Those of you that know me, and read this -so about one- know that I tend to review films, games on occasion; but only when I feel up to it. So I felt that I would be unorthodox and review a television series… how strange.
Anyway, as some of you may know that on Sunday 2nd July 2006 I am attending a convention, and present will be various film and comic related people. Now of course I want to meet as many of the guests as possible, and very hopefully get pictures of them with moo.
Now, with a large number of the guests affiliated with the recent Doctor Who series on television. I felt it most appropriate to watch at least the episodes pertaining to the guests. So, forth-with I obtained the whole of series one and most of series two.
Now I must say I would have otherwise had no intention to watch the programme. Undoubtedly due to Billie Piper’s appearance as a main supporting character, as well as my automatic adherence to the show. Though to quote Ransom it is pretty awesome, and most probably down to the same two words that he had stated; ‘Christopher Eccleston’

Unknown to myself; it is an actual fact that Doctor Who is the longest running science fiction drama in existence, though really I could care less about the old series’ full of cheap British set designs, and a very 70s-ish look I would never choose to look back upon the old series’. But if there is one thing television does well, it is improve. Now we’re talking humour, drama, character interaction, even believability through special effects. Though through all these changes I still try and distance myself as far as possible from most British television, simply because, in my opinion, we can do nothing more than comedy well -and even with comedy there are some real ifs. Though something very rare to find the UK produce is good science fiction, which is most probably the reason for my dislike of programmes such as Doctor Who.
Anyway, I very much digress, I should get on with this thing.

Doctor Who is based upon the surviving time lord, known only as ‘the doctor’ -played by Eccleston, who if perhaps was not chosen for the role, would have been the downfall of the show. He is really the complete opposing actor that you would give to the position of the doctor to. After all I only know him as that guy from 28 Days Later, and Shallow Grave. Or the guy that dies at the start of eXistenZ. Both roles not exactly shining as heroes, when I first heard that he would be assuming the role I thought it a bit strange and could never imagine him in such a television programme; as set in my mind Eccleston was a relatively serious actor... boy was I wrong
Now to my surprise the series began with the introduction of Rose; setting her as a rather important character, as well as identifying the doctor and giving a little bit of info along the way. Throughout the whole episode I was telling myself “thats Billie Piper, she can’t act” But I must say that by the end of the first episode I was actually ‘liking’ her character.

Now I think the main part of the show that surprised me was how little of it was actual science fiction. Now this is the reason I do not prefer to watch programmes like Star Trek and Stargate; because I find them boring, they’re all about the science, and space etc. Though I like shows such as Firefly and the X-files because it gets to a point where you are really rooting for the characters, and you begin to like them. Rather than focusing on the science in the episode, you have emotions, history, and dialogue that is funny to anyone joining in.
And as much as I dislike British television, it's always an extra bonus to be able to understand what people are talking about as well as understanding the jokes -as it is set in my country.

I must say though, one problem I did have with this series was in fact the special effects. Now I hear that they were spending out £1 million on each episode, which is quite a bloody lot! And I feel that for this, in terms of special effects there isn't really much to show. Creatures like the Slitheen just looked really silly when running about. I know many people have commended it on having amazing special effects, but if you ask me... on a show like Doctor Who -with most creatures- you should go animatronics all the way, simply because they are so much cooler, and that they are corporeal, I mean sure, some things cannot be handled without special effects, but other things can also be handled with animatronics. (Then again, they’re most probably more expensive... if anyone knows this to be true I would be interested in finding out)

When it got to the final episode I was rather put out that there would no longer be any Eccleston; with David Tennant already taken over the role. Especially as the newer series feels very different; Eccleston brought out a dark, but funny character, not afraid to insult though quite a loner, yet caring, and alongside his portrayal also came pretty much joint screen time with Billie Piper.
Now I prefer guys as much as the next girl, but it was a nice change to watch a show where the two main characters were actually equals; whereas now with the newer series, her role seems to be much smaller and insignificant somewhat of a downfall if you ask me.

Billie Piper... Billie Piper, Billie Piper, Billie Piper... it's hard not to imagine her outside of her ‘singing career’ especially acting. Though I must say I was pleasantly surprised by her performance in the role. Apart from the fact I didn’t think I could stand her... she was completlely bearable, and a hell of a lot better than the majority of female heroines. Billie Piper is pretty much a good representation of Britain –unlike some females they stick in television, and for that I like her exceedingly in the role, she plays it very human.
But with Billie Piper leaving, I feel that the show may not be itself. Of course it wasn’t really the same since Eccleston left. It just goes to show that the overall character development in the show is pretty spectacular, as otherwise I wouldn’t give a damn if a character left or not.

Now Christopher Eccleston came on with his outlandish behaviour, his ‘fantastic’s and most notably of all his strange face: the sort of face that science fiction should have, someone who has character.
Also if there is one thing I love, it's discovering ‘new’ actors, it's always so great to realise that someone has been there under my nose, and I had an inkling to who they were; but really knew nothing about them, and I’m pretty sure I can vouch this with most actors. That I am always very successful (in my opinion) that when I spy a good actor, that it always turns out that they are in fact a pretty darn good actor, and Christopher Eccleston has gone on to join that list.
Either way his portrayal brought with it, a sort of annoyance, but you also couldn't help but be on his side and laugh along the way, and from this I must say there were no actual annoying characters... sure some of the antagonists can be roll-your-eyes-increasingly... but antagonists are there to be stupid and annoying -at least, they always seem to be with myself.

The writing is pretty darn humorous I must say! With most episodes written by Russell T. Davies, who wrote Casanova -which was hilarious- and Queer as Folk, his dialogue is snappy, monologues not too long and all-round amazing writing, almost on par with Joss Whedon in my books!

The music of Doctor Who was also something rather surprising -not sure who the exact composer is- showing that it could be emotional, actiony and intense and all work really well with everything else going on. Whereas most British television just sticks the latest pop songs in the background.

Not since firefly has a science fiction show seemed so fun. Sure Doctor Who had it's moments when I think, ‘this is lame’ (Parts of ‘Bad Wolf’ in particular), or ‘this has to be meant for children’ (World War Three and toilet humour...), rolling my eyes etc.
But Doctor Who has proved to be a most exhilarating ride. Though from what I have already seen, I don't feel that the 10th doctor lives up to Eccleston’s weird eccentricity in the slightest. But then of course, it's all down to the writers. Which seem rather eccentric themselves.

I’m not too sure if its possible for myself to grade something like this… so at the very least, I’ll give it a Cptalbertwesker thumbs up : )

If you have not yet seen the film, there will be some spoilers in here for you! So if you do not wish to find out, or rather, work out the ‘twist’ I suggest you avert your eyes.

I went to see Hard Candy on a whim, I had heard that it was good and it was out of it, or the Lake House, feeling like watching a more intellectually challenging than the romantic remake, I decided upon Hard Candy, a film based on the hot-topic of chat room meetings.

Because you all love to hear the comings and goings on when I frequent the cinema, watching Hard Candy was particularly strange, as the staff had not turned the lights on in the screen, so it was difficult to find my seat and took me about twenty minutes until I could find it. The other patrons watching it were also out of the ordinary, not to be stereotypical at all, but they were pretty much all (although this was only 3) very old men, which I thought strange as old people don’t tend to frequent our ‘popular’ cinema, unless Johnny Cash is involved.

Directed by David Slade –who is up for directing 30 days of night, which will hopefully be interesting- Starring Patrick Wilson (Jeff Kohlver), Ellen Page (Hayley Stark), Sandra Oh (Judy Tokuda) and Jennifer Holmes (Janelle Rogers) making up a very small cast, which you really do not see these days, as the film is much more centrally character based than story.

I suppose the film’s synopsis was what drew me to the film –correct me if I’m wrong- but it’s the first film (tv seems to do it a lot) to touch on the subject of people meeting through internet chat rooms, and the idea of the male counterpart being in trouble made much speculation as to how the film could follow through.
So basically the film is about Hayley (14), who meets Jeff (23) over a chat room, and the two meet, she is very forward with him, and eventually it leads to him drugged and tied up in a chair, subjected to torture and the like, as she tries to have him confess that he (along with another person), murdered a young girl who had met a person over the internet.

Above all –and not surprisingly being a Lionsgate film- the film is extremely visceral, and very does little more than it says on the tin. With such subject matter the film could appeal to pretty much anyone, it’s a very hard film to peg to a particular audience, and while it is an eighteen; I am a little unsure why… from what I recall the film itself contained little in the way of violence, (the BBFC chops it down to ‘strong sadistic violence’) perhaps it is simply the situation, speculation and subject matter that gives it such strong a rating.

Now, with this film I can say that the main –and really only actual characters- characters played their parts flawlessly. Thankfully they cast Ellen Page (as Hayley); who despite being 18, looks very convincing as a 14-year-old (unlike some films that cast people in their twenties-thirties as teenagers.) I must say that –in my opinion- she played the role exactly as she should have, because I hated her like crazy, and I believe this was what they were trying to do. While all the time you are left sympathising with Jeff, who is all innocent and tortured and scared for his life due to the crazy 14-year-old. Then comes the twist –after the very long ‘torture’ sequence- and after watching the film for an hour-and-a-half you seem to understand what exactly is going on. The twist may be a shock, or you may have seen it coming. Personally I saw it coming in the back of my mind, but was kind of hoping otherwise.
Unlike I usually do, I wont disclose the twist because as simple as it is, it is also pretty effective.

The story was great, something new and not yet investigated before, albeit the idea of a 14-year-old getting the better of a 23-year-old is a little ‘out there’ it is also very believable in the context of the film. You’ve got a young girl who isn’t perfect, she keeps making mistakes, and he almost gets the better of her, but all the while through the clever writing makes for an extremely engrossing experience, Hayley’s dialogue really makes it seem like she is particularly enjoying herself, and Jeff’s whining and reasoning really makes you empathize with his situation and makes you want him to escape.

The best points in the film –as I believe I’ve probably already pointed out- were most definitely the acting from both Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page, who had me involved with their characters.
The other point of course is the current subject matter, thinking on the matter they could have taken the story any way possible, but the film itself was delivered greatly, the torture scene was one that shall be remembered for years to come (or it should be) though I must say I saw outcome of the torture from a mile off.
I did also particularly love it when everything started to go a little pear shaped for Hayley.

It really is true that when you try to remember something from some time ago you only remember the good points, and in writing this review it is very true. I can only remember fantastic parts of the film, and other than saying I hated Hayley’s character simply because I wanted to kill the girl there is little else I can complain about, even though my point should not be taken as a bad thing. David Slade wanted you to hate her, to want to kill her, because then you’re just as bad as Jeff.

The film was very much a new experience, filmed with a very gritty look and two actors before now I’d never heard of, a greatly enjoyable film, I suppose I can recommend it as pretty much a revenge film, nothing too clever, but not over the top ridiculous, maybe I could relate it on par to that of Oldboy or Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, but then I suppose maybe that isn’t a correct judgement…

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7/10
Nice film, great acting, interesting subject matter, nice twists and turns along the way.

On another note, I have noticed a few regular people reading my blog, please don’t just lurk around in the shadows, comment on my blog, comments make me happy :D

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O

Usually watching a film at our independent cinema is pre-meditated, and I know well enough about the film to know that I wish to see it. Though in the case of Three Burials, I had never heard of it in my life –other than small mention and a review on blogcritics- but, as always; I picked a winner, and Three Burials was an amazing film.

Directed by Mr Tommy Lee Jones –in his directorial debut (if you excuse some tv show)- Starring Tommy Lee Jones (Pete Perkins), Barry Pepper (Mike Norton), Julio Cedillo (Melquiades Estrada), Dwight Yoakam (Belmont), January Jones (Lou Ann Norton), Melissa Leo (Rachel) and Levon Helm as the Old man with the radio.

The title, rather self-explanatory is based around the three burials of Melquiades Estrada, as well as the events leading up to his death, while also showing developing the bond between him and Pete, and those whose actions led to his death.
The last ½ of the film was fixated on Pete’s quest (with the unwilling help of Mike) to give Melquiades his ‘dying wish’.

The film itself is a strange piece. Set in modern day Texas –as constantly reminded through technology- the film has a feel of the past, this mainly coming from the inherent values of the old west, based on friendship, loyalty and commitment on Pete’s behalf for his best friend.

I must say the acting in Three Burials was superb, this comment coming mainly from Barry Pepper and Tommy Lee Jones, who as the main characters gave terrific performances. Especially Pepper, whose character truly evolved throughout the film, he had you hating him, feeling sympathy and overall loving the guy.
Tommy Lee Jones who held a character that you could only respect, every action had meaning, and you could never hate him for any of his decisions, can’t go without saying that although all acting in the film was great, Pepper and Jones really outdid themselves.

Similar to the Australian outback in the Proposition, Three Burials had some beautiful Mexican landscapes. Another plus to the film was its characters; the film took the time to explore just about every character, giving every person some sort of very human, relatable qualities.
There were also certain points in the film that came to mind, when I couldn’t help but laugh; two scenes in particular I remember were that of when Pete had to get the ants off Melquiades, and of course when Mike saw the television programme on the television in the desert –that point I just cracked up, not entirely sure if this was intentional for a giggle, but I sure as hell found that bit particularly hilarious.

One thing I know I can say is towards the timeframe of the film, it felt rather confusing at first; differentiating before his death and after his death, and made the film a little hard for me to pick up at first.

The film, overall was a very rewarding experience; really picking up in the middle of the film it never once faltered afterwards, with good performances from Jones and Pepper, I would recommend the film to anyone wishing to see something enjoyable, but also different.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
To the strange title of the film I never expected what I received, though I what I did get was a thoroughly good film, and some nice characters.
The absolute feel of a western, but set in modern day.

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
So you know… there is my warning, take heed if you must.

Now a long string of nice serious films came out last year, and Capote was one that I didn’t want to miss, though for some reason they did show Good Night and Good Luck upon release at our local Odeon.
Much like Catherine, I am most definitely not Philip Seymour Hoffman’s biggest fan. Though I must say he is a pretty darn good actor.

Directed by Bennett Miller –of whom I have never heard of- Starring of course Philip Seymour Hoffman (Truman Capote), Catherine Keener (Harper Lee), Chris Cooper (Alvin Dewey), Clifton Collins Jr. (Perry Smith), Mark Pellegrino (Dick Hickock) and Bob Balaban (William Shawn).

The film follows the period of time wherein Truman Capote -author of Breakfast at Tiffany’s- writes “In Cold Blood”; one of his most famous books. The film is more of an exploration of character than anything else.
The film was definitely not for those with a short patience, it is rather slow paced as an overall film even though it runs at only two hours.

Philip Seymour Hoffman was amazing, and if there is one thing he has proven in Capote; its his diversity of roles –whereas Catherine thought he only could act like a total arsehole- in Capote he proves that he can act as a complete arsehole that you also cannot bear to hate. It’s really Hoffman that drove the whole film, without him it would probably be nowhere as recognised. Also as always, it was funny to recognise a familiar face: Mark Pellegrino from the episode of the X-Files with Chad Donella.

The story was interesting, following Capote’s troubling decision from keeping the friend he had made -through research- (Perry Smith) alive through legal backing, and being in anticipation of his death so that he could finish his novel.

Strangely the music sounded familiarly composed, something like two composers melded together, it was weird, especially because I have never even heard of Mychael Danna (sorry Mychael), whole thing weirded me out –I’m usually good at recognising composers.

The film if anything, was engrossing, with such a large emphasis on Truman, and Truman alone. Otherwise little else calls to itself as alarmingly brilliant. The mystery of the murder is also an intriguing factor. Much like other films with similar subjects, Capote also invited you to feel compassion –of sorts- towards the rather gentle convict Perry Smith, who has a lovely surprising turnaround; one great part of the film.

Overall my comment to the film is that although it was a little different to what I had expected, it’s a slow paced drama possibly for those who enjoy good acting, a slight base on story and an exploration of the man; Truman Capote.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7/10
I was actually surprised that I managed to watch the film.. and after watching it I realised how different it was to what I thought it might be. I was defiantly not expected simply the delving into Truman Capote’s character rather than a story.
Also I must say that being the third film in a line of films taking audience at our little independent cinema.. My bum is not taking too kindly to the seating.