Just realised I didn’t post a review of last weeks Doctor Who episode and there is a new one due later today!
Flesh and Stone was the conclusion of the Weeping Angels storyline (my 3 year old daughter calls them the Peeping Angels which seems so much nicer). It gave us information on what the Crack is or could be, what River Song is up to and moved on the Amy Pond is getting married in the morning story. However, it also raised more questions. I’ll get to them in a bit.
The wrap up of the Weeping Angels was handled pretty well, but the suspense from the previous episode was missing. The Crack in Time was interesting and sad when the soldiers went to investigate and were forgotten by their team mates as they were erased from time. This also explained why Amy could not remember the Daleks. The fact that the Doctor kept mentioning that time coule be rewritten means he may well have a go himself somewhere down the line. Why is the Crack following Amy?
The most intriguing bit was when Amy had to keep her eyes closed and the Doctor headed off with River to sort out the ship. The Doctor when he left was without a jacket (the Angels got it earlier). The camera stayed on Amy and the Doctor was back within seconds and told her to remember when she was seven – If you recall in the first episode you see young Amy sitting outside and then the sound of the TARDIS, but it hasn’t been mentioned since – The Doctor was filmed close up, but you could tell he was wearing his jacket. The next scene saw the Doctor with River and he again had no jacket. You can see what I mean in the clip below – starts round about the 1:45 mark.
I put it to you that the Doctor with the Jacket was from the future and he came back to speak to Amy at that point (the previous episode showed that the TARDIS can materialize without the distinctive sound – see clip below) and means we are having a great big weaving through time storyline. It could also explain how Amy has been so helpful in previous episodes. Maybe she keeps getting told spoilers.
All just a theory of mine, but you never know.
River Song’s character was fleshed out and we learnt she was in prison as she had killed a man, the greatest man she ever knew. Does that mean she at some point kills the Doctor? When it is Matt Smith’s time to regenerate will it be because of River Song? Is she going to be his Wife or is that misdirection?
The death of Father Octavian was very well done and rather emotional. Great acting by Iain Glenn.
All things to ponder on. Matt Smith gets better with each episode and I love the fact he doesn’t know what his plans are going to be until he finishes speaking. I get the impression his brain is full of so much stuff that he talks to focus it all on the matter at hand. Karen Gillan as Amy was great, but the bit at the end when she came onto the Doctor seemed a little forced and didn’t seem to fit with the characters we have seen so far.
However, the Doctor realises that she is at the centre of all the cracks and that the time explosion which created them occurs on the day of her wedding.
To sum up. Not as good as the previous episode, but great that it moved the whole story arc forward. What did you think of it all?
Episode Four of Matt Smith’s Doctor Who and things took a turn to the spooky with the return of the Weeping Angels. Spoilers ahead.
Blink was one of Steven Moffat’s great episodes from the David Tennant era. The Weeping Angels, creature that cannot move if you look at them, are genuinely chilling and a great monster.
Now they are back along with River Song who is literally the Time Traveller’s wife. Her and the Doctor have an ongoing relationship that he discovered back in the silent library. The only thing is the Doctor is still at the early days of the relationship.
Song’s return was a great start to the episode, which also had a small part for The Street’s Mike Skinner. She was all Catwoman thief style and leaving a message for the Doctor to read 12,000 years in the future was fantastic and I love the way Moffat uses the whole concept of time travel in his stories as opposed to many who just have the Doctor turn up in whatever time and that is the end of it until the story runs its course.
Other great bits from the start were finding out the Doctor likes the TARDIS to fly without stabilizers as it is more fun and the iconic sound of the TARDIS materializing is simply because he leaves the breaks on (Matt Smith doing the sound of the TARDIS was rather funny).
Before too long we are with the Weeping Angels – great bit finding out that whatever has the image of an Angel becomes an Angel. Having the image move on a repeated 4 second segment was nice and chilling – lots of dark tunnels, soldiers of the Church with guns and people getting killed one by one, all while the Doctor and River Song bicker like an old married couple. Luckily companion Amy Pond manages to hold her own and you get her feeling of excitement as she journeys to another world.
Moffat used a similar concept from the library story. Both the Weeping Angels and the Vashta Nerada used people they had killed to speak to the Doctor over a com-link. Not sure if there is anything in that apart from Moffat likes to use that for dramatic effect.
All in all a great episode and probably my favourite of the series so far. Matt Smith’s Doctor finally seems to be in control of the situation- I like the fact his Doctor usually knows exactly what to do, it just takes a minute for him to focus on that thought. Alex Kingston as River Song is a great character, mysterious and all knowing which makes a change from most people the Doctor encounters. Karen Gillan again shows her companion is clever, brave and a boon to the Doctor.
All that topped off with the Weeping Angels. Great stuff and looking forward to the next part of the story.
What did you think of the episode? Post your thoughts, theories, rants in the comments below.
Great news for fans of Joss Whedon (oh Firefly!) but a rumour from a few weeks ago that said he was in the running to direct The Avengers for Marvel Studios could well be true.
Deadline (who are usually spot on with these things) have the news that Joss Whedon is in final negotiations to direct The Avengers.
That means he would be in control of Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), as well as SHIELD leader Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and whoever else they decide to include – possibly the Hulk, the Wasp, Hawkeye.
After Iron Man 2, Marvel has three pictures left on a distribution deal with Paramount before it moves to Disney, and the studio has been churning them out. Iron Man 2 gets released in May, Captain America will begin shooting this summer in Europe, Thor is in production, and Marvel Studios just set Pete Sollett to direct Runaways, based on the comic book series created by Lost writer Brian K. Vaughan. Whedon also wrote for that last one along with Astonishing X-Men so he knows how these things work.
True, Serenity is his only feature film, but all of his shows involve an ensemble cast of people with various abilities so his transition to directing the team of Avengers should work quite well.
I really think he is an excellent choice for the film although it is still not set in stone. Do you agree that Whedon is the one to direct the Avengers or is it a terrible choice? Who else should they have on the team?
The Avengers is due out in May 2012.
UPDATE: Variety have picked up on the news that Whedon is in final negotiations to direct and if it does go ahead he will also rework the screenplay by screenwriter Zak Penn.
It will be nice if this all happens. Now another question – if he could bring in some of his crew what characters would you like to see the following play?
Nathan Fillion – Neil Patrick Harris – Charisma Carpenter – Felicia Day – Summer Glau
Reviews of Kick-Ass are steadily coming through the internet and many of them say how good Nic Cage is as Big Daddy. That character is the father of Chloe Moretz’s Hit Girl. In the film Cage based his performance on Adam West’s delivery from the old Batman TV series – initially jarring, but works well.
That got me thinking. Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns is one of the all time classic graphic novels. It has an older Bruce Wayne putting the cowl back on to clean up an messed up Gotham. Robin is a girl this time and a similar dynamic to the Kick-Ass set up. Plus Batman ends up beating the crap out of Superman who is a stooge for the CIA.
Therefore, just as a way of passing the time I put the following to you:
Going past the Adam West performance, would Nicolas Cage be a good Bruce Wayne / Batman of they ever made The Dark Knight Returns?
John Carpenter’s Escape from New York is a classic and deservedly so (we won’t mention Escape from LA). Kurt Russell as Snake Plissken is one of cinema’s greatest antiheroes. It is one of those films that still stands up today and you would be hard pressed to capture that kind of magic again.
Of course that means nothing to Hollywood who have been trying to get it remade for a few years now. Len Wiseman was set to direct it and Gerard Butler was rumoured to star as Snake. Things moved on and creative differences meant they were no longer attached and a workable script just didn’t seem to be possible. Everything put forward was just too expensive for the studios. John Carpenter also had a contract drawn up saying that in any remake the main character had to only be called Snake, always wear an eye patch, and, “always be a ‘bad-ass.” John Carpenter is always cool.
Scripts for the remake could never capture the essential bad-assedness needed for Snake. Until now.
Now Vulture have the news that writer Allen Loeb (Wall Street 2) has written a script has Snake Plissken as a bad-ass and is cheap enough for the studios.
Loeb nailed the humour in Plissken without slipping into camp, and he changed Snake’s rescue-mission target from a president to a female senator, thereby upping the banter quotient. But just as big a factor was economic: They found a much cheaper way to turn Manhattan into a giant prison.
This cheaper way was to keep the city in one piece, but the population evacuated.
This Manhattan was evacuated and turned into a privately run penal colony after the detonation of a crude radioactive dirty bomb on the outskirts of the city. “It is not a disaster movie,” says a source close to the project. “It is an exposé of an ecosystem, if you put a huge wall around Manhattan and then dropped in the most fucked-up, dangerous criminals on Earth.” This means New York will still be recognizable to audiences, à la I Am Legend, rather than an entirely new Armageddon Island.
Whack a great big wall around the place (CGI could take care of this) and there is your prison. I am not sure about changing the President to a female senator. Going to rescue the President (Donald Pleasance in the original) straight away told you how big a deal the mission was.
Like in the original movie, the authorities have set up shop in the Statue of Liberty (though this time it’s not the police, it’s a private, KBR-like security company), and now new prisoners are being processed through Ellis Island.
At least it sounds as if they have put a bit of thought into it all. Yet, it could so easily be terrible.
There is still no need for a remake, but it looks as if it is going to happen. Therefore, who should direct it, but more importantly, who has the balls to play Snake?
As we all know, the next Spider-Man film will be a reboot and is getting a new director plus a new Peter Parker. As it is going to be set back in his school days (they seem to be doing an Ultimate Spider-Man style reboot) we’ll probably need a younger face for the role – mind you this is Hollywood we are talking about so you never can tell who they’ll pick .
UPDATE: “Of course,” Webb told MTV News when asked if he was a fan of Spider-Man. “Stan Lee, big fan … love the ‘Ultimate [Spider-Man]‘ stuff.”
Name-dropping the Spidey co-creator and the “Ultimate Spider-Man” series that many (including Splash Page) have indicated as a potential source material for a “Spider-Man” reboot, Webb played coy on whether he was indeed among the favored directors for Peter Parker’s next big-screen adventure, he certainly didn’t seem opposed to the idea.
“How could you not be a fan of Peter Parker and Spider-Man?” he asked.
Would his “500 Days of Summer” star Joseph Gordon-Levitt make a good Peter Parker? He’s one of the choices in the poll below.
“Joseph Gordon-Levitt would make a good Meryl Streep — he can do anything,” laughed Webb.
Reluctant to tip his “Spider-Man” hat, Webb simply said, “I hope so,” when asked if we should expect an announcement regarding his next project any time soon. – Cheers to Pat for sending me the link – END OF UPDATE
Which one of the actors below would you want to see wearing the red and the blue?
Yes, yes, I know that there has been no story set for a third Batman film and Christopher Nolan is still not definitely said he is going to do it or what characters will appear.
However, it is Friday and the weekend is almost upon. I thought I would ask you, dear reader, who you think would be most suitable to play Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman. If there is someone else you feel would be best in the role who I haven’t put in the poll then whack their name in the comments below.