Showing posts with label Matt Smith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matt Smith. Show all posts

Sunday, 7 February 2016

Review: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

World of Blackout Film Review

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies Poster

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Cert: 15 / 108 mins / Dir. Burr Steers / Trailer
WoB Rating: 5/7


Establishment-setup-reveal-punchline. Imagine, if you will, taking a recurring sketch from a weekly comedy show. For example, Lou and Andy from Little Britain. The sketch (pretty much any of them) is indeed funny in isolation, but it is formulaic. Establishment-setup-reveal-punchline. And that's fine, because that's how comedy works. Now imagine taking the Lou and Andy sketch from each of the eighteen series-episodes of Little Britain and playing them in continuous succession. Establishment-setup-reveal-punchline. Rinse and repeat.

That's why I gave up on the novel of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. A quiet scene would be eloquently and painstakingly set up, following which the arrival of a flesh-hungry ghoul would cause a catastrophic breakdown in etiquette and decorum as we're shown that the elegant young heroines of the piece are actually trained and efficient zombie killers! Funny the first time, smirk-inducing the second. Still happening fifty pages in? Forget it.

The only reason I mention this is that I'd feared the cinematic adaptation would fall into the same trap (and logically, why wouldn't it?). After all, a novel which was written in all earnestness but which was received largely as a quirky oddity isn't necessarily going to translate well to the screen. There are already more than enough iffy zombie movies, and the ones which also employ humour in their arsenal are worse than most. So as it turns out, the "hahaa it's funny because they've got swords and they're cutting zombies heads off at a ball!" motif actually only accounts for the first thirty minutes or so of the film. Half an hour in which an actual story is desperately struggling to break through every cliché you're expecting from the film. Now obviously much of this comes from the fact that Pride and Prejudice is the primary source-material for the story, so the stilted, formalities of the original have to play a large part, and they have to be broken by the zombie-element. But it's still like watching the same sketch five times.

Then after a while, the forced juxtaposition of narrative styles relaxes and director Burr Steers is able to bring us something more like the film that the zombie-fans are wanting to see. While the primary undead-outbreak has already long-since occurred at the start of the film and is sketched in fairly loosely in an opening-title sequence, the main plot centres around a resurgence which threatens to over-run the surviving population of ninteenth-century England. Truth be told, even when the film actually gets going, the plot is still relatively loose, relying more on style and setpieces to do its work.

Thankfully, the whole thing is shored up with a very competent cast, headed marvellously by Lily James and Sam Riley as Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy, respectively. Younger players fill most of the main roles, and the film employs Charles Dance and Lena Heady to stand at the back and bring a bit of dramatic gravity to proceedings (although thankfully with a minimum of scenery-chewing). I should also mention how much I enjoyed Matt Smith as Mr Collins the Parson. It seems odd that in a film which relies so much on comedy, he's the only performer who seems to be able to deliver it fully.

Fans of Jane Austen will see this as a parodic curiosity, and fans of George Romero will doubtless feel the same way. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is ultimately its own worst enemy, and can't break free of one genre to adequately serve the other.

The film becomes a lot of fun, but can't take its tongue out of its cheek long enough to convince the audience it has anything worth saying…



So, watch this if you enjoyed?
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
Maybe it's the nature of the original source material, but even the addition of the undead doesn't make this particularly cinematic, no.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Probably, but only just.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
No, but it was never really meant to be.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Nope.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
Not that I heard.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: P+P+Z stars that Charles Dance and that Lena Heady, both of whom appear in that Game of Thrones alongside that Gwendoline 'Phasma' Christie.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…




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.

Friday, 3 July 2015

Review: Terminator Genisys

World of Blackout Film Review

Terminator Genisys (3D) Poster

Terminator Genisys (3D)
Cert: 12A / 126 mins / Dir. Alan Taylor / Trailer
WoB Rating: 4/7


The doors of Cyberdyne Systems impressive headquarters burst inwards spraying glass and chrome over the figures already in reception. Sarah Connor looks on in grim worry as the T-800 Terminator unit javelins a 12-foot metal rod into the insane, mutated being which used to be her son, impaling him into the bank of monitors behind. "John Connor talks too much…" he quips in his Austrian accent, and the audience is inclined to agree. Except the audience had already reached that conclusion around 90 minutes earlier…


Yes, Terminator Genisys is here. And the fifth cinematic chapter in a sprawling multimedia franchise with a worldwide fan-base for 31-years-and-counting opened tonight to an expectant audience of 19 people*1. James Cameron must be turning in his swimming pool.

This time we're taken right back to 1984 Los Angeles, to remix the beats of the original movie, once again manhandling a timeline which has been treated with barely-concealed contempt since the 2003-outing. From that point onwards, each new chapter has re-cast the protagonists (Arnie aside, obviously), and completely altered the characters themselves as a result. The most painful casualty here is Emilia Clarke, who proves herself to be a competent enough action heroine; she's just not 'Sarah Connor'.

Speaking of casting, how do you top hiring an Australian actor who hasn't got the charisma or gravitas to co-lead a Terminator film? Simple! You get two of them! Courtney and Clarke at least manage to keep the accents well under control, but that's about it, with stretches of grandiose dialogue that's not only woodenly delivered, but would still be completely out-of-character for Kyle Reese and John Connor even if it wasn't. And then there's poor old Matt Smith; stunt-casting in its purest form, they could have got the janitor to play that part.

The trailer is a fairly accurate bellwether of the film itself (although the shoehorned-in catchphrases aren't as jarring in the full movie). What director Alan Taylor brings us is around one-third homage to James Cameron's masterpiece, two-thirds scrabbling around on the floor looking for a direction in which to take the franchise. The fight/battle sequences are quite delightful, as are the lovingly re-created scenes from the first movie.

So much time is spent on bringing the audience a 12A action-blockbuster that screenwriters Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier seem to forget that the audience have met these characters before, so are expecting a little thematic continuity, if nothing else. Worst culprit (spoilers): at the film's climax, Sarah Connor is forced to destroy not only the hybrid monster which used to be the son she hasn't had yet, but also the T-800 surrogate-father who has protected her for ten years. She essentially kills her own father and son to save a future without either of them, and the script doesn't even acknowledge the emotional weight of this act.

Despite the horrendous early-scores which are creeping in, I didn't actively dislike Genisys, and I think the core screenplay is an intriguing concept. It's just poorly executed and hobbled by woeful miscasting and a horrendous script.

If anything, the film feels like it's trying a bit too hard to connect with its 1984 progenitor. Although after the po-faced mess of Terminator Salvation that's not necessarily a bad thing, but the events of 1991's classic Judgement Day are also wiped out as collateral damage. Hey, that's time-travel, right?

Not quite as awful as some would have you believe, Terminator Genisys would have been a perfectly acceptable addition to the canon had it been made in 1996, before the timeline got so convoluted. But y'know, it wasn't. Too little, too late.


Oh, and there's a mid-credits scene, if you're interested. FYI. Keep your 3D glasses out for it, though.


Is this film worth paying £10+ to see?
Not really, to be honest.


Well, I don't like the cinema. Buy it, rent it, or wait for it to be on telly?
Rent it and watch it back-to-back with The Terminator.


Does this film represent the best work of the leading performer(s)?
In Jai Courtney's case, there's no such thing…


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
It doesn't.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Maybe a little.


Oh, and is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


…but what's the Star Wars connection?
Jason Clarke starred (perhaps the wrong word, admittedly) in 2014's Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes alongside Andy Serkis, due to perform Supreme Leader Snoke in The Force Awakens.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 And I'm not kidding, they didn't even play the Arnie/Compare The Market promo beforehand. The one which has been running in cinemas for months, now. The one which has been subliminally promoting this very film. Is this so that we don't laugh at Arnold before Genisys starts? So that we remember to take his character more seriously?

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.

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Review: (Guest Post!) Doctor Who - Day of the Doctor

World of Blackout Film Review

Hello. This is a guest-review from my friend, brother and geek-counsel, Porle. He loves Doctor Who in the same way I love Star Wars; a fact that I adore more than I can explain, and is the source of frequent cross-franchise conversations on merchandising, continuity and overall canon.
Although I've jotted down my own civilian pov on the 50th Anniversary special, Porle is far more qualified than I am to cast ultimate judgement over it, and since reading the review he submitted to me, I now regret using the term Whovian in my own piece. I'm sure he'll wreak his revenge by insisting to his friends that I am a Star Warrior at some point in the future…


Doctor Who: The Day of the Doctor 3D Poster

Doctor Who: The Day of the Doctor
Cert: PG / 75 mins / Dir. Nick Hurran



It's been quite the year for us 'Doctor Who' fans - (we are not 'Whovians' despite what Bill Turnbull or any other news presenter has told you) - and a "year of treats" (©Moffat, 2013) can mean a hurricane-like storm of hype followed by a catastrophically flat anti-climax. Don't get me wrong, Steven Moffat is a very clever writer, but until this point, his tenure as Executive Producer of Who has been a rocky time as far as my personal feelings towards the show are concerned. Having consumed Season Six with absolute apathy, my heart was heavy at the prospect of this man being at the helm for the explosive 50th Anniversary episode.

Not only was there Moffat's potential cavalier changes to canon to consider, but previous anniversary episodes of Doctor Who have been less than a success. The Five Doctors in 1983 was a total let down to ten year old me as five Doctors meant five Doctors. Not three official Doctors, a man dressed as the first Doctor and some old footage from a shelved episode replacing the fourth Doctor.

And then there was 1993 in Albert Square...
No. I'll leave it there. It's too painful.

So, it was with justified trepidation that I consumed the hype-machine in 2013. Moffat brought Who back on track with Season Seven, ending in April this year with an episode featuring (briefly) appearances by past Doctors. Or at least, images of people dressed as previous Doctors, (there's a pattern here), but done quite successfully none the less. My excitement therefore, began to build. So the question trending in all corners of the internet was; "Who is John Hurt?"

For months we debated and discussed. We waded through Mr Moffat's false internet forum trails and then it happened. Thursday 14th November - The Night of the Doctor burst onto the internet revealing... Paul McGann! Eight glorious minutes of the Eighth Doctor regenerating into John Hurt! I punched the air and cheered like a fangirl when I viewed this for the first time. Not only did we know that John Hurt was The War Doctor but we had the missing regeneration from McGann that we'd waited 17 years for! If Moffat was beside me at that moment, I'd have kissed him. I was now full of faith for The Day of the Doctor. I'd been re-assured that canon and the Whoniverse were indeed in safe hands.

I wasn't disappointed.


From the original theme music at the beginning to a gloriously dramatic and touching ending, I sat entranced. For once, it wasn't like homework. The plot unravelled naturally and at a decent pace never once causing me to question what was occurring on-screen. Or was that the gin? Nods to the past were subtly inter-woven without fawning to itself or approaching the self-congratulatory. Nor were they intrusive to any non-Who fan who was watching. You either got it or you didn't. The plot didn't rely on it. I was a little disappointed with the Zygons. Not seen on Doctor Who since 1975, I was ecstatic that they were making a return. And they did. And then they just seemed to vanish... Ah well. There's only so much you can fit into 75 minutes I suppose. Let's not quibble.

The Tennant-Hurt-Smith dynamic worked really well without seeming contrived, the usual, "you've had the place re-decorated haven't you - I don't like it" line from a previous Doctor to the current was in there too. All boxes ticked. Moffat had said many times that TDOTD would be the closing of one chapter and the beginning of another. It's time for a new era of 'Doctor Who', which is required if the show it to have continued success. But what would that be? well the answer was delivered in a way that we'd hoped but didn't ever think would happen. Tom Baker - famous for his rejection to invites of multi-Doctor stories - was there. Talking to Matt Smith. Wait...is that a tear?
No, something in my eye I think.

Mr Moffat - you did us proud.

Now, is anyone doing anything for the Blake's 7 50th in 2018...?



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.

Sunday, 24 November 2013

Review: Doctor Who - The Day of the Doctor

World of Blackout Film Review

Doctor Who: The Day of the Doctor 3D Poster

Doctor Who: The Day of the Doctor (3D) (Spoiler-Free)
Cert: PG / 82 mins / Dir. Nick Hurran



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



Is the trailer representative of the film?
It's a good set-up.


Did I laugh, cry, gasp and sigh when I was supposed to?
Mostly.


Does it achieve what it sets out to do?
I'd say yes, but that's not my call to make.


Pay at the cinema, Rent on DVD or just wait for it to be on the telly?
You've missed the boat at the cinema now, but you should aim for watching this in hi-def.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
No.


Will I watch it again?
Probably, yes.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream?
I didn't hear one. Plenty of opportunities on Gallifrey. Sort it out, eh?


And because you won't be happy until I've given it a score...


And my question for YOU is…
Where was Tarkin? Hmm?



*1 SPOILERS: 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.