End of Watch

What’s it about?
Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Pena) are two LA police officers and long-time friends who go all Riggs and Murtaugh on a Mexican drug cartel and end up with a price on their heads.

What did we think?
Mitch says: Look, I guess this movie has its positives, especially if you’re already a fan of cop films. But their big thing at the start is how this is all footage shot by the cops themselves, and then it’s like the director just straight-up forgot that’s what they were doing, or maybe he just thought it was too hard to maintain. Handheld/’found’ footage is a slippery beast at the best of times, but establishing it as the crux of your storytelling method then just periodically abandoning it seems kind of insane, really.

The Master

What’s it about?
This is a movie about L Ron Hubbard, and the beginnings of the cult of Scientology. Except [makes rabbit ears with both hands] “it’s not”.

What did we think?
James says: The illustrations of psychological conditioning in this film border on the intellectually violent, with Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams all delivering expertly crafted performances. Moreover, the cinematography was sublime and the soundtrack eerie and fitting.

If this movie was created to compare a few of the darkest corners of inhumanity, it succeeds in a fascinating yet horrifying way. However, the fact that it’s difficult to like or relate to any of the protagonists makes it an uneasy watch. This movie will polarise people its viewers deeply.

2 Days in New York

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

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.


What’s Popular

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water

What’s it about?
When a diabolical pirate above the sea steals the secret Krabby Patty formula, SpongeBob and his nemesis Plankton must team up in order to get it back.

What did we think?
NOTE: Our reviewer declined to comment as she couldn’t bear to spend one more second of her life thinking about this film.

Insurgent

What’s it about?
Part two in the Divergent trilogy sees our heroes, Tris (Shailene Woodley) and Four (Theo James) attempt to uncover the truth about their society’s rigid faction system and bring down its Machiavellian government.

What did we think?
Lisa Clifford says: Insurgent begins where Divergent left off – a little disorientating for those unfamiliar with the first installment or novels. For a dystopian teen drama, it’s a pretty bleak look at the lengths some will go to for power and pulls no punches when it comes to violence and death. The strong cast does their best with the at-times mediocre dialogue. The story moves along a reasonable pace, spurred on by some decent edge-of-your-seat action sequences. An improvement on its predecessor, Insurgent builds to a satisfying climax while effectively setting up the final installment in the trilogy. Fans of the books and the first film will enjoy.

Home

What’s it about?
Oh, an alien on the run from his own people, lands on Earth and makes friends with the adventurous Tip, who is on a quest of her own.

What did we think?
Erin Lane says:  Not even the voices of Jim Parsons and Rihanna can save Home from a terrible blandness. Their presence might help the film’s popularity and, to be honest, it probably needs all the help it can get. The forced Boov dialogue – more Jar Jar than Yoda – grates and there are so many little morals coming at you that it’s hard to see what a child would go away with from the movie. A poor plot without a consistent theme just makes it difficult viewing for adults. It alternates between too cutesy and too clever for its own good (for example Tip is a nickname because her name is Gratuity). Kids might possibly like the cute aliens (who change colour with emotions) but let’s face it, cute aliens have been done before and much better.

Big Eyes

What’s it about?
It’s the early ’60s, and Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) is famous for his kitsch, sentimental paintings of big-eyed children. But it’s all a con – the paintings were actually created by his wife Margaret (Amy Adams), and she’s had just about enough of living in his shadow.

What did we think?
Amy Currie says:  Director Tim Burton dials down his trademark spooky-quirky to make a biopic, and there’s not a Depp or Bonham Carter in sight. Adams finds the sweet spot between downtrodden and determined, and Waltz manages to be both the comic relief and a genuinely menacing presence.  There’s still enough Burton-ness to make the world seem just a little larger than life (and the gorgeous sets and costumes make the audience want to run away to the ’60s) but it trails off into a made-for-TV ending.  Worth seeing, but cross your fingers it doesn’t start a big-eyed art revival.

Editor's Choice

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water

What’s it about?
When a diabolical pirate above the sea steals the secret Krabby Patty formula, SpongeBob and his nemesis Plankton must team up in order to get it back.

What did we think?
NOTE: Our reviewer declined to comment as she couldn’t bear to spend one more second of her life thinking about this film.

Insurgent

What’s it about?
Part two in the Divergent trilogy sees our heroes, Tris (Shailene Woodley) and Four (Theo James) attempt to uncover the truth about their society’s rigid faction system and bring down its Machiavellian government.

What did we think?
Lisa Clifford says: Insurgent begins where Divergent left off – a little disorientating for those unfamiliar with the first installment or novels. For a dystopian teen drama, it’s a pretty bleak look at the lengths some will go to for power and pulls no punches when it comes to violence and death. The strong cast does their best with the at-times mediocre dialogue. The story moves along a reasonable pace, spurred on by some decent edge-of-your-seat action sequences. An improvement on its predecessor, Insurgent builds to a satisfying climax while effectively setting up the final installment in the trilogy. Fans of the books and the first film will enjoy.

Home

What’s it about?
Oh, an alien on the run from his own people, lands on Earth and makes friends with the adventurous Tip, who is on a quest of her own.

What did we think?
Erin Lane says:  Not even the voices of Jim Parsons and Rihanna can save Home from a terrible blandness. Their presence might help the film’s popularity and, to be honest, it probably needs all the help it can get. The forced Boov dialogue – more Jar Jar than Yoda – grates and there are so many little morals coming at you that it’s hard to see what a child would go away with from the movie. A poor plot without a consistent theme just makes it difficult viewing for adults. It alternates between too cutesy and too clever for its own good (for example Tip is a nickname because her name is Gratuity). Kids might possibly like the cute aliens (who change colour with emotions) but let’s face it, cute aliens have been done before and much better.

Big Eyes

What’s it about?
It’s the early ’60s, and Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) is famous for his kitsch, sentimental paintings of big-eyed children. But it’s all a con – the paintings were actually created by his wife Margaret (Amy Adams), and she’s had just about enough of living in his shadow.

What did we think?
Amy Currie says:  Director Tim Burton dials down his trademark spooky-quirky to make a biopic, and there’s not a Depp or Bonham Carter in sight. Adams finds the sweet spot between downtrodden and determined, and Waltz manages to be both the comic relief and a genuinely menacing presence.  There’s still enough Burton-ness to make the world seem just a little larger than life (and the gorgeous sets and costumes make the audience want to run away to the ’60s) but it trails off into a made-for-TV ending.  Worth seeing, but cross your fingers it doesn’t start a big-eyed art revival.

Scroll to top