yads

And as Jake says, the voiceover is otherworldly and magical. It's really a thing of beauty, and Malick's best movie.

The best looking movie ever. An absolute work of art. A.

I thought it was much closer to Firefly than Star Wars.

I liked most of the act 3 fight - the stuff with Ronan, Groot protecting them, the dance off - but didn't care for the space battle stuff. IMO it wasn't exciting. It was just a splurge of CGI which I waited out until they got back to the people and the interesting stuff.

Cheers. BTW, since I'm here: B+ Pro: Funny Great Visuals Con: Weak Villain Action scenes weren't great

Fair enough. But I'm still right that all the current Guardians characters were created before Star Wars.... right?

According to Wikipedia the first edition was 1969. Either way, I don't really give a fuck. It was nothing like Star Wars.

Groot, Rocket, Gamora, Drax and Star-Lord ALL appeared in Guardians of the Galaxy comics before Star Wars was released. So how can it be a rip-off of Star Wars?

Pros: The Band! Cons: Not enough Maurice. B+

I was pretty drunk Saturday (hence my ridiculously over the top review) but I honestly didn't think any of the main actors were bad. Maybe Samantha in her early scenes... but she was about 7. And I thought Patricia Arquette was fantastic. There's that scene with the older kids drinking beer and swearing a lot that had some dodgy acting I guess, but otherwise I can't see what you mean.

The terrible reshot ending of Die Hard with a Vengeance.

The only 3D movie I've ever liked is Dredd. Really cool experience after a smoke.

I used to watch Dazed and Confused once a week. True story.

Going into Boyhood I didn't know exactly what to expect. I mean, I knew it would likely be a brilliant and unique experience, and it would be presented in that understated way that Linklater films are always presented, but beyond that I was uncertain. What I got was... everything. Boyhood was boring. It was exasperating. It was discomforting. It was banal. It was funny. It was profound. It was - now I try to put the experience into words - just exactly like life. Linklater has always pursued a naturalistic, faux-documentary style, but by marrying that style to this simple concept he's struck gold. Showing a family grow before our eyes inevitably reminds us of our own childhood. It inevitably makes Boyhood a nostalgic and emotional experience. An experience that cuts right to the bone. And just like our own childhood, Boyhood is sometimes boring and difficult and slow, and yet all over far too quickly. Perhaps that's why this film is resonating with so many people. It's impossible to watch Boyhood and not remember comparable moments in your own upbringing. Everyone watching this film is either Mason or Samantha or one of their parents. Everyone has lived these moments and felt these feelings. And Linklater maximises this innate relatability with his approach to the material. His technique is so invisible, and he elicts performances that are so natural and authentic, that we're pulled right into the world. We can't not be. And being fully immersed in this world where we watch these people age and grow and change is a deeply moving, soul feeding experience. Central to Linklater's brilliance is the way he knows which snapshots to film. Although Boyhood is relatively long it can only ever show a tiny amount of these twelve years, for fairly obvious reasons. Which snapshots should be included? Here, Linklater makes an interesting and brilliant choice. He eschews the obvious "big" moments that any other filmmaker would have built the movie around. Instead Linklater focuses almost exclusively on the seemingly trivial - moments that feel unspecial as they're being lived. Yet, Boyhood teaches us that when all these unspecial moments are collected together they add up to something special and life affirming and essential. After all, isn't it often the small, insignificant moments that end up being stored in our minds? We can't explain why, but somehow they're the moments we keep with us during our lifetime. Linklater has obviously made the same observation and he's built his film around such moments. Indeed the only times the film slips up are the occasional attempts to go bigger - most notably a plotline involving an abusive husband which veers off into melodrama. More generally, there were moments during the first hour of Boyhood when I became concerned. This wasn't the peerless masterpiece I had been reading about. In fact it was often messy and clumsy, with scenes that felt awkward and unnecessary. However, looking back on the film several hours later, those clumsy and awkward moments feel every bit as pivotal as anything else. Boyhood is a celebration of life, of each moment lived, of the clumsy and awkward as well as the profound and beautiful. Life is a miracle, all of it, and this miracle of a film exists to remind us of that indisputable, higher truth.

Noon of the Planet of the Apes.

The first two still aren't out on blu-ray. Also: 10/10.

Have you seen the other two Before movies?

A I re-watched this the other night with the Roger Ebert commentary. It's one of the most informed, interesting commentaries I've ever heard. It makes you appreciate the film even more, and also appreciate Ebert more (if that's even possible).

Or alternatively, Jar Jar Binks is Trek:

Wreck It Ralph was better IMO.

One thing I was too drunk to get into last night (hence the rambling "review") was Abrams' direction, which was rock solid. The problems with STiD were all script-based IMO, so given those limitations I think JJ did about as well as anyone could have. With Lucas' outline and Arndt's script I really believe he can deliver a special SW movie, certainly the best since 1980.

Maybe I'm just being overly cynical. I don't know. But I strongly disliked the WOK stuff, and the two people I saw the film with were also big fans of WOK and felt exactly the same way. Like I wrote before, I suspect how well you like that part of the film depends on your view of WOK. I don't mind referencing the other ST timeline, but I felt this was so close to the other timeline that it was almost a parody. And for the record, I adore BSG. It's my favourite tv show of all time.

I'll give it a C, but mostly because the chemistry between Kirk and Spock and between Uhura and Spock is pretty good. The first 40 minutes are entertaining. About the same level of fun as ST 2009, but when they reach the Klingon planet it starts to fall apart. The pacing during act 2 is a drag, and the whole "Admiral trying to start a war" cliche really doesn't work. Speaking of cliches, here's another movie giving us a villain who gets captured on purpose, as part of his Machiavellian scheme plot. But a few cliches are nothing compared to what comes next.... (I should mention at this point that I love Wrath of Khan. It's easily the best Trek movie, and is one of the best movies of its kind ever made.) The way the incredible conclusion of Wrath of Khan is shamelessly STOLEN here is astonishing. Ballsy, yeah. Taking the piss? Oh yeah! Whole lines of dialogue, entire scenes even, just copy and pasted.... from a MASSIVELY BETTER MOVIE. I can't wait until JJ does EP7 and includes the carbonite chamber scene, "I love you", "I know" and all that. With added lens flares. Can't... wait... After that it's OK. There's magical blood. And then the theme tune. My guess is that if WOK means nothing to you you'll enjoy this - it's breezy, amusing, well directed. But if those last 20 minutes of WOK mean a lot to you then the way it's been bastardized in this movie will piss you off no end.

Translation: The, IM3, the!!!

This is a pure Shane Black movie. Which is what makes it so good. I recently rewatched Lethal Weapon and Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and was half expecting Iron Man 3 to be somewhat watered down by Marvel/Disney and the huge expectations he was under.... but it just isn't. At all. The humour is spot on and makes this easily the funniest Iron Man movie. The voiceover could be straight out of KKBB. The frickin' Christmas songs! Even the Mandarin reveal (which BTW is hilarious and the best scene in the movie) is pure Black-style subversion. It's not perfect - the third act battle is a bit weak, and Guy Pearce doesn't make as good a villain as I thought he would. But it's entertaining all the way through thanks to a good script and RDJ - and unlike the second one it feels like a complete three act movie instead of a commercial for a different movie. Less good than TA but comfortably the best IM movie: B