Dredd 3D

Dredd 3D is an over-hyped action film about the cult British comic character. Online chatter has been a big pile of smelly nerdgasm’s about this film being closer to the source material than the Sylvester Stallone starring ‘Judge Dredd’ from 1995.

What you actually end up watching is a very stock-standard and by the numbers action film. The care factor for any of the characters is complete zero. It also looks really cheap. Total yawn. Go watch the The Raid Redemption instead, it did the premise first and better.

Why There Will Never Be Another Doctor Who Movie

Why there will never be another Doctor Who movieHollywood loves rehashing successful franchises to generate more cash. Charlie’s Angels, Transformers, and the Bourne series are just some of the TV shows, toys or books that have recently been rehashed.

Television shows in particular have been getting a good run recently: Star Trek was spectacularly rebooted with a new cast and new parallel universe (nice touch); Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible series doesn’t seem to want to end; and the recent relaunch of The Muppets shows that a weekly TV program can create memorable movie characters.

But for every hit, there is a miss: Bewitched, The Dukes of Hazzard and Lost in Space are proof of that.

Which is precisely why there should never, nay, will never be another Doctor Who movie. At least in the foreseeable future.

No matter what storyline or actors are chosen, it will end up being another Dark Shadows: a film that polarised the audience with fans feeling cheated and newbies to the franchise being baffled with boredom.

The recent pitch for new Who by David Yates stated it wouldn’t feature the existing Doctor (Matt Smith), essentially making it a reboot. This is pointless as the TV show has had 11 major reboots over its 49 year history.

Doctor Who is unparalleled in this aspect – with each new regeneration, and even with the departure and arrival of new companions, the show changes. Sometimes minimally, sometimes going in a brand new direction.

Colin Baker’s 6th Doctor harked back to the original William Hartnell – snippy, aggressive, cantankerous … essentially a loveable pain-in-the-arse. The 10th Doctor became a sci-fi love story with Billie Piper’s Rose and Freema Agyeman’s Martha harping over the devilishly good-looking and increasingly power-mad David Tennant.

Whom would the film version be based on? Definitely not the Peter Davison soppy wet fish Doctor, nor the clownish Patrick Troughton, or the maniacal Tom Baker.

No, we’d end up with a Hollywood version: a Frankenstein’s monster mash-up of the last three Doctors. Brooding, good-looking, and (naturally) insanely brilliant. And of course not angry or conflicted or potentially vengeful – a big screen Doctor would have to be easily accessible for the masses.

The problem is, fans have seen this all before. The Doctor’s personality must be different for each regeneration – that’s what makes the concept work. Having a slightly watered-down Doctor harks back to the original two Peter Cushing films. While the first was a hit, the second crashed and burned, leaving the franchise to continue solely on the small screen.

It would be a mistake to alienate the existing fanbase, the largest potential audience, with a celluloid Doctor they are highly likely to reject. For this reason alone, the BBC would be hesitant to proceed back to the big screen.

Then there is the companion: the ‘everyman’ who juxtaposes the Gallifreyan’s alien nature by injecting humanity and awe. Like a dumbed-down Dr Watson, the companion is essential to Doctor Who, they are not only our eyes, but our key to this universe. Without the ability to grow a character over time, a film version would become a cheap, one-dimensional side-kick, similar to Dr Holloway in the one-off TV movie.

Most importantly to a movie reboot is the MacGuffin. Popularity dictates it would probably be the Daleks or the Master, but with recent stories brilliantly told with these villains, and even the introduction of new adversaries that stand up well alongside their predecessors (the Weeping Angels, the Silence, and the Vashta Nerada), a new movie would either have to portray an existing villain in a new and exciting way, or debut a new opponent – one worthy of the pantheon of the Whoniverse.

While it’s exciting to think of the possibilities, history proves that this is highly unlikely.

The final nail in the coffin of a new movie is Steven Moffat’s innovative approach to season 7, where every episode itself feels like a movie. In his own words, every Doctor Who episode for 2012-2013 was created with “slutty titles and movie poster plots … big pictures and straplines”. He even said that one episode he wrote would “feel a bit like Die Hard”.

What’s the point of making a Doctor Who movie when we’ve just had five absolute classics, with another seven to come in 2013 … including a second episode penned by the extraordinary Neil Gaiman, and an episode tentatively titled “Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS”?

Perhaps there will be another Doctor Who movie, but not until the current series is rested to allow demand to grow again. Which hopefully won’t be for quite a few years yet.

The Sessions

What’s it about?
Mark O’Brien (John Hawkes, Deadwood) is a poet and journalist with a sweet, vibrant mind but a polio-ridden tomb of a body. After taking an assignment to write an article about sex and the disabled, he enlists the services of a sex surrogate (Helen Hunt) to help him shed his V-plates, seeking counsel from a priest with glorious hair (William H. Macy) along the way.

What did we think?
Mitch says: This is a beautifully made, thoughtfully told remarkable movie that teeters between being hilarious and unbelievably heart-wrenching. Hawkes is astonishing, effortlessly moving the audience while actually moving, like, two muscles the entire time. Hunt gives a physically and emotionally powerful performance – although her Massachusetts accent is a little wonky. Meanwhile, the always wonderful Macy is at risk of being upstaged by his hair. Fans of Deadwood will enjoy the mini-reunion among the expanded cast. A glorious piece of filmmaking.


Bachelorette

What’s it about?
Three skinny cows, resentful that their fat friend is getting married before them, make fun of her behind her back and then have to fix it when stuff goes predictably pear shaped.

What did we think?
Liz says: Apart from a few (very few) amusing one liners, this film totally squanders its usually hilarious cast (Lizzie Caplan, Isla Fisher and Adam Scott, I am looking at YOU). The leads are so unlikeable and mean-spirited that I didn’t give a damn what happened to any of them. This film should have been called Bitchelorette.

Intouchables

What’s it about?
After he becomes a quadriplegic from a paragliding accident, an aristocrat hires a young man from the the wrong side of town (who only turned up to the interview to get a signature to get his benefits) to be his caretaker.

What did we think?
Lisa Campbell says:  A touching yet simple story of friendship and differences. The movie was full of laughs and surprisingly mostly at the expense of Philippe’s disability. Terrific casting for a warm and engaging film of how the relationship between two completely different people develops. I truly loved it and recommend it to everyone. One not to miss.

Argo

What’s it about?
Proof that truth is stranger than fiction, Argo is a dramatisation of the rescue of the “Canadian Six” from Iran during the revolutionary uprising of 1979. With radical alternatives to save the group dismissed, the best worst idea is employed: pretend the fugitives are shooting a science fiction movie.

What did we think?
Stephen says: This fast-paced thriller puts you, then keeps you, on the edge of your seat – a high accomplishment as we know how it ends. Affleck cleverly doesn’t identify a specific villain, instead focussing on the retributive predisposition of a people finally freed from their tyrannical ruler, only to inflict their own brand of terror. When faced with a nation of hatred, it makes the planning and execution of this escape even more nail biting. Some are upset the film wavers from the true story, but don’t worry about that. A highly enjoyable film that dramatises an already astonishing story.

What’s Popular

The Interview

What’s it about?

Cheesy TV host Dave Skylark (James Franco) and his producer (Seth Rogen) are coerced by the CIA to kill Kim Jong-Un during an interview.

What did we think?
Elizabeth Best says: If you ban it, they will come. In terms of finding a following, the Sony hack was probably the best thing to happen to this film. The Interview is dumb. It’s irreverent. It has Franco mugging his ass off like… well, like Franco. But it still manages to squeeze more than a giggle or two from an audience probably too ashamed to admit it. So take that, North Korea.

 

Foxcatcher

What’s it about?
Mark Schultz, under tutelage from wrestling fanatic and all around creeper John duPont, finds himself caught striving for perfection while training athletes in a bid to sweep Seoul Olympics and maintaining a weird bond with his sponsor.

What did we think?
Nick Bleeker says: Pacing issues aside, this is a rather disturbing affair with grand performances from Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo, but doesn’t give Ruffalo’s character enough time to develop. It’s a very muted film, that relies on less on its dialogue and more on the physical performances from everyone. Bennett Miller shoots it extremely well and precisely, but you can’t help but walk out feeling like it’s missing a soul.

Wild

What is it about?
Damaged woman Cheryl (Reese Witherspoon), braves the long hike along the Pacific Crest Trail to reconcile her past, and change her future.

What do we think?
Alistair says: I left this movie wanting to start hiking immediately. It is based on the real life adventures of Cheryl Strayed, played convincingly by Witherspoon. It’s never boring watching Cheryl walk from southern California to the edge of Canada, across deserts and snowy mountains, transforming from determined novice to seasoned hiker. The scenery is often epic, and frequent encounters with the passers-by along the way range from the sinister to the sentimental. But the stand out is a roadside encounter with an expert on all things hobo. There’s also a kid who is so sickly sweet, you’ll want to throw away your birth control. Flashbacks slowly reveal the events that got her here, including the pivotal relationship with her mother and troubles with her ex-husband. It’s a road movie, except it’s about walking (so let’s call it a walk-movie). Go see it and then take a hike.

American Sniper

What’s it about?
Bradley Cooper plays Chris Kyle, the most lethal sniper in US history. American Sniper follows his four tours of duty while weaving in his personal struggles adjusting to home life.

What did we think?
Nick Bleeker says: Cooper carries this film. American Sniper might be better if it focused squarely and only on Kyle’s tours or his struggle adjusting to civilian life. The short gaps for his civilian life serve more as a means to an end rather than a significant shift of circumstance for his character, and in doing that the film sacrifices Kyle’s humanity. Director Clint Eastwood captures the tension of tours really nicely, though, and Cooper’s performance is excellent; it’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite reach the same heights.

Editor's Choice

The Interview

What’s it about?

Cheesy TV host Dave Skylark (James Franco) and his producer (Seth Rogen) are coerced by the CIA to kill Kim Jong-Un during an interview.

What did we think?
Elizabeth Best says: If you ban it, they will come. In terms of finding a following, the Sony hack was probably the best thing to happen to this film. The Interview is dumb. It’s irreverent. It has Franco mugging his ass off like… well, like Franco. But it still manages to squeeze more than a giggle or two from an audience probably too ashamed to admit it. So take that, North Korea.

 

Foxcatcher

What’s it about?
Mark Schultz, under tutelage from wrestling fanatic and all around creeper John duPont, finds himself caught striving for perfection while training athletes in a bid to sweep Seoul Olympics and maintaining a weird bond with his sponsor.

What did we think?
Nick Bleeker says: Pacing issues aside, this is a rather disturbing affair with grand performances from Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo, but doesn’t give Ruffalo’s character enough time to develop. It’s a very muted film, that relies on less on its dialogue and more on the physical performances from everyone. Bennett Miller shoots it extremely well and precisely, but you can’t help but walk out feeling like it’s missing a soul.

Wild

What is it about?
Damaged woman Cheryl (Reese Witherspoon), braves the long hike along the Pacific Crest Trail to reconcile her past, and change her future.

What do we think?
Alistair says: I left this movie wanting to start hiking immediately. It is based on the real life adventures of Cheryl Strayed, played convincingly by Witherspoon. It’s never boring watching Cheryl walk from southern California to the edge of Canada, across deserts and snowy mountains, transforming from determined novice to seasoned hiker. The scenery is often epic, and frequent encounters with the passers-by along the way range from the sinister to the sentimental. But the stand out is a roadside encounter with an expert on all things hobo. There’s also a kid who is so sickly sweet, you’ll want to throw away your birth control. Flashbacks slowly reveal the events that got her here, including the pivotal relationship with her mother and troubles with her ex-husband. It’s a road movie, except it’s about walking (so let’s call it a walk-movie). Go see it and then take a hike.

American Sniper

What’s it about?
Bradley Cooper plays Chris Kyle, the most lethal sniper in US history. American Sniper follows his four tours of duty while weaving in his personal struggles adjusting to home life.

What did we think?
Nick Bleeker says: Cooper carries this film. American Sniper might be better if it focused squarely and only on Kyle’s tours or his struggle adjusting to civilian life. The short gaps for his civilian life serve more as a means to an end rather than a significant shift of circumstance for his character, and in doing that the film sacrifices Kyle’s humanity. Director Clint Eastwood captures the tension of tours really nicely, though, and Cooper’s performance is excellent; it’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite reach the same heights.

Scroll to top