Doctor Who - “Planet of the Ood”

4/10 – OK, seriously, when is the series actually going to start …

There is something desperately wrong with the 4th season of Doctor Who. Some might blame Catherine Tate as Donna, others the writer Russell T. Davies, but I’m not so sure. I think they’ve stretched themselves too thin. For one thing, the new season has lacked a lot of the slick luster previous series have had and look a bit more like the children’s “Sarah Jane Adventures.” Quite frankly, maybe two spin-offs is slightly too distracting from the original? Who cares about Torchwood’s great ratings? They are miniscule by comparison to Doctor Who … even in America!

Then there is the story telling. The seasons have a predictability to them that has now gotten a bit annoying. Episode 2 always has to be an historical, while the future shows always revolve around something we’ve previously seen. The only chances the season takes are towards its gallop to the half-assed story-arc ending.

Planet of the Ood. Well, where to begin? Oh, why not the Ood themselves? They aren’t anything interesting, apart from a good creature design. But, that doesn’t matter since we’ve seen enough farting aliens – oh please, one more f’ing Slitheen story, preferably on New Earth -- in the last few years to make us grateful for anything else. The story, while on its very obvious surface, is a simple metaphor for slavery, basically goes no place and ends no place. It felt nice, but bored me.





And, next week we get the mid-season old monster 2-parter with the Sontarans … and I dearly hope they haven’t ruined them the same way they did with the Cybermen (my official favorite classic monster) … But, if they can do it, they will find a way. Perhaps farting Sontarans … all in unison, since they are a clone race.

Basically, where once I was hopeful, now my enthusiasm is sinking fast …

Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead

4/10 – Trust me, he knows …

Two brothers (Ethan Hawke and Philip Seymour Hoffman) are both in some financial trouble and decide to knock over their own parent’s jewelry store, but chaos ensues when the robbery goes wrong and their mother is killed. Much hailed in critical circles, I’m going against the grain here and saying that “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” is really quite poor. The now cliché “Pulp Fiction” style of jump-cut narrative is not innovative or new anymore and could only be seen as clever by the incredibly stupid. Let’s face it, once you’ve seen a trick, seeing it again and again isn’t as good.

Also, though it’s nice to see Ethan Hawke return, Philip Seymour Hoffman is one of the most overrated actors in the business. He does some character roles really well, but most of the time the fat obnoxious guy he plays isn’t very satisfactory. Albert Finney, another of the overrated genre and Marisa (I’m not too old to be naked) Tomei, complete an otherwise disinterested cast in this pathetic family melodrama. In fact, that is the very point of what drove me nuts about this film: the characters are all completely disconnected from each other … even when they are not supposed to be. Its as if the actors all got in some fight and decided not to look at each other throughout filming.

Basically, rent it if you have to.

P2

1/10 – move along, nothing to see here ….

Rarely do I see a film that I can honestly, without any sense of reluctance, say has no redeeming value what-so-ever. P2, the latest in the psycho-kidnapper genre is probably the dumbest film I’ve seen in a long, long time. Its essential crime against cinema doesn’t lay in the fact that it is somehow repulsive, just endlessly dull and repetitive.

OK, so you know if you are watching a horror film, you are going to get the usual “Saw” type terror scenes with the main characters in distress, etc., with some clever object lesson or point. P2 does not deliver anything essential or new.

It is, quite simply, the story of a woman working late at the office and being kidnapped and held hostage (rather elaborately) by the night-duty security guard on Christmas Eve. That’s it. She kills him and escapes in the end.

Breach

Chris Cooper plays infamous spy Robert Hanssen, an agent convicted of spying for the Soviet Union (and, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia) for 15 years. His arrest in 2001 sent a shockwave through the intelligence community. The film is subtle and accurately portrays his uncovering by an upstart FBI operative working cover. The full extent of his damage is still unknown.

For the spy fan, this is as good as it gets and as realistic as it gets. Cooper is almost too charismatic for the role of Hanssen, but if the movie were toned down any more it would be asleep. As it is, it simmers to a boil that resenates long after the credits role and makes you want to watch it again. Simply great.

Valentino

1977 - Ken Russell freely admitted that this movie was a mistake, but there is always something worth seeing in a Ken Russell film. In this case, we get the usual garish colorful splash of melodrama applied to the myth of silent film star Rudolph Valentino. Truth be told, there isn’t much I do know about Valentino, but that’s the point of a myth.

Valentino’s life takes center stage and, though probably as much fiction as fact, it is an interesting little life. Russell milks every moment (and myth) for what its worth throwing in a few good key names of the time for good measure. Massive splashes of color are the director’s trademark and he doesn’t let up. Felicity Kendall delivers a fine supporting role as the woman who discovering the Latin lover.

If you want facts about the star, read a book. Like Oliver Stone’s “The Doors” there isn’t much strict fact, but you do get the feeling that the reality is less important than the myth. What little fact exists (like the infamous powder puff incident) are presented in heavy time compression.

Five Days

Sadly, this should be a gripping important drama about the abduction of a woman, but for the fact that we’ve seen it so many times in crime dramas that the impact is just too muted by the medium itself. The problem is primarily that it seems lost in genre-trading. Is it a mystery? A family tragedy?

This might have been vaguely effective if it were a TV movie, but five episodes drags us along with characters and situations that seem … well, drawn out for the sake of filling up time. The question is, ultimately, at the end of the show, do we actually care? Though well filmed, conceived, and acted, I found myself drifting off during the numerous family digressions during the 3rd and 4th episodes. By episode 5, it was difficult to understand what the point of the show was in the first place.

Obviously a BBC prestige drama, HBO got in their hands into the mix.

TCM Archives - Forbidden Hollywood Collection, Vol. 2

The Divorcee / A Free Soul / Night Nurse

There’s a lot your grandparents never told you about the old days.

I’m currently watching through the excellent collection of pre-code Hollywood films -- the films made before the Hays office and the Catholic League of Decency stepped in to tamper down the sex and violence in films. If watching an old film makes you think that no one did anything slightly indecent before the 1960s, you should try watching this collection … and rethink the greatest generation.

“The Divorcee” and “A Free Soul” are two classic examples of the prevailing sexuality of the post stock market crash era. People wanted to see the rich and the libidinous and that’s just what Norma Shearer delivers in these two semi-morality tales. “The Divorcee” is clearly the best of them. Based on the 1929 Ursula Parrott novel "Ex-wife", Norma Shearer discovers that her husband has had an affair with another woman. Though he insists its “no big deal” it clearly is and she decides to “even their account.” Exposing the double standards of men and women, the husband clearly can’t take having been cheated on. Women are not supposed to do these things (even though its no big deal for a man.) Ultimately, the wife has many torrid affairs and returns to her husband and all is well.

“A Free Soul” sees Shearer gets involved with her drunken lawyer father’s gangster client (Clark Gable) and ultimately ends up costing the family and herself more than she could have ever imagined. There is a happy ending, but it seems so downbeat that you don’t even notice it.

“Night Nurse” is a Joan Crawford tale that twists and turns around her attempts to be nurse … and a good one at that. She soon discovers that she is to care for two children who are being killed slowly by a greedy shoffer (Clark Gable again) with designs on marrying the drunken wife and collect their trust fund. It turns out that an early friend in the underworld she made saves the day by … calling some guys and taking him for a ride. Essentially, he has him murdered. It is this kind of story that makes you wonder what people are thinking about when they make movies now.

Included are some good commentaries by movie history buffs (who sometimes make you laugh and sometimes make you wonder what audience they are talking to) and an excellent documentary of the entire process leading to the enforcement of the code in 1934.

I haven’t watched “Three on a Match” and “Female” so I expect to review those in future blogs.