moveis anyday (yes, a fan of that too).
Spoiler Wrath of Khan is ~2285, ~10-ish years after the first TOS film and 20[!] years after the series. Kirk doesn't take command of the Enterprise until ~2265 in the 'regular' trek.