2 Days in New York
- By Cindy Nelson
- 13 years ago
What’s it about?
Manhattan couple Marion and Mingus, who each have children from prior relationships, find their comfortable family dynamic jostled by a visit from Marion’s relatives.
What Did We Think?
Cindy says: I jadore this film – it is stylish, sweet, clever, funny and real. When I grow up I hope this is what life is like. Thank you Julie Delpy for this time inviting me into your New York home at the same time your family visits from Paris. Special mention also goes to Chris Rock for being super adorable. Watch this film now – for Francophiles and I HEART NEW YORK-ers alike.
Tres impressive!
Dredd 3D
- By StewartCook
- 13 years ago
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
- By Stephen Scott
- 13 years ago
Hollywood 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
- By Elizabeth Best
- 13 years ago
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
- By Elizabeth Best
- 13 years ago
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
- By Anthony Sherratt
- 13 years ago
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.
What’s Popular
Focus
What’s it about?
Elite con-man Nicky (Will Smith) agrees to tutor Jess (Margot Robbie) on the ways of deception and money-making, beginning an affair in New York that brings them hurtling back together years later in Argentina.
What did we think?
Dominic says: Smith and Robbie are exactly the charismatic couple you want, and it’s easy to watch them pull off big steals together in grand locales such as Buenos Aires and the American Super Bowl. It’s less easy to remember the plot, not because it’s too complicated but because the constant lies and illusions fail to distract from the fact that they’re playing uninteresting characters. It’s sort of funny, sort of pretty, but in the end sort of not very good.
Seventh Son
What’s it about?
An evil witch (Julianne Moore) seeks revenge in a war between supernatural and humankind. The only hope of her demise lies with the Seventh Son – an inexperienced boy who soon becomes a chosen apprentice.
What did we think?
Elodie says: Good, not great. There’s a decent storyline and convincing CGI dragons help with special effects. However, all this only hits the mark if you can understand the mumbling of drunkard “Spook” and trainer of the apprentice, Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges). If you can’t, you’ll scratch your head wondering what on Earth is happening. I left wishing I’d read the book instead.
50 Shades Of Grey
What’s it about?
A creepy sociopath manipulates a stupidly innocent girl into becoming his sex toy. But it’s OK because he’s very good looking. And because housewives everywhere say so.
What did I think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Not even flashes of nudity and titillation can disguise a hodgepodge of two-dimensional characterisation and cliche. The lead male lacks any real presence and his youth only adds to the unbelievable nature of the plot. The dialogue is poor (but to be fair it was in the book as well and a lot of people didn’t mind) and the overall themes are irritating. Even the sex scenes have been toned down, robbing the movie of any real appeal. A poor man’s Pretty Woman but without the charisma or charm. To be honest it’s not quite bad but it’s certainly not good. It’s actually 50 shades of beige.
The Gambler
What’s it about?
A literature professor (Mark Wahlberg) owes a lot of money to some dangerous people after his gambling problem spirals out of control.
What did we think?
Amy Currie says: This approximate remake of the 1974 film of the same name is full of gangs and high stakes, but isn’t the heisty caper you might expect. Wahlberg’s character has everything going for him, but repeatedly throws himself into harm’s way in fits of depressive whimsy. He’s frustrating and unlikeable, and yet eventually you can’t help but care for him (even as you want to slap him). The get-the-money-in-a-week plot suffers from a few loose threads that seem to be leftovers from the original, but the strong supporting cast is a definite plus, and John Goodman is particularly excellent as an underworld creditor. Definitely worth a look, but be warned – you’ll spend a few hours after you see it trying to decide whether you liked it or not.
Editor's Choice
Focus
What’s it about?
Elite con-man Nicky (Will Smith) agrees to tutor Jess (Margot Robbie) on the ways of deception and money-making, beginning an affair in New York that brings them hurtling back together years later in Argentina.
What did we think?
Dominic says: Smith and Robbie are exactly the charismatic couple you want, and it’s easy to watch them pull off big steals together in grand locales such as Buenos Aires and the American Super Bowl. It’s less easy to remember the plot, not because it’s too complicated but because the constant lies and illusions fail to distract from the fact that they’re playing uninteresting characters. It’s sort of funny, sort of pretty, but in the end sort of not very good.
Seventh Son
What’s it about?
An evil witch (Julianne Moore) seeks revenge in a war between supernatural and humankind. The only hope of her demise lies with the Seventh Son – an inexperienced boy who soon becomes a chosen apprentice.
What did we think?
Elodie says: Good, not great. There’s a decent storyline and convincing CGI dragons help with special effects. However, all this only hits the mark if you can understand the mumbling of drunkard “Spook” and trainer of the apprentice, Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges). If you can’t, you’ll scratch your head wondering what on Earth is happening. I left wishing I’d read the book instead.
50 Shades Of Grey
What’s it about?
A creepy sociopath manipulates a stupidly innocent girl into becoming his sex toy. But it’s OK because he’s very good looking. And because housewives everywhere say so.
What did I think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Not even flashes of nudity and titillation can disguise a hodgepodge of two-dimensional characterisation and cliche. The lead male lacks any real presence and his youth only adds to the unbelievable nature of the plot. The dialogue is poor (but to be fair it was in the book as well and a lot of people didn’t mind) and the overall themes are irritating. Even the sex scenes have been toned down, robbing the movie of any real appeal. A poor man’s Pretty Woman but without the charisma or charm. To be honest it’s not quite bad but it’s certainly not good. It’s actually 50 shades of beige.
The Gambler
What’s it about?
A literature professor (Mark Wahlberg) owes a lot of money to some dangerous people after his gambling problem spirals out of control.
What did we think?
Amy Currie says: This approximate remake of the 1974 film of the same name is full of gangs and high stakes, but isn’t the heisty caper you might expect. Wahlberg’s character has everything going for him, but repeatedly throws himself into harm’s way in fits of depressive whimsy. He’s frustrating and unlikeable, and yet eventually you can’t help but care for him (even as you want to slap him). The get-the-money-in-a-week plot suffers from a few loose threads that seem to be leftovers from the original, but the strong supporting cast is a definite plus, and John Goodman is particularly excellent as an underworld creditor. Definitely worth a look, but be warned – you’ll spend a few hours after you see it trying to decide whether you liked it or not.