Happy Christmas

I'll be off the grid for a couple of days doing the festive thing. So, if there is anyone out there in the big wide cosmos, Seasons Greetings to one and all. Be safe, be happy, have fun.

Christmas is coming and I am still here

I have been reading The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis. The War of the Flowers by Tad Williams. Moondust by Andrew Smith. I have just bought the new novel by James Lee Burke because he is one of the great writers of crime and fiction in general.

I have been watching Angels and Demons; which was nearly as dull as The Da Vinci Code. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. All I can say is what went wrong with this film? Slow, few set pieces of note, odd editing choices in fight sequences and no real through line. State of Play. Crowe is a great actor. The Omega Man which is a little cheesy now, but which still packs a punch. Moon.

Moon has to be the best science fiction film of the year by a mile and one of the best films of the year. Thought provoking, thoughtful, beautifully shot and beautifully acted.

Nearly all my Christmas shopping is complete, so at least I can cut down on the stress of busy shops over the next couple of weeks.

Otherwise life is... okay. Ticking over. I am looking forward to the holiday and spending more time with the one I love.

Long time, no blog

I am still alive. I have just been busy with work, with life, with stuff. I can't quite believe it has been so long between posts, but hey, there you go. I always knew this was potentially going to be a hit and miss affair as far as regular posts were concerned.

I have read Graceling by Kristen Cashore. Which was okay, quick and fun, but not as good as the reviews would have you believe. Poison Study by Maria V Snyder was as good as the reviews would have you believe and I will be reading the next two novels in the series soon. The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown was exactly what you would expect. Average prose. An intriguing idea and a book that does what it says on the tin. Apart from being filled with info dumps and coming across like a cut rate National Treasure movie, but not as good. It is a diverting read for a couple of hours. Dracula- The Undead is the official sequel by a descendant, Dacre Stoker. It starts off okay and rapidly descends into a screenplay with description. And they (I say they because it is actually a co-authored novel) had the audacity to retcon a great deal of story. No. Dracula is not a romantic and misunderstood hero. He is the f---ing grandaddy of the bad ass vampire. Nine Dragons by Michael Connelly is another good Harry Bosch novel and the foreign setting gives it an intriguing feel. Cross Country by James Patterson is average and the foreign setting feels like it is African politics as written by an infant. How is this guy still being published? Nearly all his novels are 'co-authored'. And those he writes have got steadily worse over the last five or so years. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson was very enjoyable as was The Harrowing by Alexandra Sokoloff was a good first horror novel.

I have never read any Terry Pratchett before (apart from Good Omens which was read because of the Gaiman factor). I bought Nation and was underwhelmed. I know he has a phenomenal reputation, but don't get it. Or was this an atypical place to start reading him?

Dollhouse. Joss Whedon. New TV show. Joss Whedon. It started off slowly. It really had improved by the end of the run. Not as instantly classic as Firefly. Not as easily classifiable as Buffy or Angel. But a show unlike anything else on TV at present and I hope the second season which is pulling in poor ratings in the US won't be the last. A special mention has to go to Tahmoh Penikett who is very, very good.

FlashForward has an interesting premise and is enjoyable enough, but is not that special. I'm not desperately waiting for the next episode yet.

True Blood. Saw the first episode and I was also underwhelmed by this. Slow pacing, no immediately relatable characters and a lot of swearing. I know it is HBO, but... A show like The Wire has a great deal of bad language, but is realistic and in complete context for the locale and setting of the show. The swearing in True Blood felt like it was there because this is HBO and this is an adult take on vampires. I have no problem with swearing in film or TV if it serves a purpose and is in context. And as for the steamy sex scenes. Was that all?

I am going now to watch Boris Karloff in The Mummy.

Debuts

In recent years there has been a glut of new fantasy novels hitting the shelves in bookshops. Some good, some bad, many indifferent. Some authors have created and written some very good material- Joe Abercrombie, Scott Lynch, Tom Lloyd and R Scott Bakker spring to mind. In recent months I have come across two very good fantasy novels by debut authors. The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss is an excellent read. As is Peter V Brett's The Painted Man. I haven't even finished the latter novel, but am recommending it already.

We Weren't Born To Follow

Is the title of the new single from my favourite band Bon Jovi. And it rocks. The new CD/LP is called The Circle and is out in November. Me excited!!

As for Avatar. I love James Cameron. Not literally, but his films. When I downloaded the teaser trailer for Avatar my initial response was... 'Is that it?'

James Cameron has talked about how this film will revolutionise film-making and viewing. Immersive 3D. Photorealistic characters and environments. However, he also spoke about how these service the storyline and supplement it. The trailer looks like it will be an imaginative film. It also looks like FMV footage from a video game. The trailer for the Avatar game looks remarkably similar to the film footage. My problem is that the film may be a fantastic experience in the cinema with the 3D footage working brilliantly. It also needs to work on 2D screens; either in non-3D equipped cinemas or at home. At this moment the film appears to be all singing and dancing in an appropriately equipped cinema. Comic Con reviews and those from people who saw the 16 minute preview in cinemas attest to this. The trailer is disappointing.

I will hold off on a verdict, because it is only a teaser trailer.

As a sign of my good taste watch the video for The Guild and 'Do You want to Date my Avatar?' For quality avatar themed stuff. http://feliciaday.com/blog

Last five...

Last five books read:
God of Clocks by Alan Campbell
The Secret History by Donna Tartt (Re-read)
The Dying Animal by Philip Roth (Re-read)
The Road by Cormac McCarthy (Re-read)
In Search of Shakespeare by Michael Wood. In preparation for a visit to Stratford-upon-Avon this week.

Last five films watched:
Let the Right One In
The Shape of Things
A Streetcar Named Desire
Eastern Promises
The Kid (Chaplin)

John Hughes

This site occasionally seems to become a place for obituaries. Mainly because I want to celebrate the lives of influential people who have died. Very sad news today about John Hughes. The film director/ writer/ producer died of a heart attack at the age of 59. He had been retired for a number of years. Why was he so important? Simply-Ferris Bueller's Day Off and The Breakfast Club. Two classic movies that I grew up with and still love to this day and rewatch regularly. He also scripted Pretty in Pink and Home Alone amongst others. But, the two movies I have highlighted are outstanding comedies. His legacy remains on film forever. If you haven't seen these films then all I can say is, 'what are you doing reading this?' Go. Go and watch. NOW.

Bobby Robson

A true gentleman. A great manager. An advocate for raising money for his cancer charity. A football man through and through. A man who was respected by pretty much everyone, regardless of footballing loyalties. He lived a good life and achieved great things with great dignity. And he retained that dignity and grace through his struggles with illness. A great man. What more can be said?

Watchmen

I finally got round to watching Watchmen. I have read the graphic novel and can appreciate why it is regarded as being one of the most important comic books in existence. Although as a comic it engages more on an intellectual level than on an emotional one. So, when it was announced that a film adaptation was in the works for definite I was intrigued. Zack Snyder did a good job of adapting 300, so I was reasonably confident he could do a solid job on this.

I wont recite the storyline, as that can be found anywhere. As an adaptation of a supposedly unfilmable piece of work, it works well. I think it will require more viewings to appreciate just how much has gone into the film.

The story works effectively and follows the original very closely. It is obvious the director has a real affinity for and passion about the project. Some shots are direct lifts from panels in the comic. It feels like the comic has come to life. The acting is very good across the board and we get reasonably well rounded characters. I say reasonably only because in a work with a complex narrative some character beats are going to be lost and subservient to the story. The ending has infuriated some, but I would argue that it better serves a modern audience than the original ending and posits a more interesting moral message that the comic. Is that sacrilege?!

All in all Watchmen is an effective film and the best adaptation of an Alan Moore story to date. It is well worth seeing. Although one does have to be a little pissed off that once again the US get the director's cut and the UK the theatrical edition. Anyone want to bet that the director's cut will be out in time for Christmas?

GDT

Is there nothing this man cannot do?

I will review The Strain which I have read and loved.

I will continue to look forward to The Hobbit.

I will rhapsodise about the greatness of this Mexican maestro in a future blog.

An afternoon with Benjamin

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Now there is a film.

Visually stunning. It has to rank as one of the best films I have seen in the way it evokes a sense of time and place. It is very well acted. The camera work and shot choices are exquisite and there is an intelligence at work amongst the whimsy. It has it's detractors, but I think it is one of the best films of the year. (Certainly a far, far better film than the one that won the Best Picture at every award ceremony going.) The film, although emotional, never went for cheap and manipulative choices and sped by in a whirl of beauty and grace.

I have been a huge fan of David Fincher and he just seems to get better and better as a director.

This should have won Best Picture and Best Director. Fact.

Mumbles about there being no justice or common sense or logic or...

Slumdogging

Slumdog Millionaire has had many outstanding reviews and has won bucketloads of awards. Everyone I have spoken to who has seen the film has praised it.

So, why did I not think much of it? It was okay. Oscar worthy; BAFTA worthy. Um. It was the political choice and the hype machine rolled along very nicely. But it isn't a great film. I appreciate that it was low budget, but visually there was nothing notable about it. And the sudden segues into slow motion were just bizarre in a drama. They were the kind of slow mo shots you would see in an art film or an action film. The acting was okay, but nothing special. The social issues didn't tug at my heartstrings or make me particularly care about what was going on. It was a passable way to spend a couple of hours, but no great shakes. The script was predictable and the split narrative apart didn't do anything worthwhile. The attempted manipulation of emotions was visible a mile off. I suppose it was a comfortable and safe depiction of events in India without having any content that would offend the masses.

For a gritty look at deprivation and similar issues you only have to watch City of God to see how average Slumdog was.

After Mamma Mia was the biggest grossing film in the UK in 2008 and now this being the most lauded one has to wonder what actually constitutes quality these days?

The Last Flight of Galactica

I have finally seen the final ten episodes of Battlestar Galactica and am feeling a little sad that it is all over. I know that the conclusion has elicited mixed reactions. My conclusion- I enjoyed it. The build up to the finale was more of a slow build up than a slam bang in your face finish. At times somes of the story strands seemed rushed in order to up everything before the final episodes.

Nearly all the characters had their storylines resolved well. Helo and Athena were possibly most short changed. The resolution for their arc was good, but they were on the periphery. I suppose it wasn't going to be possible to give every character an in depth send off. Roslin seemed out of character. I couldn't decide if it was the way in which the role was written or if Mary McDonnell's acting wasn't up to scratch. At times the performance just seemed slightly off for some reason. I can't put my finger on it. Roslin is great when involved in showing scenes and moments of strength and determination. Pathetic when emotional. It will be interesting when I rewatch from the mini series onwards whether this is the case all the way through or just in the final stretch.

Michael Hogan deserves great credit for all his work as Tigh. A consistently strong and effective character played by a very underrated actor. As for Katee Sackoff, well she has essayed one of the great female performances in TV for a very long time. I hope she ends up with a long and varied career and not just being the go to action, SF girl.

The final double episode ended on a sombre and thoughtful note. The Baltar and Six visions/angels/watchers/whatever linked well into the spiritual and religious themes that have been evident from the mini series.

Regardless of the very occasional bits that haven't worked, this has been one of the most consistent, challenging, thought provoking and downright awesome pieces of television for many years.

The Galactica and the fleet heading into the sun to the original theme tune was a final send off worthy of the old girl. And she was definitely a character in her own right. Mind you the moments I found most sad were when the Galactica was being bombed and attacked by the Cylons and was almost a fireball. Then when the FTL jump took her away and she crumpled and buckled I did feel a tangible sense of loss and a momentary tear in my eye.

Farewell, Galactica, but I will be back to rewatch all of your fine voyages again.

Reboots and remakes

I love films. With a passion. Not quite as much as I love books, but close. I will watch films of any genre, from any era and any country. I love a wide range of films, from cheesy horror to more profound works of art. I read film magazines and am fascinated by makings of and books about film.

However, I am perplexed by the preponderance in Hollywood for remaking and rebooting films. Some of which do not need to be remade or retooled. I understand that the bottom line for film companies and production companies is to make money. If any business is to survive then profit making is a natural element of survival. But, is there really a dearth of original ideas for scripts? Is this even a sensible question to ask when it seems like every comic book published is being made into a film and every bestselling novel gets optioned?

In the last few years we have had numerous remakes of horror films. Some of the 1970's low budget films can be given a glossy make-over and work well for audiences who weren't around at the time. I would argue that it is better to introduce younger spectators to the older films and let them appreciate the differences in culture and era. There are over 40 horror remakes in production at the moment, including Nightmare on Elm Street. Do we need remakes of good films? If a film is that much of a classic and has defined its own iconography then probably not. Remaking an obscure film that didn't work that well the first time can be effective, but updated effects and music video style visuals do not a great film make.

As for remaking and rebooting bona fide classics then we enter a whole different ball game.

There has been fan ire about a proposed Alien remake. Although the stories have been revised to indicate that it is a likely prequel rather than a straight remake. Apparently there are proposals for a new Buffy movie. Buffy the film was pretty poor. Buffy the TV series was pretty damn fine. Joss Whedon created a wonderful and dynamic show. Now a Buffy movie spun off from the show could conceivably work, but a new Buffy movie without any involvement of Joss Whedon, the man who made it all work, seems a ridiculous idea.

There are plans to reboot Tomb Raider with a new actress. The films weren't great, but weren't as bad as is generally made out. They were dumb, fun flicks. But is there any need for a reboot? In the same way that Hulk was rebooted recently, there comes a point where logic seems to have left the film industry. I can see the validity of remaking a film from thirty odd years ago, but rebooting a property from four or five years ago shows a lack of imagination and creativity. Superman Returns was a fantastic film and a worthy entry into the franchise. Bryan Singer directed a beautiful film that showed a love for and understanding of the character. Yet, Superman is one property slated for a reboot.

I unashamedly love genre films. SF, horror and fantasy are the genres that get my juices flowing, but I want to see unique and original ideas. Things like The Orphanage or Pan's Labyrinth. It is interesting that some of the more intriguing films are coming from outside the Hollywood system. But given Hollywood can make a considerable amount of money from genre films you would hope that someone, somewhere would plump for something new.

I guess having an easily identifiable brand name and recognisable franchise makes marekting and sales of movies very easy and straightforward. But it shouldn't have to be. At least some interesting ideas still spring forth. Like Moon, directed by David Bowie's son, Duncan Jones. It looks like an SF throwback to classic thought provoking films.

When a film comes out that bucks the trend then we celebrate. But we should also celebrate the classics and educate audiences who may not have seen the originals as to why they are good and still valid today.

Trekking

I posted about some of my problems with the new Star Trek movies. Two reviews are far more eloquent than I at expressing issues with the film and reinforced some of my impressions of an entertaining film that wasn't actually Star Trek. One is by Adam Roberts, the author.
http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2009/05/star-trek-2009.html
The other is
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html
Both are very astute on analysing the main problems. I am glad it is not just me who wasn't totally convinced by the film. People I know who have seen it all loved it. Reviews have all been positive. At least there is some common sense in the world.

After pondering and thinking about all the plot holes and having had some more time to process the film I have come to realise it isn't even a great film. It is okay, but certainly not one of the best films of the year.

At least I always have the Shat.

Cancellations and curiosities

Well, TV executives make the strangest decisions. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles has been cancelled after two seasons. I really enjoyed the show; when my digital box receiver wasn't breaking up the signal that is. It has some excellent episodes and a particularly strong first season. The second season did get bogged down with intricate story arcs and convoluted at times. I suppose when you are dealing with the multiple effects of time travel and changing the future things will get complicated. Nevertheless, the show was a decent extension of the first two Terminator films, which are both classics. If it had continued it could have gone in some very interesting directions.

Would it be cynical of me to think that the launch of the new Terminator film and its possible franchise might have played a part in the demise of the show? How viable is it to have the same property running simultaneously in differing guises? The movie has got a lot of buzz and some mixed reviews. The old ratings weren't good enough for the TV show to survive reasoning will have been the ultimate arbiter of the final decision.

Although Dollhouse has had atrocious ratings in the US and has been given a second season, so ratings are not necessarily a barrier to a shows continuance. Look at BSG. That lasted four seasons without being a major smash. Perhaps Sarah Connor needed to be on a smaller niche network to have had a chance of a longer term survival.

On the curious side is the decision to award Heroes a fourth season. The first season of Heroes was entertaining and well produced. The second was a mess and a disaster. The third less so, but still pretty crappy. The producers always seemed to want to top themselves and create rip roaring cliffhangers at the expense of character development and logical storytelling. I normally find a show and stick with it, but gave up on Heroes as it became less and less enjoyable and more and more ridiculous.

At least Supernatural is back for a fifth season. As this show has gone on it has grown in confidence and has become a very well executed premise. Apparently this will be the final season. At least Eric Kripke and the creative team seem to have a specific plan in place and ending the show on a high before it has jumped the shark is potentially a good idea.

Another show I gave up on a few years ago was ER which has become comfortable. Too much so. Storylines were being rehashed and it was getting way too melodramatic at times. When Romano was squashed by a falling helicopter and no-one noticed was about the time I started to think oh no. I persevered for a couple more years and drifted away. One reason was that Channel 4 in the UK dumped the show onto one of its digital channels. But, this week in the UK sees the final ever episode of ER. I may tune in to see how it all ends and although I haven't watched it for a while it still was a staple of my viewing habits for a considerable number of years and just deserved a mention and a fond farewell.

Star Trek

I saw the new film on Friday. And I have mixed feelings. It was not as bad as I had feared. Some aspects of the film were very good. Some were not so good.

If you have read my earlier post, you know I had major concerns about the film. Then the early reviews started coming onto websites and into magazines and the general verdict was that Star Trek was very good. The only negative comments I have read are on George RR Martin's blog.

So, my verdict. I won't go into a plot synopsis. There were a number of elements that worked well. I had raised concerns over new actors playing iconic roles. That was one area that really surprised me. Chris Pine played Kirk very well and found a fine line between being a cocky, arrogant young man and a rounded person. Zachary Quinto created a recognisable Spock, but showed the conflict between logic and emotion effectively. Karl Urban was a very good Bones, but underused. Uhura was fine. Sulu and Chekov were both okay. My concerns about the characters were completely unfounded. Bruce Greenwood provided some gravitas as Christopher Pike and Eric Bana was unrecognisable, but good as Nero. But like some of the other actors was underused.

There were some cute nods to the history of the show and films to appease the fans.

The new Enterprise design worked well, although I'm not completely sold on the bridge.

The film was exciting and flew by. But...

The science and the plot left something to be desired. The use of black holes to time travel was dodgy and the fact that Spock arrived exactly twenty five years after Nero only to find Nero waiting for him was a little convenient. The use of the old time travel plot device chestnut is becoming a tired cliche for Star Trek plots. I understand that it was a clever way to set up an alternative timeline for the Trek universe, but I think I would have been happier to have seen a complete reboot with the new actors rather than an effort to pander to the fans in this way. The red matter was, again, convenient and only existed as a lazy way of keeping the plot moving.

And move it did. The pace never let up. Which was a shame as some of the character moments were lost and some of the moral concerns that could have been utilised were not given a chance to be aired. We saw the destruction of Vulcan, yet it was curiously unemotional and if you are to destroy one of the central tenets of Star Trek, surely you need to pay a lot more attention to it.

Simon Pegg as Scotty felt as if he had walked in from a different film. He was okay, but nothing more. Sulu's fight scene was a bit strange. Yes, he fenced in the original series, but would he really have taken a sword on a mission where he has just plummeted through a planet's atmosphere? Chekov's accent was a mouthful or two too far and it was a bit far fetched to see him as a mathematical genius.

The meeting of original Spock and Kirk was nicely done, but Spock meeting Spock was somewhat superfluous. It made for a wow moment, but didn't seem to serve any other purpose.

Another problem was the direction. The handheld shaky camerawork was so rapid that a lot of the interesting visual design was lost. I know that the sensibilities of modern Hollywood are for this style of filming, but some sense of location and some attention to the sets and effects would be nice. And what the **** was it with the lens flare? At times the lighting felt amateur. Yes, it is a stylistic decision, but after a while just looked lame and coupled with the rapid whip pans meant that more visual information was lost.

The plot doesn't stand up to much scrutiny when you really look at it.

Spock and Uhura. Mmmmm. This was an interesting choice. The writer's certainly seemed to have put the main focus on the Vulcan, but a smart young woman getting her commission on the Enterprise only because she is in a relationship with Spock diminishes her independence. It was also a shame that they spent so much time telling us how smart and qualified Uhura was, only to get her in her underwear at the earliest opportunity. It is nice to see an attractive woman in her underwear, but this character didn't need to be sexualised in this way. It was enough to see a smart woman make her way on her skills. And smart is sexy.

The film missed a lot of the elements that made Trek great. The moralising, the exploration of the human condition, debating issues of prejudice, politics and the suchlike. Did it actually do anything that was really that new and fresh?

As an energised Hollywood blockbuster it ticked all the boxes. It has reignited the Trek brand. But it has also missed many of the ingredients that made Trek what it was. So, it was a fun summer movie; an okay Trek movie; but it wasn't quite Star Trek.

Interestingly, I watched Balance of Terror from the original series a couple of days later. And realised that a degree of intelligence was missing from the film. it was all show, but was missing some heart. Trek could be very hokey and silly, but at its best provided thought provoking and boundary breaking episodes. Any sequel should try to hook into these aspects, but I'm guessing it will be another action packed adventure.

The Wire

I have all five seasons of The Wire on DVD and am having a rewatch. It is a fanatstic show. Intelligent. Uncompromising. Dynamic. I like that elements put in place in one episode will become relevant somewhere in the future. I like the fact that the characters are three dimensional and are not cliches. There are good elements to the portrayal of the criminals and flaws in the characters who are good. The acting is always excellent. The visuals are always cinematic.

Which leads me to debate the premise that has been posited about this show. Is it the greatest TV show ever? It is undoubtedly up there. I would have The West Wing up there as one of the best shows ever. The original series of Star Trek. Not that every episode was brilliant, but because it paved the way for so many barriers being broken and serious issues being explored. The new iteration of Battlestar Galactica is great.

The one thing The Wire perhaps has over and above other shows is that it is consistently good from episode to episode.

Why am I writing this post about The Wire? Well I saw Idris Elba interviewed on a chat show today. And it was strange to hear him speaking in an English accent. I knew that he is English, but hearing him speak in a Cockney accent makes you realise how well he portrayed the character of Stringer Bell. And of course Dominic West is also English. Isn't it curious that two major characters in one of the best ever US shows are both from this Isle? Isn't it also pretty damn good!

Great moments in panels

What are some of the greatest moments in comic books? When I was growing up I received a Spider-Man annual one Christmas. In it was the story featuring the death of Gwen Stacey. Even at that age, which must have been about eight or nine, I realised that this was not your run of the mill storyline. It was only a number of years later that I got hold of the trade paperback of the whole story and realised that Marvel really pushed the boat out. I wasn't aware, because the first few issues weren't in the annual, that Harry Osbourne was hooked on drugs. This revelation makes the story even more powerful and intense. I guess including that in a book that sold at Yule time, for kids, wouldn't have been a sensible marketing plan. But then, how many parents' would have actually read it anyway? It is still a story that resonates today and is legendary in Marvel lore.

The next great moment is surely the first appearance of Death in The Sound of her Wings in The Sandman. Pretty much everything in The Sandman is awesome for that matter. Neil Gaiman created something unique and literary and downright brilliant. Many people cite Watchmen as being at the pinnacle of comic books. I would disagree. Sandman is, for me, at the summit. It has so many layers and is so intricate it doesn't matter how many times you return to the many pages, there is always something you have missed waiting. A work of genius.

Speaking of Alan Moore, The Killing Joke is a slim, but effective Batman one shot. The Dark Knight Returns is a great tale. Frank Miller created another iconic moment which was the murder of Elektra by Bullseye; an image virtually replicated identically in the Daredevil film. The director's cut of which is actually a good film and far better than the theatrical cut.

Finally The Crow is a powerful, romantic and tear jerking comic. It has stark visuals, a heartbreaking narrative is violent as hell, but is a very human and personal tale. I always seem to take something new away from it when it is re-read.

And just to finish off, why have I spelt Sandman, Sandamn every time tonight? Obviously, I have corrected this post!!

RIP

I heard the sad news today that the author J G Ballard had passed away.

Riding through the glen

The Adventures of Robin Hood starring Errol Flynn is probably the best Robin Hood film ever made. Disney made an entertaining version starring animals. Robin and Marion with Sean Connery was good. Robin of Sherwood was an intriguing new spin on the mythos. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, dodgy accents aside, was fun and enjoyable. The current BBC version of Robin Hood can only be described by using derogatory swear words about substances that emerge from bottoms. This week they plummeted to an even lower low by having a villainous character named Ruthless Rufus. I kid you not. Does any more need to even be said?

So, it is with hope and anticipation that I await the new film version of Robin Hood to wash the stain of the BBC's **** away. The first picture has been posted online. Ridley Scott, director of some of the most iconic and brilliant films, is calling the shots. The masterful Russell Crowe is Robin Hood. Crowe is without doubt one of the finest actors working today. This will be their fifth collaboration together after Gladiator, A Good Year, American Gangster and Body of Lies. If this version of Robin Hood can rise to the highs of Gladiator, and also Ridley Scott's vastly underrated Kingdom of Heaven (especially the Director's cut), then we could have a cracker on our hands.

Writing about Ridley Scott makes me think about Alien. Happy Sigh. And Blade Runner. Happier sigh.

Sky- why oh why?

First they outbid the BBC and bought 24. Then they outbid Channel 4 and bought Lost. Then they outbid Five and bought Prison Break. All shows that I really enjoy and watched regularly. So, what have Sky gone and done now? Yes, you guessed it, they have outbid Five and purchased Season 5 of House. I don't have Sky. I can no longer watch any of these shows when they air. I have to buy the DVD box sets if I want to watch them. Viewing figures on Sky are substantially lower than on terrestrial TV, but because they have money Sky can claim exclusivity for their programming. Every time Sky does something like this it makes me more determined not to buy a dish and subscribe to a monthly package because then I would be funding a machine of pure greed. Instead I will either have to do without or wait for the shiny discs. I want to cry.

Holiday working

I am off work at the moment. Yet, I have spent most of today having to do work in preparation for going back to work on Monday next week. I still have more to do. It kind of defeats the object of having a holiday if you have to work. What we do to pay the bills.

At least I have some time to read Lee Child's new Jack Reacher thriller, Gone Tomorrow. You know exactly what you are going to get with a Reacher novel, but they are fantastically entertaining and Reacher is a great character. It may not be classic literature, but by golly, I like it!

Also, when I have checked my blog traffic stats, it seems my blog has been viewed the grand total of six times. It is a start and not bad for a blog that has only been in existence for five days. I am hoping that the six views haven't just been as a result of me clicking on my blog page. Which would be the equivalent of getting a number one single because your family members have bought all the copies because they feel sorry for you. Sort of.

By a snout

It has to be said that most werewolf movies leave something to be desired. Given that, there are some classics. So, what is the best werewolf movie ever made? The leading candidates will obviously include An American Werewolf in London. It is atmospheric, funny and has those groundbreaking special effects. It still stands proudly as one of the classics of the horror genre. But, it is surely closely matched by The Howling. Joe Dante, who was responsible for directing Gremlins a few years later, has made a very underrated film. Like American Werewolf, the film has some effective special effects. It is visually strong and shows a healthy understanding of how the horror genre works. The film has some knowing nods to werewolf lore and other werewolf films. There are clips from The Wolf Man and a subtle nod to that film's director George Waggner in the final scene in the TV studio. I would say The Howling just pips American Werewolf by a whisker.

But, my favourite werewolf movie is...

Drum roll please...

The Wolf Man. Another of Universal's classic monster movies. Made in 1941 and starring Lon Chaney Jr this film is the grandaddy of all werewolf films. Everything in the film works with a charm and grace. From the production design to the music to the acting, the film has stood the test of time. I think it is a horror film which stands alongside Dracula, Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein and The Invisible Man as one of the all time greats. And the best werewolf movie.

Okay, must go, I hear the children of the night. What sweet music they make.

Green Orion Slave Girls...

...are supposed to be irresistible to man. The question I am asking is whether the same will be true of the new Star Trek movie. With only a month or so to go the first reviews are very positive. So, why do I still have great concerns over the film? JJ Abrams has a good track record as a show creator: Alias and Lost. Mission Impossible III was a solid film for his directorial debut. Yet, I am still wary.

I grew up watching the original series and have the three seasons on DVD. They aren't quite in pride of place because I have the bulky plastic cases which need a sturdy shelf beneath them. I have seen all the episodes numerous times. For me the characters are iconic and have been developed over the span of the first six Trek films as well. The actors and the characters have proven to be a perfect match. Now I can appreciate the argument that other characters have been played by a multitude of actors. For example, James Bond, Batman, Superman, Hulk, Dr Who and so forth. On the other hand some characters are so tied up with the actor that to reboot with a different actor seems wrong. Would anyone else play Indiana Jones as well as Harrison Ford? (Isn't commutation testing fun?)

I could understand a relaunch of the Trek franchise with a new cast and a new direction, but to recast iconic roles that have been established for 43 years is, to my mind, a strange decision. To reboot the franchise is, however, more likely to be financially viable for the studio. They have an existing universe, characters and ships. To start from scratch with everything shiny and new would be a tougher sell and a bigger risk. They have an existing fan base and brand recognition by using existing lore in an origin story.

The trailer looks action packed and the consensus from reviews is that the film is fast paced and, yes, action packed. The one thing that is also mentioned is that there is not much room in the film for issues of morality and humanity to come through and that these elements are likely to be seen in a sequel. But, I would argue that one of the key components of Trek in it's many incarnations is the ability to look at the human condition through the prism of SF. I worry that in going for a mass appeal and targeting a mainstream demographic the filmmakers will have dumbed down some of the reasons Trek has had such a lasting legacy.

I understand that the film has many nods to established lore and things that fans will enjoy. Obviously, the involvement of Leonard Nimoy as an older Spock indicates that the film has some legitimacy. Whether it is an advantage or not that Abrams wasn't a Star Trek fan remains to be seen. In some respects he has the advantage of approaching the material from a fresh and unbiased perspective. The possible downside of this is that the essence of what makes the original so special might be diluted.

It would be too easy to nitpick things like the Enterprise being assembled on Earth and so on before I have seen the film. So, I am trying to keep an open mind. I want to be wowed and feel the same affinity and passion for a new version of Star Trek as I do for the old. Let's face facts the franchise has constantly managed to reinvent itself and adapt to the times. The Next Generation moved the universe forward and made Trek even more popular. DS9 took things off on interesting tangents and a dramatic new directions. Voyager, well... Even Enterprise had some very strong episodes. Star Trek won't ever die and that is something to be grateful for. It existed before I was born and will continue to seek out new worlds and new civilisations long after I am space dust.

My fingers and toes are crossed. I want the film to be a success. I don't want it to spoil what Trek is all about. We will always have the original series. It is always there. But I hope this is a loving and respectful reboot that is worthy of the name

STAR TREK

The War of the Worlds

Somehow it has taken me a long time to actually watch the 1952 version of The War of the Worlds. It is a fantastic film which still stands up well today. Admittedly some of the acting is a little ropey, but the effects still look reasonable. And there is something about practical effects that give films a charm that isn't always there with CGI.

Castle Howard

A couple of weekends ago my girlfriend and I visited Castle Howard, a few miles outside York. Neither of us had been before. It was an amazing building and the grounds and gardens were beautiful. Obviously, the location has been used for both the TV and film versions of Brideshead Revisited. Inside great reference was made to these productions. Also worth mentioning was a painted mural done for the film which had two awesome winged skeletons as angels of death. As a huge Stanley Kubrick fan it was, however, disappointing that no reference was made to the exteriors being used for Barry Lyndon. Curious. Another thing worth seeing were some of the children's books on display which had illustrations by Arthur Rackham. This was interesting as Guillermo Del Toro has mentioned Rackham in interviews and you can see some stylistic influences between the illustrations and images in Del Toro's films.

Planet of the Dead

I have a real love/ hate relationship with the new incarnation of Doctor Who. I watched the Easter special and it definitely fell into the hate category. Why? It was nothing special. It seemed to be a mish-mash of Lara Croft, Mission Impossible, Pitch Black and other films and TV shows.

My first moment of oh dear occured when the security guards at the gallery appeared and marched, in unison, to the gold cup on display. They had guns. In a gallery? They had laser beams protecting the exhibit. And they all cleverly faced outwards. The theif then came from above; where there was no security.

The episode then proceeded to be, quite frankly, very silly. The police couldn't catch a bus in a chase. A mobile phone worked across the galaxy. The sonic screwdriver has become a cool gadget with no purpose other than to be a cool gadget. Yes, it was funny for about one second to see the Doctor change his glasses into sunglasses. But the screwdriver has become an easy plot device. Locked in a room. Point the screwdriver. Need something fixing. Point the screwdriver. You get the point. Need to free someone from handcuffs. You guessed it.

Lady Christina needed to turn off a force field. Lo and behold there is a big red off button just above the field. The wormhole had spread to ten miles in diameter, but on screen was a little bigger than the tunnel.

As for the characters... Ladt Christina was okay. Lee Evans as the scientist was okay. The character of the UNIT commander was embarrassing. Saluting the Doctor for the first time whilst speaking to him on the phone! The characters on the bus were not really characters and as for the psychic lady, well she was only there for the prediction at the end of the episode.

And let's not get started on the silliness with the flying bus.

It also felt like David Tennant was sleepwalking through this episode. Normally he is excellent. Though, he can only work with what is scripted.

There have been some very good episodes of Doctor Who. This wasn't one of them.

I respect that RTD has returned Who to our screens and very successfully, but more often than not, his episodes seem to be the weakest ones. I could go on and deconstruct this episode further, but suffice to say that it was disappointing.

It can, and has, been argued that Who is for a family and mainstream audience and that, as such, it should be taken with a fair amount of suspension of disbelief. I have nothing against silliness (I am a huge fan of Farscape which had some incredibly silly episodes), but the silly moments should at least make sense. SF can be light, but still retain some consistency in the rules of the world or universe it is set in. Certain episodes of Star Trek, in all it's incarnations, had humour and silliness. Buffy and Angel often did. Yet Who seems to have silly moments for the sake of having them rather than for any story related purpose.

Doctor Who should be consistent and should have rules that guide the fictional universe in which it is set. It can be fun, but it doesn't have to be dumb.

I suppose that I had higher expectations for a special that had a longer running time than a normal episode. This one fell into the hate category. Oh well, maybe The Waters of Mars will restore my faith.

Or not.

And so it begins...

So, here it is. My very first post on my very first blog. I have been considering setting up a blog for a while and have finally taken the plunge. Why? Good question. Do I have anything of value to say? Is anybody actually interested in what I have to say? I don't know, but here I am anyway!

To quote a famous song lyric, 'Please allow me to introduce myself...' My name is Anthony. I work for a living. I love and adore reading and have far too many books. Although one can never actually have far too many books. I am a huge film fan. I enjoy writing. I own a cat. I have a wide taste in music. I attempt to play the guitar. I enjoy visiting places of historical interest and the countryside and the seaside. I have a PS1, PS2 and 360 and would like to be better at being a gamer. I am a geek and am passionate about all thing SF, fantasy, horror and weirdness.

I don't know if this will end up being a regular blog, a semi-regular blog or an irregular blog. My main aim is to discuss the things that interest me. Books I have read, films that I have watched and the suchlike. I may rant, I may not rant. I may be posting random insanities that no-one cares about. But, on the off chance I am not, enjoy reading and please feel free to drop by and post comments.