Movie time! Star Trek: Into Darkness

Ok, so I thought I’d better write this post before I forget too much of the movie (I’m also going to watch Man of Steel tomorrow:D).

Alrighty then, down to business: Do, or do you not watch it? DO!…it of course depends on whether you like sci-fi, Star Trek or action. Any of those 3 and you’ll enjoy it πŸ™‚ It’s a fitting “follow on” (sequel isn’t quite the right word as the plot has nothing to do with the previous one) to the reboot of the Star Trek franchise. It has Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy, the Enterprise and beaming ups aplenty. The greatest addition to the cast though was Benedict Cumberbatch of Sherlock fame being cast as the bad guy. He is rather good at it…but he seems to be quite good at playing slightly deranged characters πŸ˜›Β The action is fast and fierce, and along with the story,Β will keep you entertained for the 2 hours the movie runs πŸ™‚

SPOILER ALERT:

Ok, there were very few scientific inaccuracies I could pick up (always nice for a sci-fi film), but the notable one was:

  • When the Enterprise is fighting the giant evil Enterprise, the two ships are flying around in space shooting at each other, having a whale of time when suddenly BAM! Good Enterprise gets sucked into Earth’s gravity…unless it had reached orbiting speeds gravity would have affected it the whole time and sucked the Star Ship in sooner, or it would not have affected the ship. Gravity isn’t a binary state.
  • …I watched it a month or so ago and wrote exams in between, so my memory is slightly hazy I’m afraid. If there are others please let me know and I’ll add it to the post πŸ™‚

Keep a close eye out for the Man of Steel review, I’ll write that one on Sunday! πŸ˜€

Jeremy

Advertisements

Zero Dark Thirty: Nitty, gritty…great

Soldiers about to breach

Real-life super heroes

I can’t do the movie justice in a short blog post, but what I can say is this: if you ever wonder why the US needs the CIA, NSA, Marines, Rangers or most of its other “bands of rough men”, watch the movie. It’s from the same director as The Hurt Locker, but this isn’t a tale about unwanted guests, it’s a tale of persistence, heroism, and the unwavering urge to see justice done. It is quite long, but I wasn’t bored for a second, and if you don’t like thrillers then it isn’t for you. But boy, I’d recommend it.

As a Christian I could have moral objections to war, and the actions stemming from it. But honestly, I haven’t been there so I should just shut it, and God couldn’t have too big a problem with people defending themselves if He allowed us to defeat Facism during WWII. But honestly, this quote from George Orwell sums it up nicely:

“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. ”

Jeremy

 

Lincoln: Heroic or humdrum?

Abraham Lincoln, 16th president

Abraham Lincoln, 16th president, from the White House’s website

Quick review: very, very good movie. As the story of Lincoln ended slavery it deserves most of the Oscars it has been nominated for in my opinion. It’s moving, it’s dramatic, it’s well acted, it’s suspenseful despite you knowing how it’s going to end; the lot. However the review was the not the purpose of this post. That’ll be explained now:

I’m a bit of a Yankophile (apparently the most common term on the internet for USA (henceforth referred to as America for simplicity) the American equivalent of Anglophile).

They helped win WWII, a war my granddad served in, so I’ve got a bit of emotional involvement there. I’ve also been raised on modern television, movies and media which is dominated by America. Apart from England (God save the Queen! I’m an Anglophile as well), they’ve been the longest running stable democracy (that I can think of offhand: I’m sure a few European countries have been “civilised” for a while as well), and have MIT.

And their second-most famous president is the titular Abraham Lincoln (after George Washington, a slave owner (although he kinda freed them after his death) and a proponent of scorched earth tactics, even against non-combatants). Ok, I promise no more parenthesis now: old Abe has until recently ranked in my top 5 favourite leaders of all time which is including Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, King David of Jewish fame, and King Leonidas of Spartan fame. So obviously I was very excited to watch Lincoln.Β 

And to bring everything together: due to my exposure to America I’ve always thought Lincoln was a saint, the sole saviour of the enslaved black population of the pre-civil war United States, progressive thinker, the lot. And that’s what the movie shows. However I found this article from the Daily Mail, and it kinda shattered my universe a little bit:
Was Lincoln racist?

I won’t lengthen this post further, but I just recommend you read it, and judge for yourself how skewed history can get.

Jeremy

My view: The Amazing Spiderman (and an extension of my ranting)

First off, I’d just like to put it out there that the Amazing Spiderman movie is, well, Amazing! It beats the Toby McGuire ones by quite a long shot! The Peter Parker character is the less serious one as portrayed in most of the comic books; he doesn’t take himself too seriously. But I’m not trying to write a movie review blog, I don’t seem to be able to that particularly well.

What I do seem to do particularly well is get annoyed. Especially by things that are not accurate to real life physics/knowledge. So I’m going to try my hand at semi-theme-ing (theme-ing is a new verb I just made up) my blog.

Scientific Inaccuracies in the Amazing Spiderman

  • Gwen (Spidey’s girlfriend) calls him “bug boy” at one point: Firstly, spiders are not bugs, nor are they even insects; they are in fact arachnids (invertebrates that have 8 legs, generally small and well, insect-like). And not all insects are bugs, “bug” is a term used to define an insect that has a proboscis, and wings with a hardened outer layer (check it out here:Β True Bug definition). Now I’d normally forgive this kind of error; most people are not well versed with entomology (I’m not an expert either, I’m just pedantic), but Gwen is a science-minded girl and works with a biologist type Doctor chap, so I’m being more harsh on her).
  • The bad guy in the movie at one point attacks the high school, busting up from the sewers into the bathroom. This is almost impossible, because most buildings do not have big enough sewer pipes for something that big to climb through right below bathrooms. Plumbing tends to be bedded in concrete or the foundations, a smallish pipe that carries the wastewater away from the building, only meeting up with a main water way out from under the building. So there’s no way someone is busting a hole as big as the one in the movie right below a toilet.
  • In this movie Spiderman goes back to his comic book based web swinging and slinging, using a device attached to his arm, not shooting it out his arm as in the older ones. The movie says it’s based upon nano technology, using super strong threads and such. I’m not up to date enough on this sort technology to comment about that aspect, but what I can say is that when Spidey attaches the web to the side of a building to swing, the web is only attaching to the surface of the wall. Now, the kind of stress imparted from a medium sized “teenage” boy swinging at that speed, with sudden changes in momentum, would be more than enough to fracture and break the surface of wall the web is attached to, sending our intrepid hero plummeting downwards to certain doom.

Now, I watched the movie two days ago, and to be honest I was sitting there in such awe of the awesomeness of the movie I can’t remember any more inaccuracies, so I’ll leave it there. This is just a test post, please don’t think I’m TOO bothered by the above kind of thing, I just thought it would be something interesting-ish to write about. If you enjoyed the post would you be so kind as to comment, and if you didn’t you may also comment, just please do not damage my fragile ego too much πŸ˜›

Jeremy