Knocking Four Times...

“It is told that I will knock four times,” the Doctor tells Donna's grandfather, Wilifred, when he explains over the dinner table that his end is coming along. Soon.

The last hoorah for David Tennant in the latest incarnation of Doctor Who is spiraling towards the end with a favorable pace and style. Though the story does leave for some disappointment. There is, however, more good than bad.

Considering that these are supposed to be his last episodes, we are left with a story filled with the end of the world trademark. Here's to hoping that the payoff will be a good for for the next, and final, installment for the Tennant period.

Everyone in the world is having bad dreams. It is revealed through the dreams that the arch-enemy of the Doctor is coming back from the dead. His imminent return is sparked by a black arts ritual. Even in death, the Master remains a threat. The Christmas special “The End of Time” focuses on the brotherly rivalry between the Doctor and the Master which stretches across the timeless ages. They are lost souls in the middle of the battlefield.

The Doctor's previous assistant Donna grows more aware of the things going on around her as her memory is slowly returning at the risk of burning her thoughts out. And her grandfather becomes a new player in the ongoing saga of the end of time. He finds that he has a role to fill as he brings his old World War II revolver that he has never used before.

It becomes evident that the government is behind something of importance in which the Master grows entangled with as he is captured by the new prime minster of England. It is called the Immortality Gate. By taking over the device, the Master restructures the world in his own imagery much like the god in the old testament in the bible. The only ones who are not affected are the Doctor and Wilifred who are protected by radiation shields while Donna is still a Time-Lady who's unearthly body is different from humans. Naturally, as already seen before, Capt. Jack of the Torchwood series has left earth already. So he isn't affected either.

It is left at the very end of the show that the original Time-Lords are coming back to straighten out this whole mess. But they're coming back with a sheer force as they are gods of time.
It's not a bad episode. Russell T. Davies might be overreaching himself with too many ideas being thrown together to create something big, BIG. It works to a certain extent.

But we're left with the Master looking like Keuana Reeves from the Matrix flying around like Superman. There's John Simm going overboard with his performance as the Master which might have been better if he was more restrained. Some of the aliens appearing about halfway in the show seems uninspiring.

The whole thing with an actor as Obama appearing in the episode is bit silly. What are we going to expect next? Bin Laden versus the Doctor next? Saddam comes back from the dead? That's just silly. After the whole changeover, the bit with the Master looking like a lady in a dress is just silly.

That word “silly” just keeps popping up in my head.

I'm making a wild guess about the Doctor knocking four times... judging from the next show's trailer, he will be using the old revolver four times. Probably once on himself to save the world, if not the universe. Just making a guess. But we won't see the final show until New Year's Day.

So what worked in the episode of the “End of Time”? The little details work out the most. The conversation between the Doctor and Wilifred works out so well as they watched Donna live her life at a safe distance. Bernard Cribbin's performance as the grandfather is one of the highlights in the show. I wish I could have seen more of the Master's estranged wife Lucy (Alexandra Moen) who was pretty good in this too.

The whole bit with the grandfather's friends coiling around the Doctor like a league of fans is a pretty good spot too. It's a good crack up to see an old woman pinching the Doctor while they were getting their photo taken together.

I can see that Davies is trying to wipe the story clean for the forthcoming show runner to come around and make his own stamp on the series. I'm thinking he's saving the best for last which will be an extended show for New Year's Day. The bits with Timothy Dalton appearing as what looks like the head of the Time Lord council looks pretty awesome which makes hair curl. I hope Dalton scares the “living daylights” out of the Doctor.

The Time Lords do look pretty a formidable lot indeed. They look like they are returning to the original status of being gods in the cosmos. They don't look like anyone should be screwing around with. They mean business.

I do hope the next show will be a good one. It's a bit of a gamble working your way up to the single most anticipated show with Tennant going one last round as the Doctor before turning the page in the history books. I have always made my case concerning Tennant's all too soon departure from the series. I have always preferred that he did an entire season of thirteen shows in the series instead of doing a handful of specials. But he wanted to take leave now instead of letting his character and series develop a little more. He might have gone a bit big-headed since his status as an actor has grown immensely on both sides of the Atlantic. He didn't want to feel too chained to the Doctor Who series.

I still say it's a bit of a mistake leaving the one role that made him famous.

I'm sure he'll regret in in time. Much like Christopher Eccleston's fast departure in the role as well. Maybe the actors do regret it after a time. A role like this doesn't come often in a lifetime.

However, the last show will be met with final thoughts and deep sorrows. Everything will be moving on. And I will be looking forward to the next episode. At least we won't have to be waiting so long this time around. Just a matter of a few days. What will we be expecting? Something big, I'm sure. Maybe the final revealing of what really happened during the height of the Time War that has always been the backdrop of the series.

Who knows? Yes, exactly. Who knows. And it could be the one secret that he has been carrying for the longest time, his guilt which has followed him to his very grave.

Sherlock Lite

There are a lot of interesting things in the latest updating of the Sherlock Holmes film. And it is merely that. An update.

And interesting.

However diverting the character is in the original stories by the Victorian author has been tossed away for chunks of action and fast paced sequences that may be suitable for more action films. But not for something like Sherlock Holmes.

Whatever the result, it isn't bad. I felt that the character of Sherlock Holmes always meant things about high deduction and skillful tapping of information while uncovering a crime. He is an ideal character for smarts. And also the perfect one for using in a big blockbuster winter movie that comes out on Christmas holiday.

But it feels wrong. Sherlock Holmes isn't James Bond. The movie developed by director Guy Ritchie is not a terrible flaw. The director is very skillful of what he does. But he isn't right for the character of Sherlock Holmes. Far from it. If the director wanted to do something involving classy martial arts moves and high volume action, he should have done a kung fu flick with well known fighters in the arts.

Sherlock Holmes is in a world all of his own. He isn't super cool. He is super smart. But I suppose nerds aren't very cool with people. But big tough guys are.

It's far too easy to compare the film to the stories created for the television run which starred Jeremy Brett as the Victorian amateur sleuth for hire. Those stories were highly crafted material meant for the slow uncovering of crimes and marveling at the witty techniques performed by the science of this man who uses logic to explain away many of the wrongdoings.

Not only that, but Brett was an Englishman playing the part of the master detective. Brett did a superb job at the role that the role belongs to him in the 41 stories he's done for Granada Television. Now I do like Robert Downey Jr. very much as an actor and think highly of him in films like Iron Man and Tropic Thunder since he always displayed a wide range of abilities. Again, it feels wrong. Considering Downey Jr. is an American actor.

The film based on Lionel Wigram's story makes for a great departure from the Sherlock Holmes tradition by throwing in huge portions of action. There's a lot of fighting everywhere that it makes you feel like you're turned to the wrong channel of boxing or sports.

It's as if the director is trying to make Sherlock Holmes into an awesome street fighter. But what is awesome about Sherlock is his wits... defining his abilities to solve problems.

Yes, he does that in the film too. I do appreciate the fact that the writers try to bring in the idea of the supernatural to boggle the super logical mind of Sherlock in the film. For a while, he was at the end of his ropes. However, he comes to struggle with the outside forces overseen by one named Lord Blackwood, probably a reference to the supernatural writer Algernon Blackwood.

There are rituals and black arts plenty with several sacrifices to create the so called coming of darkness. This is well done. I've always thought Sherlock Holmes would run into a mind block if he tried to figure out something supernatural. He comes close to it here.
Sherlock Holmes does explain away the supernatural eventually with his science. This is one of the most interesting parts of the film when the use of flashblacks shows how fear can be used to manipulate people.

I like the idea of elements of horror mingling with this Englishness of the atmosphere. Nicely done. The final set piece of the London bridge still being under construction is also a good fit of film making here cleverly using backgrounds for telling a story.

However, there is a greater shadow at work as audiences will learn of the existence of one called Professor Moriarty. His presence remains hidden and always thrives in shadows. I like this as I always see this particular arch-enemy staying in the dark corners, not easily visible. He hired Irene Adler to get close to Sherlock Holmes and uses the current situation for his own advantage. Stealing certain technology while the detectives were distracted.

Where there anything good about the film? There were a lot of score points. Downey Jr.'s performance is a strong one, though I still feel he isn't the right choice for the role.

Jude Law's performance as Watson is right on the button. He is an English actor with immense talent who rises above the occasion to bring some reflections to the role. Law was once seen in an episode alongside with Jeremy Brett in the 1980s series when they were first brought out.
The idea of the supernatural was a pretty good front while the real devious work was at hand. This touch of horror spreads through the stories with a sheer fascination for me as I'm always a long time fan of horror stories. Notions of the dead rising and the devil rituals gives the stories an added dimension that was missing in many of the original Conan Doyle stories.

Did the film work? It is a perfect high budget blockbuster sure to rein in many audiences with its splashy directing and sharp slaps of comedy for light hearted entertainment. Most people will like it because it looks like Sherlock Holmes in a fight club, nothing more. Sherlock Holmes shouldn't be seen as a guy who goes around beating up bullies much like Superman or Batman would do in their streets. This is a character who is entirely different and relies more on his brains.

With enough star power in the film and an ending assuring there will be another one on the way, the reinterpretation of Sherlock Holmes is taking hold now. For the Baker Street Irregulars who are familiar with the original stories, it is possible they may be put off by the brutal fist cuffs now growing more popular in this particular adaptation.

It'll be interesting to see how the story unfolds for the next film. However, for my money, I'll stick with the old shows with Brett about the greatest detective in the world. If I want to see some beating up, I'll turn on the next channel to the Fight Club.

Little Annie Orphan, she isn't.

The gist of the story “Orphan” is a step away from the lovable children to the more deranged types who may raid your family with terror. She isn't the kind of girl you want to adopt which his probably the message of the film.

But what is interesting about this film is that the controversy over it is more known than the actual film itself. Such a heartbreaking notion of adoption this film has that it was the first time the film company was asked to provide a thirty minute advertising which sings approval for adoption.

The commercial says something like, “Adoption is a good thing.” It's because several adoption centers and staff took offense to the film like “Orphan” as they thought it would be an assault of child adoption.

What these people don't realize is that it's a horror film. Plain and simple. Nothing could be further from the truth. The film marketed itself as a horror film with the little girl with the blackest eyes like coal chambers is on the splash page of the poster. She's the poster child of evil according to this film.

But the film isn't a charge against adoption. Far from it. People from adoption centers have been causing a racket over this thing and there shouldn't be any reason for it. They could have dismissed it as just another horror film. A very good horror film. Nonetheless, a horror flick.

I'm sure the controversy over this has brought more people to see the film in the theaters over the fall season out of curiosity. They were probably wondering what the hype is all about. Maybe they were just looking for a good scare.

It reminds me another time a film has caused a controversy when it shouldn't have. The film was Monty Python's Life of Brian which was a farce regarding a man's life who is parallel to Jesus. And crust of the humor makes fun of religion as it's no longer a sacred thing to the British comedy troupe.

Most people who complained about this one never saw the movie. They would simply standing lines and protest that it was a blasphemy about the heaven, hell and everything between. It wasn't funny to many. And television evangelist Graham was saying something like, “Whoever is this Monty Python fellow is should be shamed” while slamming his fist on his desk. While his co-workers repeatedly told him that it was actually a group of six people.

But was Orphan a decent enough movie to be liked? I thought so.

I felt the film was a slow going one like a moving railroad train starting its engines, and the crushing atmosphere was like a storm of moods. It was a well crafted film with plenty of shadows. The story revolves the tragedy of a little girl who has come to age. And the demon of lust that consumes her.

Horror films could be centered on mood along with an air of suspense. That is how many of H.P. Lovecraft's stories are developed as a reign of horror through a perfect grasp of words and images. But the stories were always slow going as to build mood.

The same with this film. It builds up an effective chill and the unsettling nature of the girl adds to the effect. You know there is something else about that girl you're not sure of. But the backgrounds provide more... early on you can see how her crafty illustrations suggest an otherworldly tension about her. It's well done. The film is really about the young orphan Esther and her mother Kate... and the competitiveness between women that can become a dangerous game. Their mother and daughter relationship becomes a see-saw balance of absolute terror.

The orphan plots and plans. While the mother is the problem solver as she seeks to investigate the mystery surrounding the little girl's background. It's nicely done.

The acting is first rate, the directing carries the film rather well. I'm surprised that there were two very good horror films to come out in the same year, the first being “Drag Me Back to Hell.”

But Orphan isn't an explosive film. It's about the coldness of a family and how any one member can throw the rest of the family into a chaos. The film surrenders itself to the beauty of mood throughout. The house they live in has a Victorian feeling about it, making it irksome with the awkward shadows clinging to the walls. Even the orphan herself is styled in old fashioned clothing. But her eyes are always filled with an awful fire.

Kudos to actresses Vera Farmiga as Kate, Isabelle Fuhrman as Esther and Aryana Engineer as Maxine. All of them deserve credit for bringing a very strong feminine side to the story.

I won't tell you the ending of the story to put you off. But it's a very nice twist ending and one I did not expect as the film draws closer to the end. It's nice to see some horror films like this one is a smart cookie. They know how to bleed you with the tireless blackness of guilt while suspending you with a discomfort. The call the mother makes to the insane asylum in Russia is certainly one of the highlights in the film. It is a captivity of horror at its finest.

I have to admit that I was very appreciative of seeing how the young daughter Maxine of the mother happens to be hard of hearing. So there is a nice side story about the hard of hearing to deaf. And their sign language is well done because I am familiar with it myself as I also have a significant hearing loss. So it's nice to see them break a regular formation of a family while bringing someone clearly special into the part. The young girl who plays the deaf daughter does it very well. She deserves a good round of applause.

Orphan is a nice departure from the usual reckless drive of horror films that comes through like a huge automobile accident. There have been far too many horror films that tend to be a violent type without mastering the mood. But Orphan does it so well with the sheer blessing of having hired an excellent actress to play the very mature, driven girl who simply wants to be loved. Someone who simply wants a home. But she finds herself in the bowels of darkness just as her dark, wretched heart is.

Orphan is an excellent addition to the gallery of horror films. Others who has children may want to beware.

G.I. Joe: Rise of a Really Bad Movie

G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra is not just a bad movie. It’s a really awful movie even by summer standards.

I waited on purpose for it to come out on the new releases in the video store instead of chancing it in the main theaters. With its collective stink of bad stories and dialogue, it’s no surprise that Paramount Pictures didn’t release it right away to mainstream critics. Instead, they let selected audiences watch the film before the summer bombardment.

What bothers me about most summer films is the fact that they shouldn’t have to be mindless dope-driven crap shot out to celluloid oblivion. Summer movies can be smart if they want to be. But this one isn’t. It steers around bad dialogue with a merciless string of flashbacks going back and forth like a drummer who lost his beat on the drums.

Remember the cartoon variety where they would shout at the top of their lungs, “Yo Joe”? Whenever the good guys are swinging into action in this movie, watching them roll right into battle, I am immediately singing a parody of their battle call, “Joe blows!”

Are there any good things about this movie?

Just a couple.

Scarlett and Snake Eyes. Enough said.

And who is responsible for this retarded mess? Where should we start pointing accusatory fingers at whoever put together this freak of nature and decided to call it a blockbuster movie?
There could be any one of the people on the upcoming list. There are many guilty as charged. But we’ll sort out the mess and find out who is the real culprit behind the silly mess they would call a franchise.

Christopher Eccleston plays the archenemy in his usual charismatic performance. His presence is electrifying even when he is not trying to ham it up in every scene, though he is in fine form as the secondary villain, an interesting twist as they don’t show the leader of Cobra until the very end of the story. Don’t worry. I’m not spoiling anything here.

Eccleston is always a pleasure to see. And I can’t help myself asking why didn’t this guy do another season of Doctor Who as he was very good in it? Watching this film, with him being the central villain, it’s a terrible shame that he didn’t stay on for another couple of years on the Doctor Who series. But it’s easy to see he wanted to work in movies where the big bucks are. Doctor Who doesn’t pay the big bucks. But this garbage does.

But who can fault him for going where the money is? He has his sights set on Hollywood. He always did. Now he’s getting his foot in the door. Maybe another few misfires like this and someone might notice his acting is too good to be in schlock like this.

But Eccleston isn’t at fault here. Far from it. I would rather see him go back to Doctor Who.

Why is G.I. Joe part of the NATO operations of a collective backgrounds stemming from Europe to Africa or wherever? It is supposed to be based in the United States. Not Europe. Why is G.I. Joe the worst kept secret where everyone throws around the name like it’s common knowledge? Why is the President of the United States played by an English actor?

Why am I even watching this movie?

Why is Dennis Quaid in this movie? He’s usually not a bad actor. But here he is a cut out piece of paper torn out from a very old book. He gobbles up the scenery like a hammy actor that would have made Vincent Price very proud. As the leader of the Joes, he tells some of the amateurs they’re the best there is. And yet he is knocked down in two seconds by Storm Shadow when the bad guys break into their headquarters.

But Quaid shouldn’t be blamed. Far from it. He’s got his nice, fat paycheck for walking through this film like he’s got a kitchen fork up his butt.

So it took five different writers to throw together this two hour movie filled with explosive action sequences, a nice romance story that might sucker adolescent kid and the Baroness with her mighty bra strap. The dialogue sounds very stilted, poorly handled. It sounds like people are doing read on parts and not putting any effort into the lines. The words doesn’t sound like they come from real life. They sound like they come from hacked stories. Not to mention the fact that someone in the film is not a big fan of the French. Which is fine with me. I don’t much care for the French either. So I wasn’t too terribly sorry to see the Eiffle Tower go in the movie.

But the French did contribute something to the films. They gave all the credit to the sole creative drive behind the film: the director. The auteur theory, it’s called. Because of the French, it was believed that the director is the sole responsibility behind the movie. Directing, story wise, acting. Everything. The director gets the credit.

Using this French philosophy, it is decided that Stephen Sommers is the guy who should get all the credit and glory for making this film. None of this, “It’s the writers’ fault!” No, that’s not going to work. It shouldn’t even be called a film. It’s just a mess filled with uncrackling dialogue and nonsense that might be mistaken for real comedy. Something like this can’t be held too closely to scrutiny. It’ll break apart soon as you take a gander.

Why bother with the accelerator suits that is supposed to be the driving force behind the Joe technology? If Storm Shadow is able to move really fast, as one character pointed out in a chase, then why do they need the suits? Storm Shadow is able to move pretty fast without one. It is just all nonsense.

Which brings me to the final cusp of the review here.

Dear Mr. Sommers,
Thank you for creating a mess of mammoth proportions last summer. You turned a childhood memory into a seeping, leering product of commercialism without bringing anything new to it. You are responsible for coughing up this awful hairball and leaving it behind like a fat cat would. You got your huge paycheck for making this, didn’t you? Can I get my $3.30 cents back for spending on a rental?
Sincerely,
Your least favorite fan.

I’m still waiting on a response.