TITLE: Sex Tape STUDIO: Columbia COUNTRY: US DIRECTOR: Jake Kasdan SCREENWRITERS: Kate Angelo (also Story), Jason Segel, Nicholas Stoller BBFC RATING: 15 (Strong sex references, sex, very strong language, drug use)
IN BRIEF:
Pretty poor but not entirely without amusement - three audible laughs, which is three more than Diaz's previous "comedy" out this year, The Other Woman. It's easy to see at least the first half as an advert for the ipad before it shifts into a weird chapter about 'YouPorn' (strange to think this is considered appropriate for 15 year-olds), including an uncredited surprise cameo. Rob Lowe provides some value as a coke-using Metal fan with a curious collection of Disney-inspired paintings (a gag that wears thin after picture #2). It may be vaguely sexy at the start but by the end it's somewhere from 'meh' downwards. It's evenly lit (not necessarily a bad thing) and pretty cheap looking in places (you can pretty much tell when it's a body double simply by the absence of the star's face and even when you can, it's possible that some photoshopping was employed).
SERIES: Doctor Who EPISODE: Deep Breath (Series 8, Episode 1) REGULAR CAST: Peter Capaldi (The Doctor), Jenna Coleman (Clara) SCREENWRITER: Steven Moffat DIRECTOR: Ben Wheatley TX: 23/08/2014, 19:50, BBC1*
*also presented in cinemas
In Brief:
This is the second (albeit feature-length) "episode" of Doctor Who to be featured in the cinema (and the fourth Doctor Who theatrical presentation if you count the two 1960s Dalek movies adapted from their first two serials) and it's perhaps the best that Doctor Who has looked on the big screen since the trailer for 2007's Voyage Of The Damned (which accompanied the film adaptation of Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass).
The production team have more-or-less delivered on the promise in slowing down** with this new Doctor Who that actually manages to feel new, rather than a continuation (some of last year's efforts may now seem dated in comparison). There is still some phasing out to do (Murray Gold has, with some exceptions, managed to calm down in his scoring), such as some choice slapstick (a scene in which Sontaran butler Strax performs an examination of Clara that, unless it hints at something yet to come later on in the series, should have been left on the cutting room floor. One pretty good gag though, is based around the revealing of a map. They have also touched on previous more possibly romantic tensions between the Doctor and Clara, such as with the new, much older looking man declaring "I'm not your boyfriend."
**although in this case, that may have been due to the extended running time and it will be interesting to see how the pacing goes in the remaining 45 minute installments.
A sequel-ish to 2006's The Girl In The Fireplace and featuring cyborgs with human faces (whom may reminded old-schooled fans of 1976's The Android Invasion) that harvest human body parts (perhaps not an intentional callback to the Aunt and Uncle in Neil Gaiman's The Doctor's Wife), this is perhaps the grimmest episode since, say The Unquiet Dead (also a Victorian-set episode) and the climax isn't too far off from Mark Gatiss' The Crimson Horror meeting Russell T Davies' The Next Doctor, with a hot air balloon made from human skin launching out of a Victorian restaurant. It is also a debut episode for a Doctor that doesn't dwell too much on post-regeneration trauma - Capaldi's Doctor has a fuzzy memory rather than outright amnesia, for instance). There are hints laid out for the series ahead (the apparent existence of 'Heaven' in the Whoniverse, one where cyborgs go when they die, even if by 'suicide') and mysteries brought up that reference (or at least hint at) previous episodes - who was the woman in the shop that gave Clara the Doctor's number last year in The Bells Of St. John? Why does the Doctor now look like Capaldi's Roman character from the David Tennant story The Fires Of Pompeii? And will the answer also explain by the Sixth Doctor looked like the Time Lord security commander Maxil (c.f. The Arc Of Infinity, 1983).
This is, as far as I can tell, the first debut episode in which the new Doctor's features knowingly become a plot point. With perhaps the exception of Troughton, each 'new' Doctor's face didn't seem noticeably aged (due in part to the actors they cast). Jon Pertwee's case is understandable as his face was perhaps selected for him by the Time Lords (his response was, after all, "Oh no! That's not me at all!"). It is interesting to note that the latest regeneration was technically bestowed upon the 'last' Doctor (Matt Smith, who makes a lovely cameo in what will most likely be his last appearance in the series for at least another nine years) by the Time Lords and perhaps there is some vague literary connection. Would it be too much to theorize that he is being punished for his absence in Torchwood's Children Of Earth (perhaps due to running from death after his actions in The Waters Of Mars) by taking on the face of Capaldi's character Frobisher (who, perhaps coincidentally, shares the same name as the comic strip companion, a shape-shifting penguin), who ends up killing himself and his family?
And in most cases, with a new Doctor, comes a new title sequence and theme arrangement. The visuals in this intro were based off the work of a fan (must have been a Blue Peter competition I missed) and the latest theme tune is more stripped down than previous efforts by Murray Gold. The oo-ee-oo (not, oo-ah-oo as in some arrangements) now has a more shrieking, alien-y sound to it. The visual elements focus on the theme of travelling through time (a counterbalance to Sid Sutton's early-to-mid 1980's flights through space). This is also the first series since 1989 to present the end credits in a "slideshow" format rather than by scrolling.
When I rewatch this one, I'd look to look more at Capaldi's performance, particularly towards the end. His confrontation with the "half-face man" is quite Bond-like and him and Coleman seem to make an interesting odd couple (not in the same way that Tennant and Catherine Tate were). His Doctor admits to not being the "hugging" type (the scene, by the way, calls back to Eccleston's first "date" with Rose in The End Of The World) and I like how awkward it seems at first. There is something of Troughton about the area around his now-famous eyes and for the first time since Eccleston (or John Hurt if you want to be picky) here is a more grown up Doctor, and one that one can look up to at that, and isn't simply your "space pal".
Limitless (2011) meets Altered States (1980) then 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969) with a possible bit of Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) as well. Basically, when Scarlett Johansson's brain capacity reaches 100%...
Title: What If Year: 2013 Director: Michael Dowse Screenwriters: Elan Mastai (based on the play Toothpaste And Cigars by T.J. Dawe and Michael Rinaldi Country: Ireland/Canada Rating: 15 ("frequent crude sex references") (UK); PG-13 (US)
Premise: Boy meets girl. Girl is already taken. They decide to be "just friends".
There is a lot of likeable material here and it's beautifully played by the two leads. Daniel Radcliffe plays the very decent, likable guy and you need to see Zoe Kazan in the very likeable Ruby Sparks (which she writes and stars in) if you haven't already. It also manages to be funny, both acerbic and crude (but not obnoxiously so). One and ask whether the more slapstick humour has a place (one plot point featured in the trailer featuring Radcliffe sending Rafe Spall out the window doesn't seem to do much for the story except to perhaps suggest an underlying attempt to break him up with Kazan). Some may also question the conclusion the film takes but it at least can bring up a discussion opportunity. There is also one perhaps slightly suspicious line of dialogue that I may well have misheard. The main problem though, is with the editing. There are scenes in which Zoe Kazan's Chantry talks to her sister about what's going on in the film while Radcliffe's Wallace's own family interaction more or less bookends the film with his own sister played in an entirely unexpected (but entirely welcome) appearance by Jemima Rooper. It would be interesting to read the script for the original play on which the screenplay for this film is based, and indeed to read the screenplay itself to compare with the finished product. It would also be interesting to watch any deleted scenes that end up on a home release. But if you're looking for a youth-targeted, witty, feelgood romantic (or is it?) comedy that is actually funny, this is serviceable enough. One to seek out for Valentine's Day if it's available by then.
There are two things - or rather people - to be cited in this film's defense. One is Angelina Jolie, who is pretty much perfectly cast (even if sometimes it looks like a primary school production of "Sleeping Beauty" somehow managed to afford an A-list celebrity - basically, she's too good for this) in what is made clear from the outset, a "retelling" of the story we know as Sleeping Beauty and made familiar with the 1958 Disney "animated classic", which is evoked throughout the film, namely in Jolie's costume and headgear. If Disney ever planned on a dark, "gritty" reboot of Mary Poppins, Jolie would be ideal for the lead role. The other contributor of note is Lana Del Rey, who provides a cover of the original film's love theme, "Once Upon A Dream":
These two are pretty much the only elements of the previous film that survive what is essentially a remake that is kind-of the Disney equivalent of the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre "retelling" (even the ending somewhat resembles where 2013's Texas Chainsaw 3D took what was previously established as a classic movie villain).
After making her own contribution to the Disney "canon" with Beauty And The Beast (1991) and The Lion King (1994), writer Linda Wolverton penned the Tim Burton-directed Alice In Wonderland (2010), which was more of a sequel that acknowledged the original story via flashback rather than a simple remake. With this film, Wolverton develops a theme and takes a massive step down from the "prestige" of "Classic Disney" (rather than the other way round) by writing a film that, over a decade ago, would have been produced with animation fit only for the Disney Channel and sent straight to video (and would have stuck closer to the original film, too). Here though, we have a film that is a a dark, "gritty"(ish) retelling of a classic children's story that fits somewhere between Universal's Snow White And The Huntsman (2012) and Warner Bros.'s Jack The Giant Slayer (2013), but dressed in what Peter Bradshaw described in his review of Enchanted (2007) as "a cellophane shrink-wrap of corporate Disney plastic-ness" (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2007/dec/14/family.animation) and presented in optional (in this case, avoid) 3D.
As mentioned, this is a remake of-sorts but not merely the "Sleeping Beauty" story, nor the events of the 1958 film shown from Maleficent's perspective, but an origin story whose origin could be traced to the line in the animated film where one of the fairies suggests that Maleficent is "not all THAT bad" that gives some backstory to Maleficent, who is no longer the incarnation of evil but an orphan fairy and jilted lover of king-to-be Stefan (whose own character assassination sees him beg Maleficent not to curse his daughter, rather than order his guards to "seize that creature" and going mad. He ascends to the throne after drugging Maleficent and hacking off her wings in order to pretend that he killed her - understandably, she now seeks revenge as that is quite a cunty thing to do), which recalls the "wicked" Witch of the West's origin in Disney's don't-call-it-a-prequel, Oz, The Great And Powerful. It is during the first act that we are introduced to the concept of the "true love's kiss" on the 16th birthday (perhaps as Maleficent's inspiration for her own birthday gift for Aurora, which is now revised so she'll go into a sleep rather than death seeing as Maleficent is nice now so Merryweather doesn't have to come up with a counter-spell). Other references to the original film include the three "guardian fairies" (the true leads of the original, here reduced more to comic relief) being dressed in green(ish), pink and blue, and their leaning-tower birthday cake.
After the curse, we have the whole fairies-take-Aurora-into-the-forest thing and here, any tension of whether she will be found by Maleficent is thrown out the window as the film moves to focus on their "relationship" - Aurora (Elle Fanning, who is worth seeing in JJ Abrams' Super 8 and Sofia Coppola's Somewhere) grows up to assume this woman she met as a child is her fairy godmother and earns the "affectionate" nickname, 'Beastie' (as far as revisionism goes, especially with the ending, it's not far off the near-bestial romance of Catherine Hardwicke and David Johnson's post-Twilight take on Red Riding Hood but without the romance). During Aurora's growing into not-quite-womanhood, Maleficent sits by and plays magical pranks on the real godmothers. No, seriously. And in this version of events, her crow companion is granted the ability to shift shape (sometimes at Maleficent's command) so he can resume the human form of Sam Riley because reasons.
There is, perhaps, an interesting idea at the heart of the film, of having some connection between Maleficent (now more of an anti-heroine than a clear-cut villain) and Aurora (whose gift for singing is passed to Del Rey and replaced with the gift of never being sad - it didn't work) but only the idea itself is the really the interesting thing rather than the execution. Maleficent even tries to revoke the curse but, having bound it so no power could undo, she finds herself unable to take it away so even while she tries to rescue Aurora before it's too late (yes, really), whatever power works its magic works of its own accord and manifests a spinning wheel for Aurora (who is shown to have an irritation with her finger) to make the required prick to be sent into a coma. Furthermore, Philip (who here, is presented as even duller than the original and doesn't get to say "No carrots!") is proven pretty useless when it comes to being a "true love" (again, a somewhat interesting take on the story) and it's up to Maleficent to ultimately save the day and Stefan is dealt with in a shot that reminds one of Die Hard, of all films.
If the intention is to turn elements of the original story on its head (such as the prince being useless and setting up a bond between Aurora and Maleficent) then sure, but my concern is more to do with simply making the villain "nice". Another thing to point out is that Maleficent's fairyland of origin, The Moors (situated between two kingdoms), is initially set up without a monarch and by the end, Aurora is their queen. Go royalty.
And one or two more comparisons I shall make with the original film. The scene in the original where Aurora is drawn to the spinning wheel is actually quite creepy and the film pretty much turns into a horror movie whereas here, despite the CG monsters, there is nothing particularly scary (only one shot of Maleficent standing in silhouette warrants some merit). And talking of CGI, none of it is as impressive as the '50s-era design of the original's backdrops, which look very impressive in a bang-up restoration job on the latest Blu Ray release.
*Possible Spoilers* TITLE: Postman Pat The Movie DIRECTOR: Mike Disa PRODUCER: Robert Anich Cole SCRIPTWRITERS: Annika Bluhm, Nicole Dubuc, Kim Fuller YEAR: 2014 COUNTRY: UK UK DISTRIBUTORS: Icon Film Distribution, Lionsgate PLOT: Postman Pat enters a talent show and gets famous. REVIEW: Your liking of this film may depend on how you like your Postman Pat served. If you like it with scary robots and slapstick violence (and you do not mind it being computer-animated as opposed to using the traditional stop-motion), then this should provide sufficient entertainment. Made in 3D but seen in 2D, the main bit that I would have liked to have seen in an "immersive" third dimension is the lovely opening establishing shot that takes us into the digitally-recreated world of Greendale. The 1981 Postman Pat TV series was of no particularly noticeable genre (co-creator Ivor Wood's previous work dabbled in fantasy, e.g. The Magic Roundabout and The Wombles) but the film is perhaps surprisingly film-literate, make references in particular to Science-Fiction and fantasy classics in film (The Wizard Of Oz, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Terminator) and television (Lost In Space, Doctor Who). One can even look to the voice cast, which includes performers from Harry Potter and Doctor Who. There is also a key point of introducing (actually quite creepy) robot duplicates of Pat ("PatBots") and Jess, brought in by evil corporate-type Carbunkle as part of his take-over plot. The writers (including Annika Bluhm, who has worked on Special Delivery Service incarnation of the series) demonstrate their screenwriting knowledge by setting up a goal for Protagonist Pat by having him enter a talent show in the hopes of winning a trip to Italy to take his wife Sarah for a "proper Honeymoon", and introducing perhaps the series' first antagonist (someone correct me on this) in Carbunkle, who wants to replace all the SDS workers with robots. The key family film-friendly theme looks at how Pat's fame costs him his family time (interestingly, due to his popularity as a result of being in a TV talent show) and the subsequent attempted take-over plot with robot doppelgangers leads to Pat's friends and co-stars being alienated from him in a case of mistaken identity. The humour is also actually quite witty, although not quite on the level of Aardman. It is also somewhat interesting what the filmmakers actually managed to put in and get away with, free of whatever restrictions would have been place for the television series, albeit played down so there is very little to be concerned about. There is at least one suggestion of gross-out gag where Carbunkle introduces a bring-your-own-toilet-paper policy to the Special Delivery Service and an employee is worried, having recently eaten a curry. And the insinuation that Pat's glasses make him look "a bit dodgy" may not sit too easily in a post-Savile world. Another plus is that the dialogue and performances rarely, if ever, feel like they are patronizing the audience, although if I had a bone to pick, it would be that this version of Jess seems rather overly anthropomorphic, whereas the TV incarnation seemed to have not-quite a deadpan expression. Perhaps something more akin to Gromit would have been preferable. There is also quite an amount of slapstick violence, ranging from the PatBots delivering mail, to David Tennant's character Wilf trying to foil Pat in scenes resembling a Wile E. Coyote short. Anyone objecting that Postman Pat was never violent should look to the 1981 episode Pat Takes A Message. Claiming to be "based on the original television series" co-created by Ivor Wood and John Cunliffe, 'the Movie' is fairly ambiguous in its place within the Postman Pat canon. IMDB lists it as a "remake" but having 'the Movie' in the title suggests a spin-off of some sorts. The main cause of head-scratching comes when Pat's fame spawns a franchise that includes a TV show "with puppets" and we hear a sample of Bryan Daley and Ken Barrie's theme song, thus putting into question whether this is the "real" world of Pat and that the TV series is retroactively a product of this world, or whether it is just pure meta and a way of the film poking gentle fun at the franchise that spawned it, before it even sends itself up (villain Carbunkle's plan suggests a "computer-animated film"). There is also the suggestion that Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay are involved in a film (something to watch, even if just to see how things could have been worse). The animation is fairly faithful to the original design and there are cameos and supporting roles from familiar characters (although Sam Waldron is nowhere to be seen, like Edward was missing in Thomas And The Magic Railroad). Perhaps if this is successful enough, how about the filmmakers consider adapting other Woodland Animations shows (Gran, Bertha, Charlie Chalk) before an Avengers-style team-up?
UK Title: 'Bad Neighbours' Director: Nicholas Stoller Screenwriters: Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O'Brien
Having not yet really seen any of the apparent auteur Stoller's previous work ('The Five Year Engagement', 'Get Him To The Greek', and 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall'), I could not really take any proper artistic preconceptions in (and had not watched a trailer, besides glimpsing a TV commercial).
However, after an amusing opening scene, there is eventual laughter to be had. It's not filmed in a particularly disciplined style (possibly almost cine-verite-ish in places but that's not to say it's like 'Project X' in that regard) and certain sequences even recall Gaspar Noe (c.f. 'Irreversible' and 'Enter The Void').
I should not give away what did make me laugh (and I would even have to sit down and write from memory what some of those moments were). I would say that if you were thinking of watching it, laughter can be guaranteedbut I'm not sure I would go out of my way to recommend it in the same way I might for, say, 'Muppets Most Wanted' or 'The Lego Movie'. But for this kind of comedy, it's perhaps above 'The Heat' (which I did find quite funny in places) if one was to go purely by the number of laughs but I may prefer 'This Is The End'. It's certainly funnier than '21 And Over'.
Zac Efron is an interesting actor to watch and I'm not quite settled on what I make of him. But if you want to see a film in which he tries to shed his 'High School Musical' image, I'd suggest 'The Paperboy' (in which he gets stung by a jellyfish and Nicole Kidman wees on him).
