As a preface, I should point out that I watched this as civilian. I certainly don't dislike Doctor Who at all, but I can't seem to warm to regularly watching it (largely because I haven't seen an episode better than Blink, either before or since). However, I get to enjoy the full-range geekiness vicariously through my Whovian friends, and even I can appreciate the cultural importance of the 50th anniversary. So naturally, I was going to watch it in the cinema as I got the chance. Especially as I don't have a sixty-foot wide 3D television…
After a few trailers to make the audience fidget impatiently, the cinematic broadcast opened with a short piece featuring Strax of the Sontarans, informing the patrons of cinema etiquette. It was basically a turn your phone off and shut up piece, with a slight tongue-in-cheek feel, but it's still better than most shorts of its kind. Next up was five minutes or so of Matt Smith and David Tennant welcoming the audience and telling them to put their 3D glasses on. Again, out-of-universe and humorously scripted, but a nice extra for those who'd ventured out into the cold to see the show.
And so, to the episode itself. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I won't go into the plot details or Easter Eggs (if only because that's what the rest of the internet is for), but from where I was sitting the episode did a bloody good job of catering to long-time hardcore fans, new-generation hardcore fans, and casual viewers; giving deference to all, but preference to none. It was good to watch a programme that's fifty years old be simultaneously amusing, thought-provoking, and take a few moments to completely re-write one of its central conceits*1 I'm aware, of course, that you can't please all of the people all of the time (especially with Fandom), but I sensed only good vibes in the cinema, during and afterwards, and the crowd I was with were merrily chuckling along to the gags (even the ones I personally thought were a bit broad).
On a personal note, I could have done without the segments featuring an English monarch, and I thought that Billie Piper's presence was shoehorned in a little*2. But if those are the only low-points that stand out in my mind, the 50th anniversary team have done very well indeed. I should also say that this is probably the best live-action 3D I've seen in the cinema. It's used constantly without being distracting or forced, adding depth to the scenery, and with no ghosting. 3D rarely makes a film better (especially with live-action), but can frequently make one worse, and The Day of the Doctor is a best-case scenario of this. It's a perfect example of why film-makers should be taking the extra time and effort to shoot in 3D instead of using post-conversion facilities.
And so, it goes without saying that this is One For The Fans™, but it's made with enough love and conviction as to be contagious. If you've tried and failed with Who in the past, it's worth giving The Doctor another chance with this. The prequel shorts, The Last Day and The Night of the Doctor are up on YouTube, and The Day of the Doctor is on BBC iPlayer for UK folks for the next week (or longer, depending on TV repeats). Outside the UK? I'm sure you'll find a way.
I like sandshoes. I haven't heard sandshoes since the late seventies. Can we bring back sandshoes, please?
#sandshoes
It's a good set-up.
Mostly.
I'd say yes, but that's not my call to make.
You've missed the boat at the cinema now, but you should aim for watching this in hi-def.
No.
Probably, yes.
I didn't hear one. Plenty of opportunities on Gallifrey. Sort it out, eh?
Where was Tarkin? Hmm?
*1SPOILERS:I did find the "so, I won't remember?" moment a bit wince-inducing, but I know with time-travel, you have to make concessions so far as existing material is concerned. *2 And on a completely bitchy note, the clarity of the hi-def in the cinema made Piper's moustache almost as impressive as Hurt's...
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
I must confess, I forewent the midnight-showing of this; there are only so many days I can do at work on three hours sleep, and the last one didn't exactly fill me with joy. So with plenty of screenings to choose from, I opted for a quiet afternoon slot, in which to enjoy the hormonal carnage of teenagers trying to stop sulking long enough to kill each other...
Except many/most of the things in the first installment which irked me seem to have been ironed out now. Oh, the dystopian future tropes are still layered on a little too thickly, with pseudo-Stormtroopers enacting the instructions of a moustache-twirling Donald Sutherland and beating the beleaguered population into submission (with some blistering over-acting from Patrick St. Esprit as 'The Commander Who's Allowed To Not Wear A Mask'). The good news is that the love story aspect seems more dialled down this time around, to the point where it's almost half-arsed when it does rear its head. It's to everyone's credit that it doesn't happen too often.
I can honestly say I enjoyed it more than The Hunger Games. With the set-up all taken care of in the first movie, it's a lot more coherently told, and with the exception of my grumble above, it's well scripted and acted, too. The set-pieces fit together almost seamlessly, and despite the recurring visual/thematic motifs, doesn't feel like a rehash of the story already told. But as much as I admired the craft, I just couldn't get into it. I didn't connect with any of the characters emotionally, so after that it's just a guessing game of who'll die next (still not enough expansion on Woody Harrelson's Haymitch for my liking, but it's good to see Elizabeth Banks getting slightly more to do as Effie).
If you enjoyed the first movie, you'll get a lot out of Catching Fire. It's a great expansion of the story, and earnestly told. It's just Not For Me™. Especially as I'm still not convinced about the psychology of teaming with 'allies' in a competition where there can only be one survivor.
Pretty much.
I didn't, but it wasn't for the want of them trying.
Probably. Your mileage will vary.
It looks great on a big screen, but you won't lose a lot by watching it on Blu-Ray.
No.
Probably not, if I'm being honest.
I'm pretty sure I heard one embedded during the baboon attack. Yeah, there's a baboon attack.
1) Am I the only one who thought Mags was just playing along until it was time to whip out 'the psycho card'?
2) How come the guards were killing people for giving the three-fingered salute and whistling Our Tune when Katniss and Peeta were touring the Districts, but it was okay when they won The Worst Raffle In The World in the town square?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
On reflection, I think that this version of Frankenstein, with Benedict Cumberbatch as the ethically-bereft doctor and Jonny Lee Miller as his first-draft creation, is my favourite of the two performances. A short featurette before the play has Cumberbatch recalling how he studied recovering stroke-patients for his portrayal of the creature, whereas Miller says a lot of his performance was based around his 4yr old son. And it's Miller's child-like interpretation of the part which swings it for me, if only because I could identify more closely with it (not that BC's creature is any less stunning, but it does have a different feel).
In addition, it seems that Cumberbatch is able to get more out of the role of Victor Frankenstein. Both actors pull off the fraught, distracted scientist well, but BC adds a layer of vulnerability which makes the doctor a more sympathetic character; an interesting dynamic in the scenes he shares with his creation, creating a conflict around who you're meant to be rooting for.
Mrs Blackout accompanied me to this, and while she enjoyed it throughly, she feels the other version has the edge. We also took some friends along who hadn't seen either version, and they were suitably blown-away by the whole thing (although, as is customary, they were raising eyebrows at the opening sequence. I think everyone does, that first time). So y'know, your mileage will vary, but you should still love it either way.
Without wanting to sound clichéd, the story really has held its relevancy, and this production does it justice perfectly. Screenings are continuing into December: take a look at Frankenstein's National Theatre page for details of performances near you.
Apart from anything else, how often do you get to see two Sherlocks on stage at the same time?
As much as it can be, yes.
Yes.
Undoubtedly.
Cinema as an when you can, because there's no DVD on the horizon.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Y'know what, I think there's one buried repeatedly in a music/sound-effects sting that transitions two scenes. But I could well be wrong, so I'll err on the side of no.
Did you get the chance to see this at the National Theatre? How does the atmosphere compare with the cinematic presentation?
*1 You can read my review of the show with Benedict Cumberbatch as the Creature here, and my original 2012 review (also with Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature) here.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Stand Up Guys Cert: 15 / 95 mins / Dir. Fisher Stevens
Every so often, when I rent a movie, I can tell in the first five minutes why it wasn't on at my local cinema. And it's not because they've only got five screens down there. Stand Up Guys has a soundtrack with a leaning towards Tarantino, and dearly wishes it had the script to match. Starring as two 'retired' gangsters, Pacino and Walken sleepwalk their way through a bumbling, plodding script, but at least Chris has the decency to occasionally look embarrassed at some of the lines he has to read. Things pick up at the half-hour point where Alan Arkin appears; his parts of the script are no better, but he looks like he's having more fun delivering them.
Alas it's all for nought, as the main thread of the plot (Walken's plan now that Pacino's out of prison) keeps half-arsedly floating to the surface until it can't be ignored. That aspect of the film is actually quite well executed when it's given prominence, and there's definitely the potential for this to have been a lot more introspective and thoughtful, but it's overshadowed by the film trying too hard to be a quirky black comedy (and with both Pacino and Walken, you've seen that trick so often that there's nothing new here). At times it comes across like a US version of Get Lucky. Yeah.
Oh, and if you've sound-mixed your "noisy bar" scene properly, you shouldn't be able to hear people's footsteps over the 'thumping' music, let alone the banknotes being counted off a wad by Christopher Walken. The best thing about the entire film is the gilt-framed picture of Billy Dee Williams holding a Colt-45 in that same scene.
Stand Up Guys was already on shaky ground, but it loses another point for having the sheer fucking audacity to rip-off the "chew gum / kick ass" line from They Live.
Twice.
Well, the trailer shows some of the laughs, some of the poignancy, but none of the grinding tedium.
Not nearly enough.
Not by a long shot.
This can wait till it's on the telly.
More than likely.
Less than likely.
No, but there is a boot-shot. Which is more insulting, somehow.
If the gangsters they steal the car from are so dangerous, how come they haven't noticed their car's even been stolen for the next five hours and why don't the police trace the plates and/or report the car still at large and why doesn't anyone notice a stolen fucking JCB digging a grave at 4am? Or am I not supposed to be asking questions about the actual mechanics of the actual events in the actual film?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
