Catching Fire (Spoilers)

Before I begin, I'm realizing I like to do reviews in their entirety. I try to beat around the bush as much as I can but I do like talking about the entire movie. So I've decided to mark the reviews where I go spoilers balls deep. Just a warning. And with that, here's Catching Fire.

Holy moses. I was caught off guard by this movie. I was told that it was good but I just thought that was the die hard fans just spouting off. This movie is really well done.

Not to say the original movie wasn't good, I've already said what needs to be said about that movie. But this movie is one of those movies that is just very well done. And I'm not just saying that. Catching Fire, the book was actually not my favorite. I haven't read the third book yet and there's a reason. It's because of this book. I remember finishing that book and saying, "Well that was alright. Not great, but alright. I'll maybe read the next one... maybe."

The movie turned that tune around big time.

The movie begins with Katniss back at District 12. She's living in the Victor's Village, she's still hunting but she's haunted by her experience with the Hunger Games. They did this very very well.

Believe it or not I think they did it better here than in the book. Of course the book can always describe what's going on in Katniss's head but seeing it just made things a lot clearer for me.

And while we're on the topic, Jennifer Lawrence nailed it. I may have mentioned it in my Hunger Games review, but she used to be very bland. She has definitely made herself at home with this character and this time around did a lot more than just stare. Was it still there, yes it was. But it wasn't as apparent this time around. Not to mention, Jennifer Lawrence is a fox.

Her and her fellow victor Peeta Mellark (played by Josh Hutcherson) need to keep their relationship that had started in the first movie alive in order to convince the Capital and especially President Snow that the stunt they pull at the end of the first movie, threatening to commit suicide so there would be no winner was just a desperate act of love and not of defiance to the government. Although President Snow knows it wasn't, he wants them to act as if it was.

Because there is uprisings going on within the Districts. Riots are beginning and people are not happy with the government. Snow knows that Katniss has become a symbol of hope in a world of fear.

On this tour, they are joined again by Woody Harrelson playing Haymitch and Elizabeth Banks playing Lady Gaga... or Effie. And Lenny Kravitz is back.

But back to the topic on hand, that's another thing, this may be a silly observation but there's not much of an explanation as to why President Snow is kind of an asshole. He just is...

I'm sure the easy answer is that Snow is in a position of power where he is a corrupt dishonest leader who has control doesn't believe in freedom or equality and exploits the lesser Districts through the Hunger Games, blah blah blah.

We're never really given an explanation as to why President Snow is an asshole or how he came to be such an asshole.

I think I'd be really interested to hear the story of President Snow and how he came into power. Maybe it's just as simple as he inherited the role or he was elected in corrupt circumstances.

My point is there's not really any explanation to President Snow. There are a couple of decisions he makes with the help of Plutarch Heavensbee, who (spoilers) turns out to be helping the rebellion, that are really stupid. Like murdering a guy in District 11 for whistling the mockingjay song and doing the Katniss Salute.

There's no reason beyond that, it was just in opposition to the government. Any sign of opposition, kill it, flog it. We need to paint this government as the most corrupt and V for Vendetta like government so our heroes have something to fight for.

I think this was something that bothered me about Occupy Wallstreet. (Little bit off topic tangent coming)

If you don't remember Occupy Wallstreet, it started as a group of protestors camping out in Zucotti park in New York in opposition to Wallstreet and big businesses in their part in the recession (among other things). This was a fad that spread across the country, across the world. It originally was inspired by the Arab Spring.

Well with this fad came a number of incidents that kind of made me angry. There were several times when stories would come up of protestors who weren't doing anything to break the law and they would get arrested for no reason, violating their freedom of speech.

The thing that bothered me about these circumstances, is that while some of them were probably actual accounts of the police acting unprovoked, many of them were probably blown out of proportion and were just situations of police reacting to rowdy and provoking behavior. Nobody really knows for sure because all we have are verbal accounts and videos that don't show the whole situation.

My point of this rant is to connect it to Catching Fire. These parts in the movie where people do the Katniss Salute and get shot for it are really exaggerated scenes and are really just used to make the Capital look like Nazi Germany. I just feel like the Capital needs to be given a human side. I don't know if they do that in Mockingjay but it wasn't prevalent in Catching Fire.

That entire thing being said, it was done beautifully. The entire first half of this movie when Peeta and Katniss are out doing their tour and seeing all the Districts, watching the revolutions begin, it was done perfectly. I remember being kind of bored during that part when reading the book but they did a really, really good job in the movie.

I'll mention my thoughts on President Snow later.

And you could have guessed it, there's a sort of competition between Gale and Peeta in this movie again. The question of who Katniss is going to choose. The thing I liked about this is that Peeta is really a bro in this movie. He knows he's not the one Katniss is going to choose and he accepts it. Is he hurt, yeah but he's concerned about Katniss and will do anything to keep her alive and happy.

Half way through the movie, Katniss realizes this. Peeta actually becomes an important part to her and you can see it. This is attributed to both Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson, who stepped up his game in this movie as well.

Gale on the other hand... maybe I just don't like his character but he gives the same expression, the same looks, the same performance that kinda makes you forget he was in the movie. They just threw random scenes with him and Katniss sitting looking out into the wilderness. This scene had no point, it was just a scene with them in the woods looking at the sun.

Peeta wasn't an emotionless blob in this movie. I think this is prevalent in the book, its been a while. But Peeta actually says, if you stop acting like I'm wounded around me, I'll try and stop acting like I am. He wants to move on and acknowledges that his and Katniss's love is an act. Again, Hutcherson picked up his game... Liam on the other hand kinda didn't do anything for me in this movie.

Anyway, the entire first half is Snow and Phillip Seymor Hoffman (Heavensbee) trying to turn the public against Katniss, which they fail miserably at. Obviously it was Heavensbee's plan but Snow is kind of an idiot to not see how stupid of a plan his plan was.

It's basically to flaunt Katniss and Peeta as the victors to divide the districts. It ends up uniting them. He then decides to put Katniss back into the Hunger Games again in order to get the Capital excited for another Hunger Games and to see Katniss kill more people. This ends up turning the Capital against Snow and putting Katniss exactly where Phillip Seymour Hoffman wanted her.

Peeta and Katniss are put back into the Hunger Games with former victors of the games. When I read the book I didn't like this, visualizing it, it's perfect.

That's kind of a theme with this book. A lot of it I originally didn't like but seeing it just looks phenomenal and makes a lot more sense. Maybe I'm more of a visual person. I do do a blog on TV shows and movies and not books.

When they're in the Hunger Games, the dynamic of the games change because they suddenly have to make alliances and be the team that they were fighting in the first movie.

Remember these guys? Katniss and Peeta have to make a team similar to that to survive. And of course its a team she obviously shouldn't have picked.

She picks an old woman, Mags (played by Lynn Cohen) and a pair of tech geeks. One of them being the CIA agent (played by Jeffrey Wright) from Casino Royale and the other being Honey Bunny (Amanda Plummer) from Pulp Fiction.

They do get help from Finnick Odair (played by Sam Clafin) and Johanna Mason (played by Jena Malone). Yeah, Donnie Darko's girlfriend was in this movie. Who'd a thunk.

Unfortunately, the movie does what it did in the first movie where a lot of the characters names kind of get glanced over. They did a better job because there were more important characters this time around but again I kinda found myself saying, Oh look its Honey Bunny, that guy from Casino Royale, Old lady, etc. And the other tributes that weren't in their little club, I have no idea who they were.

Its not that big of a complaint as those characters aren't as important as Katniss and Peeta but still.

The movie ends with Katniss being rescued from the Hunger Games by Haymitch, Finnick and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. (I know he has a name but to me he was Phillip Seymour Hoffman). The movie ends with them saying that Peeta was captured by the Capital with Johanna. District 12 is burnt to the ground and Katniss, Haymitch, Gale and others are starting the revolution.

Okay good things first.

The movie was solid. Jennifer Lawrence was no longer awkward, she was good. Peeta was miles better. Woody Harrelson, still awesome. Good interpretation of the book. Good pace and good acting all around.

Bad things, as few as they are.

President Snow: If you read my Hunger Games review, you know my beef with President Snow. He's bland and little bit too much Santa Claus and not enough Hitler. I just didn't feel on edge whenever Snow was in the shot and that's what Katniss is suppose to feel. I think that's one drawback of having him have his own scenes. In the book he was just mentioned. Showed up physically very seldom and when Katniss knew she was in deep shit. In the book, it just seemed like Snow's presence was everywhere even when he wasn't anywhere near the scene. Donald Sutherland just doesn't impose and scare the shit out of you with the endless possibilities of things he could do to you if you cross him. I guess that's why I want them to give him a backstory, explain why he's such an asshole. Cause if he's not gonna go all the way asshole, make him a relatable human villain.

Also, I loved Phillip Seymour Hoffman but his plan was very based on too much chance and luck. He's got the entire games in his hand and he puts Katniss in a lot situations that could throw his plan right out the window. His purpose is to keep Katniss alive and rescue her from the Hunger Games. But his

position requires him to kill her with the elements. What if she had drowned, what if she had not been fast enough to run away from the poisonous gas, what if a monkey had killed her. This plan based on a lot of luck and coincidence. Perfect example: Haymitch was suppose to be outside the games in order for him to save Katniss. But Haymitch had a chance of being a part of the Hunger Games himself... what if he had gone instead of Peeta. Was Peeta in on it? Also what if Katniss had decided to kill of Finnick? Would that have screwed up the plan a little bit? Its not a huge complaint but its very convenient.

Finally, I mentioned this in my other review... but people who have not read the book don't know what District 13 is. I think they mention it once in Catching Fire, almost never in the Hunger Games and then at the end Gale says their going to District 13... What's that? This will probably be explained to non book readers by the third movie but its something they have failed to explain in the movies.

Anyway, Catching Fire was really good. Some conveniences were needed to fulfill the plot but that's not that big of a deal. President Snow and Gale can be overlooked because this movie was really good.

So have you seen Catching Fire? What'd you think? Tell me your thoughts about this movie, the series, MockingJay (without spoilers, I haven't read it yet).

I leave you with this.

I guess Brian is dead?

I just don't quite get it.

I am a huge fan of Seth McFarlene... but why?

I'm one of many fans that are just confused by what happened on Family Guy. Brian, the dog, one of my favorite characters on the show is just dead. He was hit by a car and just died. No jokes, no time machine to bring him back. Just dead.

And if you're one of the people who are getting angry because people are spoiling it for you, calm the F down. It's Family Guy not Game of Thrones.

The writers simply explained that it was an idea that was tossed around and it turned up being something they liked. They thought it would shake things up having the characters react to a world where Brian is dead.

As much as I understand the reasoning, I don't quite agree with the choice.

There are a lot of characters you could have killed that would have had the same effect. Characters reacting to death is a way to put characters in a new environment I just don't think Brian was the right choice.

Look at the main cast of Family Guy. You've got Peter, a fat stupid, alcoholic father. Lois a housewife putting up with that idiot but has a wild side of her own. Chris, a self conscious, disgusting fat highschooler. Meg, a disgusting unattractive high school girl, and Stewie, a sexually curious psychopathic baby.

The main cast needs a voice of reason. That was always Brian. Sure Brian had his quirks. He was an alcoholic, but who wouldn't be while living in that family. He's a talking dog. That's funny. He was just sensible one and often created a bridge between the stable minded audience and this idiotic hilarious family.

And whats his replacement you may ask?

Vinnie, a talking Italian dog. Why? Because fuck you thats why.

I was watching the 11th season to catch up and they were actually doing a really good job. I was laughing, I was enjoying the season. And then they threw this in there.

And the way it was done was very rushed.

The episode starts off well enough, Stewie and Brian are fleeing a band of Native Americans chasing them in SUVs. Turns out, Stewie thought it would be a good idea to go back in time and give the Native Americans in Jamestown guns.

So they show that world for a little bit, then return to Jamestown, get the guns and everything is fixed. Stewie then decides to destroy his time machine. (conveniently enough) and they bring it to the dump. At that point, Brian finds a hockey net and they decide to play with it back at the house. While doing that, Brian gets hit by a car. Very graphically.

There's nothing funny about that scene. Brian just gets ravaged by the car.

At that point the Griffins rush him to the hospital but its too late. Brian says they had given him a good life and then he dies.

The rest of the episode is Stewie realizing his time machine is broken so he can't go back and fix the past, the funeral, them buying Vinnie and getting used to him. Obviously its not that good.

But the death of Brian wasn't even that great. Why take a lovable character like that and kill him off so abruptly and violently? Brian, though the voice of reason, was never that serious of a character. So why give him a serious death? It was just very unlike Family Guy to not give him one last joke or one last hoorah.

Some may say, that's not how life works. People leave us abruptly and there's not much we can do about it. To that I say this isn't real life. When has Family Guy ever portrayed real life?

I just think, if the writers were deadset on killing off Brian, at least give him one more goodbye. Show him in heaven, or have Stewie actually go back in time, try to save him but fail.

The way the show had Stewie cope with the loss was have a stupid conversation with Vinnie.

I think it is necessary if they're going to continue with this to have Stewie be friends with Vinnie but that could have been a whole other episode.

Life of Brian could have been an episode of Stewie coping with Brian's death. Isn't comedy just tragedy rewritten?

And then have a whole episode about how Stewie doesn't like Vinnie because he replaced Brian so quickly.

But its essential for Stewie and Vinnie to be best pals.

I think this may be the part I'm most bummed about when I think about Brian dying. The relationship he had with Stewie. It was so good that they made an entire episode with just those two in a bank vault. No cutaways, just them talking. And I personally loved it. The two just play off each other so well and now we won't see that ever again. Stewie is one of my favorite characters from the show and he needs that counter to react to his strangeness. I don't quite see it yet coming from Vinnie but its gotta come somewhere.

Overall I feel like Life of Brian was too rushed and not a tribute to Brian the way it should have been.

I trust Seth McFarlene. I've been watching Family Guy basically since its beginnings. If they really think this is a good idea, maybe it is a good idea.

I personally am hoping they decide to bring Brian but I'll keep watching. I do want to see this new world but Seth McFarlene is on thin ice.

So what do you think of Brian getting killed off? Are you going to use the hashtag #bringbackbrian?

I'll leave you with this. One of many tributes to Brian.

The Hunger Games

Disclaimer: I'm talking about the movie not the book. Though I will draw comparisons to the book, I haven't read it recently enough to do a full review of it.

On that note. The Hunger Games!

Its kind of amazing the popularity this series has made. Or you could say, its amazing how it has... caught fire...

Anyway

In preparation for the new one, I went back to watch the original Hunger Games. The first time I saw the movie, I remember enjoying it well enough. I'm not one of the super fans of it but its fun enough. The second time around, though I still enjoy it, remembered some things that maybe they could have fixed up a little bit.

The story is set in a dystopian future where the United States fell into a horrible war that basically destroyed it. The remains of it however formed a new country called Panem. They divided the country into 13 districts. But the government was a little corrupt and one of the districts, the 13th rose up in revolution. But they were quickly destroyed. And to quell the chances of an uprising like that ever happening again, they created a tournament where each district would send a tribute (a boy and a girl from the ages of 12 to 18) to participate in a fight to the death called, The Hunger Games.

Enter Katniss Everdeen (played by Jennifer Lawrence). She is a girl from District 12, one of the poorer districts who's sister is just entering the selection of the Hunger Games, the Reaping. Though her chances are incredibly low, her sister is chosen to participate in the Hunger Games. Katniss won't allow this so she volunteers in her place.

The male tribute that is chosen is Peeta Mellark (played by Josh Hutcherson), the baker's son, and the two navigate their way through The Hunger Games, with the help of their mentor, a former Hunger Games participant, Haymitch (played by Woody Harrelson) and then gaining popularity when Peeta says he's in love with Katniss so when the game stars they are portrayed as star crossed lovers torn apart by the horrible Hunger Games.

Now, a lot of what I just explained was a summary of the movie, but some of it, you wouldn't have known unless you read the book. Usually, I'm not that big of a stickler when it comes to book to movie interpretations. I don't care if the Harry Potter movies didn't have this one scene, as long as the movie makes sense and the scene isn't totally necessary, its okay. And for the most part, The Hunger Games does a pretty good job at staying true to the book where it needs to and skipping parts that are not as necessary.

That being said there are a couple of things that added in there that can only be explained if you read the book. This is an interesting way of doing things because it doesn't necessarily take away from the movie, I would guess that it would just leave you a little confused if you hadn't read the book. The biggest example I think was Katniss's relationship with her mother and the circumstances in which her father died. Its not an essential part of the movie but they make reference to it, kinda show it happen and mention her mother being distant. Maybe that's enough but again I find myself crippled by the fact that I've read the book. There was more there, and if you're not going to explain it properly, why is it in there?

I'm going to try and refrain from making this review about what was in the book and what wasn't. Her father was the only part of the two that I realized they didn't really need to mention in the movie.

ANYWAY

The movie is good. But again there are a couple things they could have fixed.

Most importantly the first lines of dialogue from Katniss. The movie begins with her going out into the woods to hunt. She finds a deer, is about to shoot it but Gale stops her.

The first line is "Damn you Gale" The line isn't horrible its just awkward and mostly because Jennifer Lawrence's delivery of it is just atrocious. I think Jennifer Lawrence is a pretty good actress but the first part of this movie is just kind of painful. And I don't necessarily think its her fault. Its very close to the dialogue used in the book and that dialogue doesn't always translate perfectly.

This isn't a criticism of Lawrence, though I think she has improved a lot, but the real criticism is the script. How do you write a script for a world where kids kill each other. I assume its difficult. While sometimes it works, its really awkward sometimes.

The good thing is the movie becomes a lot more tolerable when Haymitch comes in. Woody Harrelson is a solid actor and he plays his part really well. While Lawrence and Hutcherson were still relative newcomers, it was Harrelson who enhanced the world and just made the entire world a little more tangible, not only for the younger actors but for the audience.

Again, Haymitch is a former participant of the Hunger Games who won. He now helps the participants from District 12.

He's funny, he's drunk, he just a very good pick for the part. There are others who help Katniss and Peeta like Elizabeth Banks who is basically their agent, Cinna (played by Lenny Kravitz) and they're good enough, but Harrelson definitely is the best of them.

Now to talk about the Capital characters. Mainly President Snow (played by Donald Sutherland), Senaca Crane (played by Wes Bentley and Ceasar Flickman (played by Stanley Tucci).

Donald Sutherland plays President Snow, the leader of Panem and is now being called the New Voldemort. This is probably due to his nastiness in the second film but we're talking about the first.

To be honest, Snow is very boring in this movie.

There's not much for him to do and whenever he is on screen he just sits around and talks, and gardens, but mostly just sits around and talks.

The first time I watched this movie I don't think I was a big fan of Sutherland in this part. Now... I'm still unsure.

Sutherland doesn't really scare me in this movie. I mean I don't think they could have portrayed him as the Evil Emperor from Star Wars but c'mon make him a little less Santa Claus and little more Palpatine. Looking at the picture above if I were to make a story about this, I'd see an old man who was forced to lead a country through war and make it into the spectacle it is today. It took some sacrifices and he's given up a lot and made compromises but he's there. He's seen things. Maybe its just the picture but Sutherland doesn't really portray a darker plotting mind behind that Santa Claus face.

I'm excited to see Catching Fire just because I hope Donald picks up his game.

Though you can't really see Ceasar Flickman in this picture, it kind of represents roles both of them play. Stanley Tucci had to have had fun with this role because he's laughing, he's moving he's just having fun.

Wes Bentley... well looks around at things.

Its difficult because Seneca Crane didn't have much of a part in the book, he was just mentioned. There was only so much they could do with him as game master.

I do love his beard though.

Now I'm going to address something that I don't really want to address but I feel I have to because its almost quintessential to Hunger Games fans across the board.

Gale or Peeta.

I swear people wanted to make another Edward vs. Jacob and they found it perfectly in Gale and Peeta.

The short answer, if you're looking at looks, Gale. If you're looking at personal history with Katniss. Gale. If you're looking at chemistry. Gale. Liam Hemsworth is by no means a better actor than any of the younger actors in this movie but you at least see a little bit of chemistry between Katniss and her.

I like Peeta in the book but the movie kind of makes him a little bit of a pity case.

The Onion did a hilarious review of Catching Fire that addresses this problem pretty head on. (No spoilers)

Gale is Super Hot

But unless you read the books, I'm not quite sure how this rivalry started before the second movie. The truth is, Gale is barely in this movie. He shows up mostly in the beginning. Promises he won't let Katniss's family starve and then he disappears, only reappearing when he's watching Katniss and Peeta make out on TV. Even in the book there wasn't that much of a rivalry yet. Sure there was maybe alluding to one in the future, but it wasn't that huge yet.

The point is, I don't see all the hype. They're both subpar actors.

The only other thing I need to talk about is the other tributes from the other Districts. And this

unfortunately is another time I will refer to the books. In the books, they describe each tribute. You know which one is which at all times. Granted, again this is a book. You can do different things through words than you can by visual. But all the tributes eventually came down to physical appearances describing them. And not even in the way that the book originally described them when they only used physical characteristics.

This graph to the right will give you more recognition than the movie gave.

Instead of Clove, I said, short black haired girl from Orphan. Instead of Thresh, I had to say Black guy. Instead of Glimmer, I said, blonde chick. Instead of Marvel, I said other blonde guy. Instead of Foxface, I said ginger girl.

I don't like using arbitrary recognition terms... but this movie left me with no choice.

And Rue... well Rue was good. Not much else to say about her. She was good.

The only thing The Hunger Games suffers from is some cheesy dialogue that it can't help and some scenes that can only be explained by reading the book. A situation I would prefer rather than a movie missing important scenes. All of that and the fact they had a couple of shaky cams which was annoying.

One day I'll have to do a comparison review of The Hunger Games and Battle Royale. If you haven't seen Battle Royale... its basically the same movie set in Japan. It was made in 2000, before any of the Hunger Games and its unknown how much inspiration Suzanne Collins took from this movie.

I'm not saying she copied the movie because she didn't. In many ways its different... but in many ways it very similar. Its definitely worth a watch if you have Netflix. Just be prepared for a little bit more violence and a lot of screaming Japanese girls. Hunger Games has a little bit more of a story however.

So what do you think? Are you a huge Hunger Games fan? Peeta or Gale? Hunger Games or Battle Royale?

I'll leave you with this.

The Day of the Doctor (Spoilers!)

This morning I found myself in a very pressing dilemma. The night before was the 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who and the episode, "The Day of the Doctor" was airing. It was a huge event that actually broke a Guinness World Record as largest TV drama simulcast in history. I however found myself tied to other engagements and wasn't able to watch it when it aired.

So this morning I was looking high and low for the episode online and I could not find it. So I had the decision, wait for it to show up on line which could take days... or buy it on Itunes. Short answer so I can get to the review, I bought it.

The story starts mainly with the current Doctor (Matt Smith) remembering the day he destroyed

Galifrey at the end of the Time War. As explained by the mini episode with Paul McGann,

This One

The Doctor regenerated into "The War Doctor" played by John Hurt. He breaks into the time vault of Galifrey and steals a weapon called "The Moment". The Timelord explain that the weapon had developed a consciousness and could talk to the user.

When the War Doctor is setting up the weapon the consciousness appears and for all the Who fans out there, she is a familiar face.

The consciousness is that of Rose Tyler (played by Billie Piper) who actually might be the

consciousness of Bad Wolf. That was something a little unclear because the end credits say Billie Piper played Rose when really she played an interface, assumingly Bad Wolf, with the appearance of Rose Tyler. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but it was a little confusing.

The Moment opens a time vortex that connects the worlds of the War Doctor, the 11th Doctor and the 10th Doctor (David Tennant). All three of them are thrown into a conflict with an alien race called the Zygons.

Zygons are aliens that are able to take the form of other beings perfectly. They are shape shifters and

they wish to take over Earth. But Earth isn't ready in the 16th century so they hide in paintings using Galifreian technology and emerge in the present day to use special UNIT weapons to take over the world.

The three Doctors, plus Clara Oswald (played by Jenna Coleman) must stop the plot of the Zygons all the while Rose is showing the War Doctor the man he becomes after doing the unthinkable act of destroying Galifrey.

The episode ends with The Doctors stopping the Zygon plot and all three of them going to the point in time when the War Doctor is about to destroy Galifrey.

Disclaimer. If the first section of this wasn't spoilers enough, the next part is spoilers beyond belief. Don't read ahead if you don't want to know. 

Before they use the weapon, the 11th Doctor stops and proposes that they save Galifrey by locking it in a pocket universe, frozen in one single moment of time.

By doing this, they move the entire planet of Galifrey, they have the Daleks destroy themselves and Galifrey disappears as if it was destroyed.

The way they do this is so brilliant. They all fly to Galifrey and begin the process of putting Galifrey in the pocket universe. But suddenly all the incarnations of the Doctor appear, including Peter Capaldi and they do just that. They save Galifrey.

"No Sir. All Thirteen"

There's not much of an explanation of how all thirteen incarnations of the Doctor show up to do this but its one of the coolest moments of television I have ever seen. 

So once Galifrey is save, each Doctor goes back to his TARDIS and back to his time. John Hurt regenerates into Christopher Eccelston.

David Tennant returns to his time and Matt Smith is visited by another familiar face before the episode finishes. A very old Tom Baker shows up as the Curator of the museum that holds all the Galifreyan art and basically says, Galifrey is still out there. Go find it. And there's the set up for the next season and the season of Peter Capaldi. 

As a Doctor Who fan, this episode was just fantastic. 

The back and forth of David Tennant and Matt Smith beyond brilliant and beyond hilarious. It was just a huge celebration of everything Doctor Who, executing perfectly. It also ties up a couple loose ends

from the David Tennant era, like the relationship he has with Elizabeth the first and not only that but it does a great job at explaining how this happens in a timeline like this.

I cannot express the brilliance of the relationship between Tennant and Smith in this episode. They play off each other so well and its unfortunate that the two of them couldn't do more episodes together.

Frankly there are too many good things I can say about this episode. I may be on a high because I just watched it but it was just so good.

There are very few to anything I find wrong with this episode. Almost all of the "complaints" I had were things that were impossible to change and couldn't really be put in a better way then they already were. 

And I kind of already mentioned it. One thing I had a problem with was Rose. Like I said before, Rose

isn't really herself in this episode. She is more Bad Wolf, or the consciousness of The Moment in the form of Rose Tyler.

So she's not actually flesh and blood Rose Tyler. She actually can only be seen by the War Doctor and is more of a figure overseeing the entire ordeal. She did a very good job and I'm very glad we got to see Billie Piper in Doctor Who again, but it wasn't quite the Rose I was expecting.

But again, this really isn't something that could have been done any other way. At this point, Rose is in the alternate dimension. She is not seen until the fourth series and had it been the 10th Doctor from before Rose was trapped in the alternate dimension, we would have had a less experience 10th Doctor. And too many people love David Tennant for them to make him not one of the sharpest ones in the bunch. So as much as I wanted actual Rose Tyler, this was one of the only ways it could have been done.

The second thing I found was the lack of appearances from essential characters. Especially from the 9th

Doctor, Christopher Eccleston. I like a lot of Doctor Who fans really liked Eccleston as the Doctor and because the War Doctor regenerates into him, you'd think that he'd be essential to the storyline.

However, they did do a very good job considering and the fact of the matter is, it was dependent on whether or not Eccleston wanted to participate or not, and he didn't.

Lots of fans may be angry about this but I understand it. The man played the Doctor for a year but I'm sure he wants to move on from it. I read something that criticized Eccleston for not participating because he is whether he likes it or not, apart of a special club and needs to honor that.

Listen, the guy doesn't want to be the 9th Doctor anymore. Let him do his thing and enjoy what he gave us. We can't expect an actor to do more than he wants to.

As much as I wanted to see Christopher Eccleston, if he doesn't want to do it, he doesn't have to do it.

Also, Tom Baker.

I thought that this cameo was just brilliant. They didn't really specify whether or not he was actually the 4th Doctor and that's okay. He was there and that's all that matters. It would have been nice to have similar cameos from Sylvester McCoy, Paul McGann, and others.

However, this falls again under the category explained before. If they don't want to do it, you can't make them.

Overall it was a brave episode. It did a perfect job at celebrating Doctor Who and remembering where it came from. It also set things in motion for conflict of future episodes. Stephen Moffat recently said that

John Hurt's incarnation of the Doctor does count as one of his regenerations. That puts the Doctor at 13 regenerations when it comes round time for Peter Capaldi to take over as the Doctor.

As its been stated in episodes and movies, Timelord are only allowed 13 regenerations. Whether or not it is a law or they are only capable of 13 is unknown but if Capaldi is the 13th regeneration, that will cause trouble for the Doctor in the future.

In both ways, its interesting. If its a Timelord law, then with the return of Galifrey, they can actually enforce that and the Doctor will be in trouble with his own people, the people he saved.

If its in Timelord Nature, then its even more interesting because the Doctor is fighting his own physiology. This time if the show is to continue past Capaldi, the Doctor must actually escape death.

This is why I am so excited for the new season to begin. I am always excited when there's a new regeneration despite my love for past actors who have played the Doctor like Eccleston and Tennant.

But Capaldi is going to bring something totally new to the series and its just going to be brilliant. I can already tell.

Overall, the episode is one of just awesome celebration and remembrance of all Doctor Who has done in the last fifty years.

So did you see the 50th Anniversary episode "Day of the Doctor"? What did you think? Who is your favorite carnation of the Doctor and why?

To finish, I will leave you with this. The teaser for the Christmas special, the next episode to come in December.

Pilot: Fringe

Wow so much for a pilot. Fringe starts its series off with what could almost be considered a movie. But 2 straight hours has its advantages.

This one has been a long time coming. Now I watched Fringe up to about halfway through the first season when it first came out. This may be putting it at an unfair advantage in this competition, however I am basing this review off the pilot.

Fringe is the story of FBI Agent Olivia Dunham (played by Anna Torv) as she begins investigating crimes that are almost unexplainable. In the pilot, her partner and lover (played by Mark Valley) is

wounded by a strange disease that makes the skin transparent.

This disease struck a bunch of people on a plane at the beginning of the episode and killed everyone on the plane. Dunham must recruit the help of Walter Bishop (played by John Noble) and his son Peter Bishop (played by Joshua Jackson) to develop a way to save her partner's life and discover what the cause of this disease is.

The show is based on this team and their investigation of events where strange occurrences cannot be explained by our regular science but by an obscure pseudo science called Fringe Science.

Fringe Science includes ideas of teleportation, tissue regeneration, and other strange phenomenas.

I remember when the show first aired in 2008, it was being described as the new X-Files. I've never seen X-Files but I imagine they're right about that. With a mind like JJ Abrams, how can the show go wrong right?

Well lets look into it and start with the characters.

The show stars Olivia Dunham, played by Anna Torv. I had never heard of Anna Torv before Fringe and I haven't heard of her since. I don't really know what to think of that. Perhaps now that the show is cancelled she'll get into more thing but I don't know.

I have to give them credit for having a female lead. It's not done very often and its hard to do. But if anybody can do it, its JJ Abrams. I can talk more about female characters in another post but Fringe does it right... for the most part.

The honest truth is the first half hour of the pilot is really boring because its focusing just on Olivia Dunham. I don't think its because she's female I think its just her character. She's not that exciting. She's an FBI agent... there's not much said about her besides that and her relationship with Mark Valley. Now if you read my Once Upon a Time review, I may be critiquing a little too hard as this is just the pilot and development happens throughout the series but Dunham was just boring for me, almost throughout. She reminds me of Alice from the crappy Alice and Wonderland reboot done by Tim Burton. She's just kind of wandering in this world of insanity and the other characters are the focus. She's just the vehicle for the audience. And maybe that's a good role for her. However based on the first episode, she's not the part that made it.

Enter the Bishops.

Let's start in order of appearance. Peter Bishop is a very interesting character. Dunham finds him in Iraq of all places trying to get away from some dark past he left in the United States. He's a genius who forged his way into MIT, and he does have a very interesting back story.

I remember Joshua Jackson from the Mighty Ducks. That's all I know him from, I wish he would do more as well, I think he's a talented actor. I think he made things very interesting in this show.

From the very beginning, Peter Bishop is portrayed as a fast talking charismatic character who wants to get away from his past and his father. He's kind of like a genius Han Solo, especially the way he calls Dunham "sweetheart" but he's also set up as the skeptic. The one who sees what is happening in this Fringe Science and says, it's impossible, or this is insane.

From the get go you know there's going to be sexual tension between him and Dunham even when her Mark Valley's character is still alive (spoilers). However, the show with just the two of them would not be enough. Peter Bishop, though an interesting character, could not make up for the blandness of Olivia Dunham

But he's the precursor to the person I think really steals the show.

John Noble plays Walter Bishop. A scientist who used to do questionable science experiments in the 60s in Fringe Science. The incident that happens on the plane and to Mark Valley's character is a phenomena based on his research and he becomes the mind responsible for fixing that problem.

The first scene with him is in the psych ward he's been confined to. He's described as insane and there are a couple lines he has throughout the pilot that are hilarious and confirm the fact he's quite insane.

But at the same time you can see his brilliance and his mind working whenever the science is involved.

Like I said, I think John Noble really steals the show and its really when he comes into play and starts working that things in the pilot get really good.

The three of them realize that the only way to save Mark Valley's character is to find the man who

caused him to be infected by the disease. The problem is that Mark Valley's character is the only one who saw him.

So what's the solution? Link brain waves between Dunham and her partner through their dreams and see the face of the suspect through the linking of the mind.

That... is... awesome...

Like I said before, I had watched this episode when it first came out in 2008. When I watched it then I thought this idea was so very cool. Now in 2013, I watched it not remembering what happened... and I thought it was even cooler.

So it works, they find the guy and they manage to find a cure for Mark Valley's character. However, its discovered that Mark Valley's character actually knew about the suspect from the beginning and may have had something to do with the plane infection. Dunham chases him down but he crashes his car and dies. After that Dunham is recruited to a special team to investigate occurrences similar to that of the plane infection and that's the pilot of the show.

This pilot does it right. Two hours did feel like a long time but it gave the audience the ability to get used to the dynamic of the team and get excited for future investigations. It also gives great easy explanations of this Fringe science to make people think they understand it and wonder at the possibility of it actually happening. The brainwave connection, probably impossible, especially since it includes LSD, is executed perfectly.

So overall, Fringe gets out of the gate with a pretty strong beginning. As long as Olivia Dunham develops as a character a little bit more and becomes a little less bland, the show has a really good set up. It gives the audience an idea of whats to come but still alludes to secrets that are left to be found out which is phenomenal.

At the beginning I was skeptical and thought the hype over Fringe was overstated. Now I'm not quite sure. We'll have to see what other shows I look into before I make my final decision.

So what do you think? Have you seen Fringe? Again, what shows do you think I should give a shot?

Pilot: Once Upon a Time

Once Upon a Time premiered on ABC in 2011 and is now on its 3rd season. That's a good sign right?

The premise of the show follows Emma Swan (played by Jennifer Morrison) who goes to a town in Massachusetts called Storybrooke... yup... Storybrooke. She goes there because her son who she gave up for adoption ten years prior comes to her doorstep and goes on a rant about how she's the savior to a bunch of story book characters.

This is basically the reaction that Emma has. As a normal sane person would do, she brings the kid back to his mother.

The kid is insistent that his mother is basically the devil and that everyone in the town is a trapped fairy tale character but they don't know that they are.

The kid turns out to be right because while this story is going, the story of Snow White (played by Ginnifer Goodwin) picks up right after she is kissed by Prince Charming and they are getting married.

The wicked witch (played by Lana Parrilla) storms in and says that she will put a curse on Snow White and the entire fairy tale realm that will destroy all happy endings. And that's the reality of Storybrooke. In the scenes in the fantasy land there are characters that correlate with the characters in Storybrooke. Now there are characters that you see in the fantasy land that you see in the real world and you know who they are right away. The fun part in the pilot, however limited it is at the beginning, is finding characters and correlating them with their fantasy character. For example: you see little red riding hood. They don't say its her but based on interactions she has with her Grandmother in Granny's Bed and Breakfast, you can assume its her. So that's fun and it might be fun to play that matching game... for a little bit.

Unfortunately the characters themselves are a little lacking.

I'll start with Emma Swan. I've seen Jennifer Morrison before. She was in How I Met Your Mother and I really liked her. I think she can act and she's a lot of fun. Not to mention she's very good looking.

Now this is only the pilot, but I didn't feel Morrison did enough in it. She is probably by far the most interesting character. Mostly because she isn't necessarily undeniably good. First 5 minutes of screen time she beats the shit out of a guy she's looking for. I think she could probably turn into a very well developed character and by the number of seasons and good reception of the show as a whole, I hope she does.

But this poses a problem. She is this grounded character and she gets pulled into this seemingly insane fantasy brought on by this ten year old kid that comes out of the blue. She spends the entire episode saying this whole fairy tale stuff is nonsense. And yet she agrees to stay in the town for a week because the kid said so. There's not really a reason. She just does.

And then there's Henry. Henry is the child she gave up for adoption. I freaking hate this kid. I don't

wanna hear how cute he is, or how wide eyed he is, this kid is annoying.

For some reason, he knows that every one in the town is a fairy tale character and somehow knows that Emma is the only one who can save them by reading a book that his teacher gave him. His teacher that happens to be Snow White, but doesn't know it.

There's a line when this kid sees that Emma came to look for him and he says, I know you like me, I can tell. And I don't see how. This kid is a little shit. She steals his teachers credit card, he basically calls his mom a bitch, and he runs away from a really good life. Granted I don't know what his family life is like and his adopted mom is actually the Wicked Witch but this kid is an arrogant, annoying as fuck, little shit who gets away with it because he's got these stupid little whimsical sayings and a freaking halo on his head. I wanted to punch this kid square in the face after every scene he was in.

... but moving on.

Lana Parilla plays the Evil Queen. She really didn't do a bad job. (No pun intended) She's just kind of bland. She's evil... that's really all we know. In the real world she's the mayor of Storybrooke and she's set up as the bad guy but there's not really any basis for it.

And the part that doesn't really make sense to me is her plot. She has this curse go over the fairy tale land and says, we're going to a place that is much worse. One that has no happy endings, except mine... so 21st century Massachusetts is her happy ending? Why? Sure being the mayor is cool but how is being the adoptive mother of the grand kid of the people you wanted to curse (Snow White) a happy ending for her? Its a creative idea and I'm sure that it will be explained later in the show but did the Queen know they'd go to modern day or did she just think she'd be in a world where she had a happy ending. And by that logic, did she know she was going to go to the real world? Does she know that she herself is int he real world? Again, I guess this is all explained later in the season but thinking about it now, it doesn't really make sense.

While we're on Snow White, we then have Ginnifer Goodwin playing Snow White. She's very similar

to the kid. Just an undeniably good character with these hopeful and grossly whimsical lines that don't sound like someone would actually say them and just sound stupid. Besides the fact she has a ginormous forehead, Snow White makes some kind of dumb decisions in the pilot.

There's a part where they want to figure out what the evil Queen is doing before she does it and they go to Rumpelstiltskin (played by Robert Carlyle) He says he'll give the information if he is promised the first born of Snow White (who happens to be Emma). While Prince Charming gives a resounding hell no, Snow White agrees without thought... not gonna bite her in the ass later. Maybe they're trying to portray her as the stereotypical Disney princess as kind of dumb but I'm going to guess no.

And that's the big problem I have with this TV show. There are characters that are so one dimensional that they're not interesting. I don't need every character to be as complex as Walter White but if I don't feel as though Snow White has thoughts beyond how good must always triumph and how wonderful life would be if we just sang koombyah I'm not going to find that character relateable and therefore a character I like.

That can be said for any character. Good or bad. I understand that these characters are based off of Fairy Tale characters and these Fairy Tales are not known for their depth, but I wish I would have seen more from the characters in the real world and I just didn't. Again, maybe its something that will show up later but Snow White's real world counterpart was just the same, bright eyed and optimistic. The Queen was evil in the fairy tale world and she's painted as this evil woman in the real world. The best villains are the ones that the audience can identify with. You may not agree at all with their motives or why they're doing it but there's a humanity to them.

And in the cases where there isn't humanity in them, then those guys need to be scary as shit. Those villains, like the Joker in The Dark Knight tap into our greatest fears, the fear of the unknown. We didn't truly know the Joker's backstory, we didn't know how far he was willing to go. Of course the evil Queen can't be the Joker but I'd like to see a little bit more ways in which this Queen is evil besides the fact that she wear black and just gives this pissed of bitchy face all the time.

The evil Queen just doesn't give off either a sense of being relatable, like we pity her a little bit because she doesn't have a happy ending. And at the same time she's not scary enough to be the Joker villain, that we're scared of her power and afraid of the world that would be if she actually won... because she did win... and the world was our world.

I've said a lot of shit around this show and yes I know, I'm basing all of this off the pilot. The truth was I wasn't too impressed by the pilot. Perhaps things will get better.

Little bit of a recap, I liked the interpretations of fairy tale characters and correlations between their

fairytale character and their real world character. I also liked Robert Carlyle. Rumpelstiltskin may have been the most interesting character but he was only on screen for 5 minutes max.

And the things I didn't like about the pilot were the main characters. Emma was alright, but the other main characters were either inexplicably good or inexplicably bad. No in between, no neutral (with the possible exception of Rumpelstiltskin, again too little screen time to tell.) And the characters who we're suppose to be rooting for (E.I. Snow White and especially Henry) I wanted to punch in the face because of their wide eyed hope filled sentences and looks. Maybe I've just become a cynic in the last few years. But people don't talk like that. It's annoying.

I think that's the whole satire in "Enchanted". If you haven't seen Enchanted, its a similar plot. The evil

witch sends this Princess (played by Amy Adams) into the real world. What the movie does well is the interactions this Princess has with the real world because she's from a Fairy Tale world. Now this doesn't exactly line up with the plot of "Once Upon a Time" but hear me out.

The movie basically makes fun of the optimism and Disney like attitudes found in their movies and its clashes with the real world because people don't talk like that.

Now Enchanted does it well because they're kind of making fun of it. Once Upon a Time, while the characters are not aware they're Fairy tale characters, they still have these wide eyed, unrealistic dialogue that just makes me want to punch them... especially that kid... cause he's annoying.

I feel I would have enjoyed this show more had it been on a different Network. ABC is not known for breaking rules and having really gritty shows and I think that's what this show needed. I think it needed to be a little bit darker and a little less Disney.

I feel like I tore this pilot to pieces but I want to hear your opinion. What'd you think of the pilot of Once Upon A Time? If you continued watching it, do you like it and why? Again, if you have any suggestions for my pilot series I am all ears.