W011y4m5

I kinda get the creative intentions of 'The Way' (essentially 'Torchwood: Children of Earth' / a serialised adaptation of 'Children of Men' set in Wales from a different team / production studio) but personally, I think Michael Sheen at the helm of the project is kinda what's continuously snagging for me (inhibiting the fruition of something intellectually nourishing - something it could've easily been), throughout - which is why (I've said it before & I'll vehemently say it again to stoically reiterate what I firmly believe) actors should just humbly stick to doing what they're great at (in front of the camera) & leave filmmaking to the experienced professionals (behind it - for good reason).

The basic fact is we can't be brilliant at everything (literally none of us, as talented as we may be in certain respective fields) & that's perfectly okay to admit. Jodie Foster, Zack Snyder, Simon Kinberg, Michael Sheen etc. (a growing list of undoubtedly skilled individuals who - for some reason - convince themselves they're additionally capable of doing everyone else's jobs, as well as their own) would therefore greatly benefit from putting aside their egos & having the humility to accept their brazen limitations. Let this be another shining example of that.

No, I'm being harsh (or am I?). On the one hand, I really appreciate what he's ambitiously attempting to artistically do (for a first time director, genuinely ain't too bad at all - granted, not exactly a ringing endorsement, I know - though the best I'm willing to honestly offer) & it's a refreshingly quirky approach that gives the series a sense of individualism / authenticity; using the somewhat retro (arguably even hyper-surrealistic), yet unmistakably distinctive style of something classic like "Threads" (capturing, maybe simultaneously heightening the existential anxiety people experienced in the 1980s - a palpable, dated cynicism & unease regarding our potential future that permeated media we consumed then, both in music, TV & film), re-contextualising the foreboding nihilism of the past (protest pieces, voicing general discontentment) for modern audiences to reflect a more relevant paranoia (than nuclear Armageddon) to communicate meaningful messages in the present as a social / political commentary (we could all currently relate to on an intimate / emotional level)... But on the other hand, although he's got some undeniably great ideas (in truth, far too many for a mere 3 hours), none of them really come together cohesively to form anything particularly satisfying to watch. We're merely viewing a disjointed collection of loosely connected plot threads, devoid of depth. Furthermore, the stakes continuously remain frustratingly absent (characters seldom have obstacles to overcome; everything just happens, the journey moves on to the next location; most conflict's borne from needless bickering) & again, I feel like a more seasoned director would be able to translate this assortment of plausibly fascinating thoughts (or a careful selection of the best on offer amongst a pile he enthusiastically created) to the screen in perhaps a superior, nuanced manner, doing justice to what's being depicted via a visual medium. Simply lacks the focus I'd usually associate from the mind of James Graham (which is odd) & although every writer is obviously fallible (they're only human; even our greatest authors have strewn together something less than what they're known to be capable of, from time to time), the half-baked, heavy-handedness of the execution of his concepts in this latest tale does merit particular acknowledgement, since it's so blatantly uncharacteristic to miss as much as he has. Consequently, I'm prompted to question why - or if it's caused by someone else's involvement.

The first episode's promising & relatively decent (theoretically, might have been better as a stand-alone 90 minute TV feature; one & done)... But by the 2nd & 3rd, the narrative sort of unfortunately crumbles, losing momentum (any direction whatsoever, in truth - meandering aimlessly) before burning itself out completely. Doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be or say by the dénouement; perchance an impassioned, grounded analysis of a broken, centralised political system (London neglecting rural Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish communities in areas with different histories / cultures) - responsible for the disenfranchisement of an entire, younger, local population living across nations, meant to be united - (in which case, where is the exploration in to the lives of the organ grinders making these calls, not the monkeys?) & subsequently, what it would arguably take to uproot the oppressive institution via an act of revolution (could it even be done, in principle?)... Or a heartfelt portrayal of unresolved grief & the destructiveness of inherited, intergenerational trauma (visualised in an abstract, expressionistic fashion - jarringly conflicting with reality trying to be tonally emulated for dramatic effect) etc. Thematically, these are two extraordinarily different directions to advance one's trajectory in. Plus, the random Darth Vader subplot / twist adding nothing of value... There's too much going on, in spite of the few gorgeously contemplative moments interspersed across the dragged-out run-time.

I feel like Russell T. Davies is weaving an ingeniously inventive tapestry of fascinating tales that are being adapted to the screen by a bunch of people who (frustratingly) just continuously don't seem to understand the complexity of the narrative he's already established, after only four episodes?

In 'Wild Blue Yonder', our protagonist (the Doctor) thoughtlessly invoked a superstition at the edge of creation where the barrier between worlds was thin; lines firmly establishing reality from fiction were therefore blurred & consequently, what shouldn't have been theoretically possible before (in this universe) suddenly became increasingly likely (intentionally pushing the boundaries of sci-fi until one could reasonably describe it as fantasy - blending the two genres); bi-regeneration (acknowledged previously as a myth) inexplicably occurred for the first time in the show's 60+ year history, 'The Toymaker' (a godlike being whose very existence challenges our own sense of coherent logic) broke through in to this plane & there, he playfully exacerbated the problem by "toying with supernovas, turning galaxies in to spinning tops" etc. He even "gambled with god & made him a jack-in-the-box, made a jigsaw out of (the Doctor's) history" (additionally explaining the convoluted 'Timeless Child' arc - made possible by a plausible ripple of his tampering in this current plotline, reverberating back through the Time Lord's own linear chronology) & "sealed the Master for all eternity inside his golden tooth". What I'm trying to articulate is everything we're seeing now is arguably a direct ramification of that fleeting encounter on the ominously vacant ship Tennant & Catherine Tate's characters found themselves stranded on (after she carelessly dropped coffee on the TARDIS console); not only is everything we've witnessed an expansion of that founding idea, but the showrunner continues to mine the brilliant concept for all it's worth by realising more of the resultant potential here, in his latest Christmas Special, 'The Church on Ruby Road'.

How?

Well, in short... Goblins. Magical creatures the show never previously featured (for good reason - it would've been silly) demonstrably inhabit the realm of "Who" in the same way "the Daleks" do, from 2023 onwards (like it or not, it's a bold creative decision - making a swift divergence from everything we're accustomed to since the identity of the programme has evolved in to something recognisable, though distinctively unlike any predecessors). There, these pesky monsters manifestly ride the waves of time aboard a wonderfully nonsensical vessel (held together by the "language of rope" - another new thought - defying scientific law - we've to rapidly acquaint ourselves with), weaponising chance retrospectively to embed themselves in events - enough to form a strong, tangible connection & eventually steal people's babies - so their "King" can gluttonously feast upon them whilst his minions simultaneously sing camp songs about their endeavours... I know, absurd (intentionally).

What makes this really interesting is - as acknowledged in a small line of dialogue spoken by Ncuti Gatwa - all the bad luck his soon-to-be companion suffers (at the hands of life-forms who plague her recent days) is furthermore because of him; her trials & tribulations occur from intentional coincidence, made possible with hindsight - culminating to deliberately form these orchestrated circumstances... Coincidentally, only due to his prior actions (with another face) - conducted with no foresight (permitting the implausible to coincide with the comprehensible). Now, if one is to perhaps be tediously philosophical, you could actually argue the retrospectively manufactured coincidence could have subsequently been responsible for the installation of itself (a self perpetuating causal loop / predestination paradox, accountable for its former origins), rationalising the Doctor's behaviours (everything he's coincidentally done is in service of their artificial construction of aforementioned coincidence; binding him & Millie Gibson's "Ruby" together like magnetism - changing the rules for the specific purpose of piecing them in the same space)... However, I feel that robs him of necessary autonomy & renders him a rather passive bystander in his own emotional journey - yet there's so much nuance to be had & outstandingly unique stuff to be realised (addressing this mind-bending whimsicality) which isn't being acknowledged in the context of the installments... And for me, that's a shame.

Don't get me wrong, the outing's good... The realisation merely gives the inaccurate impression of simplicity when beneath the surface, there's anything but.

Don't know if it's Mark Tonderai's poor direction (repeatedly capturing sequences in a consecutive series of claustrophobic close-up / handheld shots, failing to visualise vital information or convey it concisely; scenes seldom have a sense of geography & Ruby's room isn't depicted, preceding her sudden disappearance for instance - reaffirming the noticeable shift in her absence. Plus, verbose editing, needlessly showing her dragging a ladder after spotting it when we could've just quickly cut to her reaching the roof, inferring her response to seeing the solution to her problem - maintaining a more satisfying momentum), the restrictive run-time or Russell's reliable tendency to approach an introductory script with tentative caution (he normally takes a while to get to properly know the characters he's created - hence, I've found the latter half of his seasons are always stronger, simply because he's closer to being certain of who they are & can lean more heavily upon assured foundations, once they've set) or a culmination of all these issues... But despite the adequacy, it could've been better.

Fair to say I'm not loving this new era of Zack Snyder's at the moment (producing content for a streaming service) & as both an audience / collective fan base, feel as though we're sadly seeing him go from one problematic extreme (a total lack of creative control; artistic power callously stripped from him - with brazen opportunism by Warner Bros at the time - in the wake of a family tragedy) to the other (no discernible over-sight during the production process whatsoever - resulting in the opposite).

Therefore, although not terrible (Part 1 - which this definitely seems like - genuinely isn't. Nevertheless, neither is the movie particularly good either)... I'm frustrated by such a demonstrably outstanding filmmaker settling for the continuous construction of uninspired & tedious mediocrity when I know him to be capable of far, far better.

I mean yeah, on the one hand, "Rebel Moon" is a vast improvement on "Army of The Dead" (though that's not saying much; the bar is in hell after his previous unmitigated disaster that failed to even meet the usual standard set, merely in terms of aesthetic quality), yet that's the only viable endorsement I can reasonably give because once again, it doesn't feel like he's actually challenging himself here.

Zack Snyder's basically provided us with his alternative take on "Star Wars" & that's exactly what this product is, in the simplest of terms... Zack Snyder's "Star Wars" - another copy + paste sci-fi franchise (you could recognise from countless other blockbusters / TV series), unoriginally put to the screen (with no attempt to hide the plagiarism) but with his signature visual style pasted over it - in an unconvincing attempt to assemble some form of uniqueness.

In fact, it's disheartening to witness a talented individual reduce their gift to what comes across as a cheap gimmick; lensing other genres through a bespoke, superficial Instagram filter that can be tailored mindlessly to fit each project, refusing to convey anything meaningful via the transference between stories.

Even the release of his latest feature feels akin to a desperate, fake imitation of "Justice League" (artificially endeavouring to capture that same demand / interest - borne from entirely different circumstances); rather than distributing his original cut (I can't understand why they'd withhold it intentionally now - Netflix is known to fritter away money so the notion they'd prefer a safer investment by first airing a more palatable version is utter nonsense), they're keeping it from us in the hopes of deliberately orchestrating another viral movement on social media, demanding his extended iteration... It's all so corporate & staged.

Is this his brand now?