The Day of the Doctor

Well, I watched the day of the doctor on Space's website last night. And I have to say, I was... unimpressed.

I have a love-hate relationship with Doctor Who. I like the show's premise, I like a lot of the actors, and on occasion it has stories that really interest or excite me. Most of the time, however, I find the stories to be lacking, or to be ham-fistedly pounding in nihilistic anti-religious worldview in the Tennant seasons. My favourite episodes (The Impossible Planet, parts 1 and 2) weren't written by the standard writers, unsurprisingly and most likely because it dared to claim not everything can be explained, even by The Doctor.

The Day of the Doctor was over-all underwhelming. After all the hype, all the build up in the preceding episodes, what we got was a rather disappointingly average Doctor Who episode. The best part was when he met the Curator, only because the actor was my favourite doctor, and he was delightfully eccentric as always.

Even more disappointing, I think we all had it in our heads that this was when the 12th doctor would die, and we would finally see the 13th doctor. But all we got of the 13th doctor was his eyes. Cool shot, but rather disappointing.

On the plus side, it was nice to see David Tennant again. He's a fantastic actor and was a great doctor, and John Hurt did a fantastic job in his role as well. Could have done without the not-Rose-Tyler character. I never liked her actor much, and I liked the character even less. All in all, I'd have to say the 50th anniversary special was a massive disappointment, and proof that we need to fire Moffat and hire that guy who wrote The Impossible Planet, because he's awesome and we need more episodes like that.

Oblivion by Joseph Kosinkski

Yeah, I was pretty surprised when I found that out. After the way he butchered my favourite television franchise, I kind of lost a lot of respect for him as a director. And this is coming from someone who really enjoyed Lady In The Water, if only because the characters were so memorable.

Oblivion is not a bad movie. It's not a good movie, but it isn't bad either. I have to side more with Rotten Tomatoes, who gives it a 53% with 215 reviews. Bafflingly, IMDb gives it a 7/10 with over 150 thousand votes.

 I want to say it was 'visually stunning', but it really wasn't. It felt flat, sterile, and without much character to it, and the same can be said for Tom Cruise in this film, who seems to be riding the crazy-train in this movie. At least he's enjoying himself. The acting is well done, which is unsurprising since it's a cast populated by Hollywood A-Listers, but the same can't be said for the story or characters, who are all bog-standard sci-fi tropes. Which can be the most I can say about this film. It's a bog-standard sci-fi action film. Pretty typical summer fare, designed to cash in at the box office.

The "big twist" in this film isn't actually all that jarring, and is well integrated into the plot, although it does leave a weird after-taste in your mouth at the film's conclusion.

Overall, I'd have to say that this film commits the worst crime of all: It bored me. Not that the pacing was bad, the pacing was fine. It was just that the film is so typical sci-fi fare, that it just fell flat. The best sci-fi should say something about the human condition, but the message this film sends is so dull and trite, and the characters so uninteresting and unengaging, that we don't connect with them enough for the ending to have any impact.

The World's End, directed by Edgar Wright

The third film in the so-named "Cornetto Trilogy", with the other two being Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead, The World's End is a fun film, but not without it's flaws.

It has the same fun tone as the previous two films, with what I feel is strong cinematography, fun references to ongoing, and enough changes that people who have see Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead will be able to appreciate them.

One of the biggest changes is the switch between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's characters. Where Simon Pegg normally plays the no-nonsense straight man, in this movie that role is taken on by Nick Frost, with Pegg playing a man-child who can't let go of his teen years, and whose been going through some rough times, and Frost plays his former best friend and the two have had a falling out.

My biggest problem with this movie is that it feels like two movies, and each film could have been strong on its own, but being put together they fall kind of weak. The first film is about a man who is trying to recapture his teen years, and bringing his band back together for one last hurrah. The other is a film about a small rural town in England being silently invaded by robotic replicants. While Wright does a good job of keeping the tone of the film steady, it doesn't make the shift between the two acts any less jarring or feel any less forced. Despite the jarring shift, however, the film does a fairly good job of keeping the ball rolling up until the weak climax of the film, which was a disappointment for me as I've thoroughly enjoyed both of the other entries in the trilogy. I won't spoil anything, but if you've seen the movie you no doubt know exactly what I mean about the climax of the film.

That said, it's a good movie to see on the big screen and I strongly encourage everyone to go and see it. If nothing else, the acting and the action sequences alone make the film worth seeing.

Andre van Heerden's Deceived (Not that you know who that is...)

So, just watched Deceived by Cloud 10 pictures (the people who made Left Behind). Well, it wasn't... great. Wasn't exactly bad either. 

I don't mind films with religious storylines at all, and if done right these movies can be really good. But this film crosses the line from a compelling story about a person whose lost his faith and then finds it again, to a film that is preachy and overbearing.

The movie is made-for-TV quality and seems like something that would get broadcast on the Christian Life Network or some sort of evangelical Christian version of Space. That said, it wasn't that bad. Honestly if they just cut down the diatribes and showed us way more than just spilled exposition all over our laps, it wouldn't have been a half bad sci-fi story with some religious underpinnings. The main problems come from the complete lack of characterization for the supporting cast, making their eventual possessions much less noticeable. We don't really get a chance to know much about them before they turn 'evil', so it becomes tough to really understand what the big change was.

Judd Nelson saves this film. He plays the main character, a technician named Jack, and he's the only one who really sells his character. The other actors were definitely trying, they just lacked Judd's skill. My biggest issue was not in how Jack was played, but in how everyone talks about Jack as being a "geek" and unattractive. This was made in 2002, people, geeks weren't that uncommon back then! Also, I don't care how geeky he is, Jack was not an unattractive character!

If you recognize the name Judd Nelson, that's because this is the guy who played John Bender in the Breakfast Club in 1985, and he was also in St. Elmo's Fire. 

Overall? It had flaws, definitely. But if you can find it for cheap somewhere, might be worth picking up for a corny movie night.