The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (Dir. John Madden)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a very nice film. Though for a film that assembles a cast as good as this one does, one can’t help coming away hoping for something a little more than nice.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel features an ensemble of Britain’s best loved acting elders (just add Jim Broadbent and Julie Walters an the film would get a full house in OAP actor bingo) who come together to retire in the film’s titular hotel, which the new tenants quickly discover is not the best nor the most exotic hotel they had been promised. Each venture to India for  differing reasons. Dench is searching for identity and indepenance in the wake of her husband’s death, for example, whilst Nighy and Wilton have had their pension fund sunk in their daughter’s internet start-up and so face four walled, bungalowed retirement or the hotel. Wilkinson is out searching for someone from his past and Imrie is defying her controlling son’s wishes. Pickup is just looking to get laid. I’m ddeadly serious.

Smith is the best of te bunch though, a wonderfully realised porrayl of a woman out of time, a xenophobic, racist and bitter old woman who is througly a prouct of her time. She’s sent to India for an urgent hip replacement in order to avoid UK waiting times, bringinging her Marmite nd home comfort foods on the plane. Her sheer bemusement at this new world and interavtions with “the natives” offer some of the films best comedic moments, though her sour puss has sweetend by the film’s conclusion, because of course she does. Dev Patel of Skins fame is also rather haplessy charming as the hotel owner, trying as best he can to realise his father’s dream of the hotel despite his mother’s continual disappointment.

It shoul comeas no surprise that with a cast of older charcters, one of them inevitably dies. I won’t spoil who it is, but whilst it is hardly a shocker it is a sweet and well handled moment. Such a statement rather succinctly sums up the whole film really, there’s lots of perfectly nice scenes of very talente an esteemed actors enoying what was presumably a very nice holiy in a diverse and well shot country, displaying everything from the hustle and bustle of Indian public transport to the colour and vibrancy of the markets and the realities of slum and slave life. It hardly comes with Slumdog Millionaire‘s more brutal realism, bu the film at least stops to have the very privellaged Brits take pity on their poor former colonials. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel can’t really be criticised for this however, as that is really not the kind of film it’s trying to be.

Your enjoyment of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel will depend very mch on your expectations. I belive I saw it on a Sunay evening on Channel 4, and for that kind of viewing experience it was a erfectly entertaing few hours well spent. What you have is an exceptional if unbalanced ensemble working with an adequate script in a pretty setting. Not everyone is really given enough to do, Pickup and Imrie relly suffering on that front, only some of the chrcters undergoing a fully realised arc. It is all rather by the numbers, of curse the hotel is saved, of course everyone falls in love the hotel, of course Patel’s mother

 

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (Dir. Lasse Hallstrom)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Viewers looking for something new and inventive will likely be disappointed by Salmon Fishing in the Yemen. Those who can accept it for what it is, a perfectly adequate and reasonably amusing “feel good film” will be perfectly satisfied.

Ewan McGregor stars as a fishing expert, who is tasked by Emily Blunt’s Sheik representative with bringing the noble sport of fly fishing to the deserts of the Yemen. Kristen Scott Thomas’ Press Secretary to the Prime Minister latches onto the scheme in order to use it as a bit of good press from the Middle East.

One could not be blamed for finding it hard to picture the exceedingly handsome and effortlessly charming McGregor as a grey, sweater vest wearing fishing industry expert, but he actually plays against type well as a cardigan. Blunt isn’t stretching particularly far as a professional woman worried about the disappearance of her Army boyfriend, but she does a fine job.  Amr Waked’s Sheik is a refreshing Middle Eastern portrayal, relatively stereotype free, which is so nice to see in the age that we live in.

But the show is stolen by the always brilliant Kristen Scott Thomas’ Patricia, a perfect if slightly over the top comedic send up of the government official. Her Press Secretary wouldn’t look out-of-place in the pantheon of steely, female business suit villains that are so common in Doctor Who nowadays. She could probably do with having more screen time, as her scenes are by far the film’s funniest.

Simon Beaufoy’s script works well overall, as I said before Scott Thomas’ scenes tend to be the most amusing. It’s hardly particularly scathing political satire, but the odd jibes at the hierarchy and pandering that goes on in the of (clearly Conservative) government all land very well. McGregor and Blunt share some very restrained and professional flirting, cutely referring to each other by surname throughout most of the film. I’ve not read Paul Torday’s novel on which the film is based, though it appears to be cut from the same cloth as Nick Hornby and David Nicholls’s affable 21st Century romances.

Whilst the script is consistently funny, the emotional dialogue tends to be a little on the clunky side, which lets the film down as in romantic comedies such as this the emotional aspect is arguably just as important as the comedy. There are a few other elements of the script that don’t fully work.  There’s an assassination plot which is too small a part of the film to be especially impactful, but its a little too heavy for what was otherwise up until that point a very light and reserved romantic comedy that it becomes noticeable. There’s also an attempt to get philosophical  by relating fly fishing with religion in something of a science versus faith argument between McGregor’s Doctor and Waked’s Sheik that I’m not entirely sure comes off.

Some of the Rom-Com beats are also very predictable, but that comes with the territory and to be honest is half the fun of these sorts of films, playing genre conventions bingo and trying to guess just when the clichés will rear their heads. And, to the film’s credit,it may be all the same tropes but they at least occur in a slightly different setting to the norm. I certainly can’t think of many other Romantic Comedies about the fishing industry and Anglo-Yemenese relations.

It can often be hard to appreciate the director in films such as this, they are by their very nature not the flashiest. But Hallstrom does a fine job, emphasising the grey, office lit world of humdrum, departmental London, the misty beauty of the Scottish loch and the dry, expansive wonder of the Middle-Eastern desert. He balances all these elements wonderfully, seizing the opportunity afforded him by the greater variety of settings than one would expect from the genre.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen far from ground-breaking, but I see no reason why it has to be. It features two very beautiful people exchanging some often witty dialogue whilst the magnificent Kristen Scott Thomas pops up every so often, all set against the beautiful backdrop that Hallestrom captures. There’s even the odd nice shot of some fish swimming in a river. Salmon Fishing in the Yemen more than adequately serves its simple purpose and provies us with a perfectly watchable little “feel good film”, in short it’s the film version of easy listening music.

Meanwhile (Futurama)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Futurama  is a show that is certainly no stranger to finales, having had three before now. As they, Meanwhile is perhaps its greatest yet.

For a show about the future, its own has always been fairly uncertain, originally cancelled on Fox after four seasons. The story was continued in a series of direct to DVD movies, the success of which led to it being picked up by Comedy Central. Alas, the end came again at the end of two inconsistent seasons on its new home channel.

Season 7 finally saw some welcome progression to the Leela and Fry relationship, and this culminates in Meanwhile. Their relationship was the closest a show as irreverent as Futurama had to a core, and the constant back and forth was something of a personal annoyance. Some of Futurama‘s best episodes are those that explore the Fry and Leela relationship. The “will they, won’t they” is a constant of the sitcom, see Cheers‘ Sam and Diane or Friends’ Ross and Rachel (admittedly it was more of a “when will they on any kind of reliable basis” in the latter’s case). The occurrence of such a trope is not in of itself a problem, more the show’s reluctance to actually explore the possibilities of a change in dynamic as a result of the trope. It was nice to see then that there was some actual progress in this season.

Fry decides after a close call with Leela that he can’t live without her (hardly a shocking revelation after all this time, but the show does acknowledge this, “It’s all so sudden after 13 years”) and so decides to propose. He wishes to not only find the perfect moment, but then make said moment last forever. This is all made possible thanks to Farnsworth’s latest invention, a button which when pressed sends the individual ten seconds back in time. Complications ensue, leading to the button’s destruction and all but Leela and Fry to be frozen in time. They use this opportunity to spend eternity together, walking across oceans and other impossibilities in a beautiful montage.

Perhaps surprising about the episode is its approach to finales. It lacks the fan service element of Into the Wild Green Yonder, finale No.2, featuring instead only silent cameos from show favourites, even the Planet Express crew themselves feature very little. This is truly Fry an Leela’s time. This is not to say that fans will be left unsatisfied. Instead, Meanwhile employs the favourite tropes to give the show a send off, featuring time travel, zany inventions, Zoidberg abuse and Bender nastiness.

The Devil’s Hands are Idle Playthings was the show’s first finale, and is probably the better episode, honestly one of the show’s best. Meanwhile is probably the better finale however, feeling more definitive than its still hopeful predecessor. The aforementioned montage of our too leads spending eternity together has echoes of the incredible Up‘s Carl and Ellie, and their closing decision to “go around again” after the presumed dead Farnsworth reappears with the means to reset the clock ends the episode perfectly, leaving the possibility for further outings should Futurama survive again yet also feeling climactic in its own right. It may well be best to call it a day here, as much as I love Futurama, Meanwhile would be a tricky one to top come the final finale.

Any show is of course difficult to end, but animated sitcoms especially, existing in the endless temporality that they do. One struggles to conceive of a way to end The Simpsons, for instance. Fans not enamoured with Meanwhile have ample alternatives to look towards. Futurama fans enjoy a potentially unparalleled opportunity of being able to bid farewell to their favourite show in so many different ways, with all bar Overclockwise being totally fitting endings.

Birdman, or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (Dir. Alejandro González Iñárritu)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Birdman is exceedingly ambitious, both from a technical and narrative standpoint. Though it soars highly with its ambition, it avoids the same path of the Icarus it so frequently alludes to and ultimately succeeds.

Riggan Thomson is a movie star, famed for his role in the Birdman blockbusters now trying to prove himself as a serious actor by writing, directing and starring in his own Broadway adaptation of a Raymond Carver short story. The film then follows the production and opening night of said play, the whole film taking place by and large within or in the adjoining streets of the theatre.

Technically, Birdman is a trememndous achievement. The central “gimmick” of the film (though gimmick seems too dismissive, its far from a cheap trick) is that it has been carefully and intelligently shot and edited together to appear as though the whole film is one continuous, unbroken take. It is initially a little jarring, the camera’s constant fluidity, but one soon becomes accustomed and it all flows beautifully. It creates and odd blend of almost found footage or fly-on-the-wall and experimental or stage play. A fitting style, as whilst there is an obvious theatrical element due to its setting, the film feels very much like a stage play in a strange play, there is certainly something of an almost un-cinematic quality, but its absolutely captivating.

Keaton leads one of the strongest ensembles in recent memory. Less flashy than the cast of The Grand Budapest Hotel perhaps, but I’d argue equally effective. He and Edward Norton have the lead roles, both essentially playing caricatures of themselves, Keaton an actor struggling to prove himself after the downturn of his box office success, and Norton an incredibly difficult, demanding and interfering performer. Their performances are spectacular, and perhaps more memorable as they are the “showier” performances, though the comparatively more understated performances of the rest of the ensemble are equally enjoyable and necessary in providing some grounding. No one turns in a bad or sub-par performance, it’s a truly equal and effective ensemble cast.

The film overall seemingly has a lot to say about the medium at the moment; Keaton’s casting as a bygone blockbuster star seems utterly appropriate in the age of Marvel. Keaton’s character also has a swipe at Lindsay Duncan’s critic, lambasting her for simply “labelling” things, saying nothing of technique or intent. Indeed, she says she will close his paly with a scathing review for the simple fact that she embodies everything she hates; entitled Hollywood types who know nothing of true art. There also a great discussion of the Internet Age, and how Twitter and the like now shapes the filmmaking process, Duncan’s critic again sucker punching Keaton by assessing him to not be an actor, but a celebrity.

It’s ultimately a difficult film to pin down, a film that is so much a director’s piece and a technical achievement and yet  feels so wholly removed, critical even, of the current world of blockbusters and superhero movies, set almost entirely in the completely separate medium of the stage play. A complicated though ultimately incredibly successful blend, equal parts blisteringly funny and heartbreakingly dramatic, combining more kinetic and slapstick moments (enhanced greatly by the fluidity of Iñárritu’s direction) and the quieter moments of family drama.

Birdman arguably falls down when it comes to its ending, though in its defence a film as bizarre as this is not the easiest to capp off. The film builds to a scene of Keaton defiantly assuming the role of Birdman once more, finally succumbing to the devil on his shoulder that is the Birdman entity, which has been coercing him throughout. The New York skyline subsequently becomes a war zone, the military attempting to fight off a large, robotic bird creature. There are frequently moments of fantasy such as this, Keaton displaying at times telekinetic powers, and its never made explicitly clear as to whether or not these are just imaginings or real goings on. I can’t imagine it really matters in a film such as this, even the score (which is an absolutely stunning percussive arrangement, adding endless amounts of pace and style) appears at times to be diegetic. Some may find these indefinite flights of fantasy harder to accept than others. After a botched suicide attempt, Keaton jumps from his hospital room, and it is left to the spectator to determine his fate from his daughter’s (Emma Stone) reaction. Its a perfectly nice, open ended conclusion, though I couldn’t help but expect something slightly bigger and grander, something louder to close out the film. This being said, Birdman is a film that frequently defies expectations, so the very notion of having expectations is somewhat redundant.

Birdman should be congratulated solely on the basis of its rousing technical achievement, though beneath the surface of the wondrous direction and cinematography, Birdman is a film with a lot to say, and it certainly says it, and it says it exceedingly eloquently. It seems a likely frontrunner come Oscar time, and frankly I think it deserves everything it gets.

10 Things I Hate About You (Dir. Gil Junger)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

I have now seen Gil Junger’s 10 Things I Hate About You twice. And I must say, I was far less impressed the second time round. 10 Things I Hate About You is a modernisation of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. Rather than aiming for the stylised world of Baz Luhrmann’s reimagining of Romeo + Juliet, wherein he maintains the Shakespearean text in his Californian gang war interpretation, 10 Things instead takes a less stark approach. The modernisation works rather seamlessly, updating proceedings to the well trodden halls of the high school Teen Movie and dilemmas of crushes and social status. There are the occasional nods to the bard, Cameron (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) quotes the text directly (“I burn, I pine, I perish!”) and there is a subplot with a Shakespeare loving English student and her suitor. The whole thing slots very nicely into place in its setting, the Bard’s plot never seeming especially anarchistic. If I didn’t know any better, I can’t say that I would have questioned the film’s origins as being anything other than simple Teen fodder. Cameron likes Bianca, but Bianca can’t date boys unless her sister does as well, so Joey who also likes Bianca is convinced by Cameron to pay Patrick to date Kat so he can date Bianca, while Cameron gets to know Bianca. Shakespeare’s comedy fits perfectly in the complications of high school life. 10 Things boasts a brilliant cast, the pinnacle of “gone before their time artists” that is Heath Ledger is thoroughly charming and one is left with no doubts as to why his career took off in the way that it did. He shares a great chemistry with Julia Stiles’ Kat, perfectly snarky and self-righteous, very much an American Dad!‘s Hayley type. Joseph Gordon-Levitt also makes a pre-career resurgence appearance as Cameron. The comedic supporting cast is also fantastic, Larry Miller’s exceedingly overprotective father and Allison Janney’s aspiring erotic novelist both being winners. The standout by far however is Daryl Mitchell’s Mr Morgan, to call him no-nonsense would be an understatement. The film’s best one-liners are thoroughly is, expertly cutting through the high schoolers inflated senses of self importance, “I know how difficult it must be for you to overcome all those years of upper middle class suburban oppression; it must be tough”. The film is so wonderfully a product of its time in the glorious way that so many films and television shows of that era were. Possibly the funniest things about the film are the unfortunate clothes its cast are forced to wear, highly fashionable I’m sure for the nineties…though I can’t imagine Joey’s (the schools self appointed heartthrob) prom suit ever looked good. There’s a nice nostalgia factor to viewing films of this era for Millennials such as myself especially, not quite as bygone as the fifties, for example, and the decade lacked the same kind of definitive, distinct style that the sixties or eighties  possessed to make it stand out. It’s curious to think how the decade will be revered in days to come. I still found myself enjoying 10 Things I Hate About You, though I found it far less memorable, I think I rose-tinted the enjoyment of my first viewing that my expectations were not met second time around. Bar perhaps Ledger’s  performance of Can’t Take my Eyes off You in an attempt to woo Kat, a fantastic scene by all accounts, but I was surprised by how little else stood out for me. The film’s ending is perhaps a little too swift also, building to the reading of Kat’s poem, an interpretation of a Shakespearean sonnet which forms the “10 things” of the title after she discovers Patrick was paid to date her. He of course explains how he truly fell for her as per the tradition of the genre, and the two quickly make up. One could suggest the fault lies with the source material, though I’m not familiar enough with The Taming of the Shrew to comment. Regardless, it’s a little quick and underwhelming. 10 Things I Hate About You brilliantly blends Shakespeare and a contemporary setting, not as ham-fistedly and needless as attempts to modernise can be, though personally underwhelmed upon a second viewing, standing out far less from the very crowded Teen Movie genre than I remembered.

Easy A (Dir. Will Gluck)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Easy A seems a worthy addition to the teen movie pantheon, though I can’t help but feeling I would’ve enjoyed it more if it wasn’t trying so hard to be a John Hughes movie. Easy A tells the tale of Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone), a Californian high schooler who’s life and reputation is thrown into disarray as a white lie escalates into a big rumour.

After lying her way out of  an embarrassing camping trip with her best friend’s family by pretending she had a date, in a moment of hyperbolic silliness she claims to have lost her virginity. This immediately gains her a certain amount of notoriety, Gluck demonstrating how quickly rumours spread in high schools with some clever editing, though it escalates even further when she agrees to play on her new reputation and pretend to have sex with her gay friend Brandon in order to get the bullies off his back. Olive then becomes a professional delooser-iser, being paid in gift cards by the high school underclass to improve their social standings.

An interesting enough premise, playing on the usual high school themes of popularity and reputation and relationships, but what really ties it all together is Emma. I’ve said before that it is her and Andrew Garfield that make The Amazing Spider-Man, and her performance here is another winner. She definitely fits the pop-culture filled, unbelievably witty high school type so common in these films, though doesn’t stray so far that she fails to seem like a believably real person. The whole film is framed through Olive’s narration on a web blog, allowing for something of a Beuller-esq audience relationship without exactly breaking the fourth wall.

This in a way is part of my problem with the film. Stone is great, Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson make for nice on-screen parents, Thomas Haden-Church is of the inspirational yet sarcastic teacher ilk. It all works fine, though I found the attempts to be Hughes-esq too much of a distraction. There are a few obvious homages, Stone’s shower singing being a bath time version of Stars in their Eyes (Tonight Matthew, I’m going to be Ferris Beuller) and Olive even makes a direct reference to life in a John Hughes movie. Paying homage is fine, but when it is of such an iconic style as that of the Hughes teen movie, Easy A just comes of as lacking in new ideas. Though to be fair there are only so many avenues one can take with thigh school genre, but Easy Acertainly lacks Mean Girls unforgettable quoteability that made the latter film such a stand out. Mean Girls has had a generation to take hold however, so maybe I’ll feel differently later when I’m reflecting on my own high school experiences. Not that British high schools are even remotely like the American experience portrayed in such films. The key staples are all in Easy A however for movie bingo or drinking game palyers: clearly defined social heiorachy,chaarxter social subsets identifiable by wardrobe choices, red cups to indicate a party etc. I don’t wish to sound too negative about Easy A, I still found it thoroughly enjoyable even if its originality is questionable, there is a certain amount of comfort to be found in such familiarity. Especially as a Brit, there is a certain aspirational aspect when it comes to viewing these kinds of films.

Easy A follows the Ten Things I Hate About school of thinking, modernising a classic text in a high school setting. Whereas it tackles Shakepeare and The Taming of the Shrew, Easy A is a take on The Scarlet Letter. Easy A actually makes reference to this directly, Olive noting the parallels and even begins to treat it as something of a social experiement, chaning to wear provocative clothing and adorning all of her clothes with a Scarlet “A” to see the reaction it illicits. It makes for a more interesting take, having Olive to some extent enjoy but certainly play up to the stereotype she’s barnded with. One could find something of a morality issue with her actiosn however, she contests that her operations are not like prostitution but one cannot help veering that way, though in Olive’s defence her profession has been forced upon her after her initial kindness to a friend in need. Her parent’s reaction is actually rather refreshing, not taking the more typical hard lined approach but instead being rather understanding of the whole situation.

Whilst it may not win so many points in the originality stakes, its attitude is more refreshing. Easy A is a thoroughly enjoyable little film, thanks to a winning central performance from Stone, a decent supporting cast and a funny enough script it is more than worthy addition to the teen movie roster. And if Tumblr is anything to go by, it seems to have connected with its intended audience far moreso than it did with me, so clearly it has its appeal, not that its appeal was totally lost on me.

Robot of Sherwood (Doctor Who)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Robot of Sherwood is my kind of Doctor Who episode. A downright silly episode, handled with the perfect amount of tongue-in-cheek self-awareness. A sterling guest cast, along with Capaldi and Coleman continuing to be on excellent form all makes for a good episode.

I have a complicated relationship with Mark Gatiss, the writer of Robot of Sherwood. Some episodes I love, The Unquiet Dead is a great, Gothic horror story, but The Idiot’s Lantern and Victory of the Daleks are both exceedingly poorly executed. Here though, his script is brilliantly funny and self-aware. One may question why we’ve not met Robin Hood before now on Doctor Who, as the Prince of Thieves meets the Last of the Time Lords seems such an obvious set up for an episode.

The Doctor (who is still scribbling these chalkboard calculations, an interesting tease, my guess is it is something to do with Galifrey ) gives Clara the choice of where to go, anywhere in space or time. Electing for Robin Hood, the Doctor’s reaction is perhaps unexpected. Where Ten or Eleven would’ve been bursting with excitement at the prospect of meeting the man in tights, Twelve voices his disbelief at his existence. It is an interesting, and perhaps more unexpected change that has come out of his regeneration. This Doctor is not simply more of a curmudgeon than he was before, but he has possibly lost some of his faith, his wonder in the universe as well.

Robot of Sherwood would perhaps not succeed as well as it does if not for the strength of its man in tights (I’m fast running out of Robin Hood descriptive phrases). Tom Riley makes for an excellent Robin Hood, positively swashbuckling and with all the thigh slapping, pantomime, Errol Flynn enthusiasm you could hope for. He’s not just there for comedy however. In the quieter, more dramatic moments Riley equally excels, when the nature of his whole existence is questioned by the Doctor. Ben Miller also adds dimension to a potentially flat villain. The Sheriff of Nottingham is a fairly standard tyrant, though Miller keeps him threatening and still humorous, without going so far as to become totally buffoonish. The titular robots also have a nice design, with laser faces, and the overall aesthetic is a nice blend of medieval knight and futuristic android. The title is perhaps slightly misleading, amusing though it may be, as really the robots themselves factor in very little.

The episode isn’t faultless, as much as I may have enjoyed it. Ben Miller doesn’t really get enough screen time, the robots are underused, and it also has an unforgivably silly ending. The robots have landed in 1190 Ad (Ish) and need gold to fix their ship’s engine. That’s fair enough, though we have just had a stranded robots repairing their ship episode not only two weeks prior. However they don’t have quite enough gold to make orbit, and there is a risk of the ship simply crashing into Sherwood. To remedy this, our heroes fire a lone golden arrow at the outside of the ship, which miraculously gives it just enough power to make orbit before it promptly explodes. Robot of Sherwood is a silly episode, but it is silly in a humorous way rather than being silly through lacking in logic and common sense, and this ending undoubtably hurts the episode.

There’s also a problem with how the episode deals with Robin Hood. The Doctor constantly doubts his existence, and upon discovering the presence of the alien ship, he deduces that Robin is also a robot, created to serve as a hero for the people to cover up the alien plot. When the Doctor relays this idea to the Sheriff, he notes that it would be a stupid idea, intentionally creating an enemy for himself. Except of course it isn’t a stupid idea. It’s a far more interesting idea than the simple acceptance that Robin Hood is real, and I think it’s a real shame that essentially the episode didn’t have the bottle to commit to such an idea and possibly defame a legend. I don’t mind the resolution we receive, Robin Hood’s sentiments that history is a “burden” and that “stories can really make us fly” are nice, though it just seems like something more could have been done with the opportunity.

I can largely forgive Robot of Sherwood simply because of how much gusto the episode gives it. There is so much more good than there is bad, the Doctor and Robin have a sword (and spoon) fight, which is brilliant fun, and Coleman is once agin allowed far more scope to be brilliant than she ever was in the disappointed and misguided Series 7. Her exchange with the Sheriff is just sublime, and along with an archer contest one of the episodes best moments, with Clara totally holding her own and outsmarting Miller’s character. Some people have questioned the developement of Capaldi here, finding his childish and squabbling behaviour with Robin a big departure from the previous two outings. It is a departure, but it all makes sense. It’s just a different side to this Doctor, just as Eleven was an old man in a young body, Twelve is a young man in an old body, something of a petulant child it would seem, constantly trying to one up Robin and impress Clara. It’s a different dimension which keeps things interesting, and it also allows Capaldi the opportunity to flex his well-toned comedic muscles, and with talent like his, that’s nothing to be complained about.

Not faultless, but damn enjoyable. Robot of Sherwood harkens back to the equally silly but also equally self-aware The Unicorn and the Wasp from Series 4, which just so happens to be one of my favourites. Immensely funny but not disposable, Robot of Sherwood is easily the most personally enjoyable episode in a while, and the series continues with promise.

Into the Dalek (Doctor Who)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

After last week’s confused yet promising Deep Breath, I’m less keen on this week’s offering. Into the Dalek is a deft episode still, though personally less enjoyable.

Into the Dalek sees the Doctor and Clara miniaturized in order to investigate the inner workings of a Dalek (we stopped bothering to come up with reasons as to why some Daleks survived the Time war long ago). Though this is no ordinary Dalek. This is a Dalek who has become good, if such a thing is even possible.  Miniaturization for bodily exploration is something of a Science Fiction cliché, though it’s acceptable here as it’s just too good an idea to pass up on. Plus, the fact that Daleks are both organic and robotic creatures allows for some interesting set pieces once inside.

Capaldi’s Doctor was always billed in the run up as a darker Doctor, and it’s interesting to see the direction this is taking. Last week we had the question as to whether or not the Half Faced Man jumped or was pushed, and this week we have the Doctor essentially facilitating the death of a soldier for his own devices. It’s interesting how his darkness is being handled, he hasn’t just reverted to the complete opposite end of the morality scale, it’s more subtle than that.

The Doctor also takes a great deal of personal interest in the Dalek’s own morality, recoiling in horror initially at the idea of there being the possibility of a good Dalek. In the episode’s climax however, the Doctor melds minds with the Dalek so that it may see the universe through the Doctor’s eyes. And the Dalek (nicknamed “Rusty” by the Doctor) does not find wonder or joy in the Doctor’s universe, only hate. Upon declaring his disappointment that Rusty had seen such things in him, that he had not become a good Dalek, Rusty retorts with the suggestion that the Doctor would be a good Dalek. It’s all brilliantly played by Capaldi, who continues to shine. Also deserving of praise is Nicholas Briggs, who as ever lends his voice to the Daleks, though he adds a subtle undertone to Rusty, an almost human inflection, befitting his new-found morality.

Into the Dalek is a refreshing take on a Dalek episode, which can so often become stale and repetitive. 2012’s Asylum of the Daleks was perhaps the most inventive Dalek story of recent memory, though it didn’t capitalize on its concept half as successfully as Into the Dalek does. The episode is otherwise somewhat reminiscent of a base under siege story so popular in the Troughton days, and a returning Ben Wheatley continues to bring a great cinematic feel to the episode, with nicely done action scenes and a great feeling of claustrophobia within the Dalek itself, which helps circumvent the problem of some slightly unrealistic looking sets.

The Doctor and Clara have a nicely developing chemistry, far removed from Clara and Matt Smith’s Doctor’s relationship, though perhaps this is more successful. It’s nice having a distinctly unromantic set up for a change, even the 10th Doctor and Donna who were deliberately designed to not be romantic far too often strayed down that path. There’s an awkwardness and an uncertainty still, but it works well, and Clara continues to try to embrace the change.

Also interesting is the introduction of Samuel Anderson’s Danny Pink, a fellow teacher and love interest for Clara. They share a very awkward but sweet chemistry which is well handled, even if Danny’s introduction isn’t.  From the moment we first see Danny he is in uniform with the Coal Hill Cadets, and is later questioned by his students about his life as a soldier. There’s also a very forced parallel with one of the soldier’s who is fighting the Daleks. It’s all rather heavy-handed and laborious, the only way it could have been made more obvious would’ve been by sticking a post it note to his head saying “I HAVE UNRESOLVED SOLDIER ISSUES WHICH WE BE TACKLED AT A LATER DATE”. Which I’m sure it will, but his introduction lacked subtlety and intrigue.

Into the Dalek is by all accounts not only a very good Dalek episode, but just a flat-out good episode of Doctor Who. And yet for some reason I just wasn’t totally sold on it, but I can’t really work out why. I wasn’t keen on Zawe Ashton’s character, and there have been a fair few companions-that-could-have-been over the years, but Journey Blue doesn’t rate highly with me, nor do any of the guest stars, all are rather disposable and forgettable. It’s a darker episode, but perhaps not dark enough. The issues of morality could have been explored more deeply, especially in relation to the Doctor/Dalek parallel. Such comparisons have been raised before, and Into the Dalek would’ve been a great opportunity to explore it further. I like Doctor Who when it goes down a darker path, Series 4’s Midnight had a wondrously dark concept and it remains a firm favourite, but Into the Dalek doesn’t go quite far enough for me, the right tone just isn’t quite there. Series 1’s Dalek is perhaps the best comparison, visually the two episodes are similar, but I felt as though Dalek did a better job of exploring the Doctor’s psyche, his relationship with the Daleks than this episode does. Perhaps it’s the similarities that are the issue, I can’t shake off the memory of what I feel is the better episode.

Into the Dalek is by all accounts a very good episode, the Doctor and his “carer” continue to be excellent, it’s got a clever concept and some good direction. I can totally see why it’s already been though so highly of, something just wasn’t quit right about it for me. I’m massively in the minority in having that viewpoint as well. Perhaps its just its placement in the series, maybe I could have just done with a frothier second outing for the Doctor.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man (Dir. Marc Webb)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man feels like it could work. I wouldn’t say it’s close to working, but some of the constituent parts I do like, even if the complete package is undoubtedly flawed.

Part of The Amazing Spider-Man‘s problem is a lack of time. Not with the film’s run time, it clocks in at a healthy and superhero standard of 136 minutes. No, time is an issue with regards to the film’s production. The Amazing Spider-Man was made quickly, so as to prevent Sony’s Spider-Man film rights deferring back to Marvel after work on a fourth Raimi directed film had ceased. It’s not the first time that a film has been rushed through production for the purpose of maintaining film rights, Matthew Vaughn’s X-Men:First Class was born out of similar circumstances, and that ended up being one of the best films in that franchise. Marc Webb’s film is far less miraculous, however, struggling in its two-hour plus run time to settle on a focus and develop its characters.

Comparisons with Raimi’s trilogy are inevitable I suppose, but whilst the two are based on the same character, the two films have markedly different approaches and target audiences. Whereas Raimi’s films established the setting as a sort of neo 1960s New York as a work around for the timelessness of comic books, Webb instead thoroughly updates proceedings to an obviously modern world, all smartphones and touch screens. Doing isn’t necessarily a  bad thing, but it doesn’t simply affect the sets and costumes, it has a greater effect on characterization, most notably on Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), Spider-Man himself.

This turns out to be a major problem with the film. In modernizing the Spider-Man set up, Spider-Man himself is modernized, as the stereotypical nerd that is Peter Parker doesn’t really exist  in the same way anymore. So instead in The Amazing Spider-Man he is presented as an angsty teenager with absent father drama. Still intelligent, but now a moody, skateboarding outsider. I should say, this isn’t a problem with Garfield’s performance, he’s a terrific actor and totally sells the character as he is written here, it’s just that I don’t very much like how he’s written. In replacing the  stereotype of the nerd, we’ve ended up instead with simply a more modern caricature. The transformation that Peter undergoes as Spider-Man, not just physically but also as a character, was in many ways his selling point. Peter Parker was essentially an embodiment of his readership, which was why he resonated so much and became so popular. Except here he essentially is Spider-Man anyway, already confident, wise cracking and standing up to the bullies even before he receives his spider bite. Peter ceases to be as likable once he becomes Spider-Man. His remarks and put downs to the criminals was a release for Peter, free rein to be confident with the protection of the mask. Here though, it just comes off as smarmy and unfunny.

The biggest flaw though with The Amazing Spider-Man’s incarnation is in terms of character motivation . It was the death of his Uncle Ben that caused Peter to become Spider-Man in the first place, it was the guilt he felt over Ben’s death as it was his fault. In the comics, Peter exploits his new-found powers for personal gain, and takes the choice not to stop a criminal, which leads to his Uncles death. He becomes a superhero in recompense for his actions. In The Amazing Spider-Man, Peter isn’t responsible in the same way, he still neglects to stop a criminal in this version, though he’s not driven by greed, so there’s no lesson learned from his Uncle’s death. Ben’s death is caused instead by angst. Spider-Man is born out of guilt and grief, and the resonating lesson of “with great power, comes great responsibility”. Yet in this version he becomes Spider-Man simply out of a blind desire for revenge, which isn’t half as powerful a motivation, and really makes Peter less sympathetic. I’m not saying that one can’t play with the source material in an adaptation, but when such alterations affect the core concepts of the character, it becomes a problem.

Even worse is the characterization of the film’s villain. Balancing the villain is tricky in a first superhero film, as they need to be threatening, yet at the same time their origin needs to be fairly easy to explain so that adequate focus can be given to the origin of the hero itself. To this end, The Lizard is a good choice for The Amazing Spider-Man, a scientist who experiments with lizard DNA to use their regenerative abilities to replace his lost arm, only for it to malfunction and turn him into a mutant lizard. Simple enough to explain, and as most of Spider-Man’s villains are born out pf scientific accidents just as Spider-Man himself is, it’s a nice parallel. And yet The Amazing Spider-Man manages to get it all wrong, leaving us with a confused villain lacking in any real motivation. To the film’s credit, the effect that the lost limb has on Dr. Connors is well handled, even if little else is. For some reason, The Lizard develops into a sort of Jekyll and Hyde personality within Connors’ mind, which makes little sense as when transformed as The Lizard, he appears mindless and animalistic and lacking in any consciousness. It’s also hard to understand why Connors keeps taking the serum that transforms him into The Lizard. ,Yes it returns his arm but in return for him becoming a monster. If the film gave a reason for it, if it was shown to be somehow addictive, then I wouldn’t  mind, but it just seems odd. In the film’s climax, The Lizard essentially becomes lizard Hitler and decides to use his serum to turn everyone in New York into reptiles. There’s some explanation given, weak as though it may be, that he wants to rid the world of disease and disability and inequality, but he’s never before seen to be concerned by such issues. It’s truly perplexing. Rhys Ifans does a fine job of playing him I suppose, at least in terms of what he’s given, but he’s hardly remarkable. Even if he’d have chewed the scenery and hammed it up he would’ve at least been a more fun villain, as it is he’s just boring. What makes matters worse is the CGI on his reptilian form, which is just awful, it makes an already difficult pill even harder to swallow.

It isn’t all negative though, there are parts of The Amazing Spider-Man that are more successful. The performances by Garfield and Stone are both excellent, and they have real, natural chemistry. Their relationship is one of few believable things in the film. Martin Sheen also brings a lot of paternal warmth to Uncle Ben, and Sally Field makes an effective Aunt May. The web swinging sequences, and indeed Spider-Man’s overall agility and fluidity work well, though he can look a little obviously CGI’d at times. The fight sequences are generally well handled, nicely choreographed, especially  one that takes place in a sewer, though again it can look too much like it’s been knocked up on a computer. It’s nice having the artificial web shooters as well, and though I’m in the minority, I like the costume, it has a nice, homemade feel, which works well considering Spider-Man is a superhero who operates out of a bedroom in Queens. Stan Lee makes perhaps my favourite cameo as well.

The Amazing Spider-Man‘s biggest problem for me though is its sheer lack of focus. The film is both a Twilight but with superheros as well as a conspiracy filled mystery surrounding Peter’s father’s experiments and his disappearance, and the film just shuffles awkwardly between the two, trying to decide which to focus on. It should give it self up to the love story, it’s handled better and is far more engaging than the other plot line, which goes nowhere and really, adding destiny into the mix really takes the wind out of Peter’s character, the whole ordinary boy angle is what makes him engaging.

The Amazing Spider-Man doesn’t work, though I don’t hate it or even dislike it. I’m surprised by how much it grows on me in spite of its faults, though I think it’s Garfield and Stone’s performances that make it worthwhile, as baffling as the various mistakes may be. It certainly interests me, it’s a perfect study of the effect the industry has on film-making, especially in this day and age, and it serves as a good example of the pitfalls of making a superhero movie. There’s definitely something there, even if it isn’t successfully realized.

Deep Breath (Doctor Who)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

From the moment that Peter Capaldi was announced ( in a rather pantomime and unnecessary way) as the new Doctor, I was brimming with confidence. A seasoned performer of both comedy and drama, and a previous fan of the show, it seemed as though he would be the perfect Doctor. Deep Breath isn’t perfect, but it shows undeniable promise.

With an extended run time, Deep Breath has a very cinematic feel, a result of Ben Wheatley’s (famous most recently for the multi platform release of his A Field in England) direction, and the fact that it was indeed screened in cinemas. Since returning in 2005, Doctor Who has had increasingly good direction, and Wheatley’s presence as a “proper” name director (I’m really not one to make a division between film and TV directors, I think TV is leagues ahead at the minute, hence why many film directors are migrating to television) is really felt on-screen.

It is interesting to have a Doctor début set not in the modern era. Victorian London is not unfamiliar to us in NuWho, we’ve been here many times before, and the presence of the always fun if slightly gimmicky Vastra, Jenny and Strax does help to ease the transition with some familiar faces. But it’s a refreshing change of pace certainly, and immediately, from the setting, to the story style, to the darker direction and cinematography, we get the feeling that it’s all change in Series 8, that there is a tonal shift.

I don’t quite know if the extra run time was necessary, except maybe to make the cost of admission to a cinema more worthwhile. The opening section takes a little too long to get moving, and whilst the dinosaur is fun it seems a little perfunctory, Don’t get me wrong, Doctor Who is built on being perfunctory, that’s half the fun, but it becomes a little more like baggage here, weighing down the episode till we can really get going. It isn’t until they enter the restaurant that everything really gels and clicks, but the moment that happens the episode just full on works.

From the moment that Matt Smith exited his TARDIS doors in The Eleventh Hour, he just was the Doctor. I don’t know if anyone else quite embodied their Doctor as fully in their opener as Smith did. Capaldi’s début performance is excellent, though it seems like not all has been revealed yet, it seems a little less assured than Smith’s dare I say it even as though he’s holding back. I don’t mind this though, as the 12th Doctor is darker, most certainly,and it seems as though Capaldi’s Doctor will grow more as the series progresses. The “Scottish-ness” aspect of his Doctor was handled very well, I must say.

Speaking of the former Doctor, I have rather mixed feelings about the brief cameo he makes. It’s very well handled, I just can’t help thinking I could have done without it. It isn’t unnecessary, it serves its purpose, but regeneration is about change, whereas Matt Smith’s appearance feels like we are clinging onto the past, when really if anything his first episode should be completely the Peter Capaldi show. A nice moment, but it felt as though it stole some of the current Doctor’s thunder.

I have always championed Clara, though I agree that Moffat struggles to write women as anything other than sassy, and I also found that the “impossible girl” angle was slightly unnecessary and really just swamped her character. We really just should have had the Victorian governess as a companion, she’s by far and away the most fun and most well acted part Coleman’s played on Doctor Who. This being said, I still enjoy Clara, especially when she’s given more to do than being a generic companion blueprint. And immediately in Deep Breath, Clara is given far more to work with and immediately Coleman gives perhaps her best performance on the show to date, grappling really well with the confusion and hurt that Clara faces in the wake of the Doctor’s regeneration.

The level of threat can be a tricky balance to judge at times in Doctor Who. With a regeneration episode, there’s so much else to do, the establishment of the new character and status quo and so on, that often the villain can be forgotten. Equally, one doesn’t want to have to spend a good portion of the narrative in Basil Exposition mode. To this end, Deep Breath judges its threat rather well, borrowing the android concept from The Girl in the Fireplace (still easily one of the best episodes of the modern era) though with a slight re-invention to keep things interesting. It also allows for us to indulge in what will perhaps be the first of many character dilemmas with Capaldi’s Doctor. Facing off against the Android Controller, either he needs to jump to his death or be pushed, as it is his destruction that will shut of the other attacking androids. Question is, did he jump or was he pushed? It’s left unanswered, up to the viewer ro decide, but immediately in his first episode we are left to question the 12th Doctors morality, or perhaps lack thereof. It sets us up for the key question of the series;”Am I a good man?”.

On the design side, Capaldi’s costume is just fantastic, stark, sleek and simple, but utterly befitting of him and his character, especially for the darker direction we’re heading for. I also really like the TARDIS interior. I never felt it fit the 11th Doctor, his original interior was far more appropriate, an eclectic mix of parts for a Mad Man with a Box. It suits the 12th Doctor far more so, sleeker and colder, though we’ve had a slight redesign, adding a library and armchair, which is rather fun, and it’s all lit with this fiery glow from the central column that’s rather fierce. The title sequence was indeed based on a fan made version, switching out nebulas and galaxies for cogs and clocks, which works really well. My only issue is that it looks a tad unprofessional, I’d have expected them to tidy up the sequence from the concept, but somehow it seems a little too “home-made”. it may be just because it is such a departure from the norm, it may just take some getting used to. I’m not overly keen on this remix of the theme tune, a little too electronic and hollow for my liking.

Deep Breath is not perfect. I think The Eleventh Hour was more assured and confident, and ultimately more effective at ushering in a new era than this episode is, though to be fair to Deep Breath, the new era it is introducing is quite unlike any we’ve seen before, a greater departure may need more time to fully settle in. Capaldi was a perfect choice and is clearly going to excellent, and the breath of fresh air revitalized Clara as well. As an episode in its own right, Deep Breath doesn’t work perfectly all the time, but it’s still very enjoyable, and as an advertisement for the new series, new Doctor and new direction, it works tremendously, defining the status quo as it stands, and the brief but intriguing introduction of Missy, the Doctor’s “girlfriend” is a real tease. A good effort with a lot of promise, roll on Series 8 and the era of Capaldi.