Linky: Other People Worth Reading Recently

Because I always feel that San Diego is so very far away and that I will never attend the Comic-Con, I don’t talk about the many, many, many items that come out of there each year (for full details, look at the indexes for CBR and Newsarama). Anyway, it’s not as if this blog is read for up-to-the-minute, biting and witty analysis of current comic book news.

Instead, I wanted to link to some interesting reading on the web that I encountered recently, both as a pointer and a reminder.

Tom Brevoort now blogs, in an official capacity, for Marvel about his experiences as an editor on their books. Tom always comes across as smart and passionate about his work, so it was even more fascinating when he recently discussed aspects of Marvel’s powerhouse crossover, Civil War. It makes for fascinating reading, watching parts of the process from the beginning (Mark Millar’s original idea changes during the process) and the collaborations and movement. A wonderful look behind the scenes.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mike Sterling, one of the deservedly well-known comic bloggers, provides some intriguing insight behind the ‘90s crash of the comic book industry. Having worked in a comic shop for many years, and being an entertaining and thoughtful commentator on all things comic booky, he is perfectly placed to answer questions (which he asked for in this post) about that strange time in recent history.

I have to confess to not being completely aware of what exactly was going on at the time – not only did I not read many magazines about the industry, I didn’t care about the companies that were starting up (Valiant, Malibu, etc.) that were worse affected, and my finances weren’t so good (I was on a very small grant doing post-graduate work at the time) so I was not buying that many comics anyway. So, thanks Mike for being an archive of knowledge.
Asks the question:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Inspired by Mike’s discussions of the ‘90s crash, Tim O’Neill discusses how the character of the Punisher was almost completely destroyed by what happened during that time in these three posts. Tim is a smart and discerning chap, so I was amazed he had even read some of the comics in the first place. However, he clearly explains the manner in which the then-successful Punisher franchise, hosting three continuing series, was totally destroyed through incompetence and forced to lay fallow until the masterful resurrection by Garth Ennis. Fascinating reading that also manages to show why I never read any Punisher comic of the time.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Paul O’Brien, one of the best reviewer of comics around, talks at some length about Wolverine #55.

I believe that Paul works in the field of law, so an eye for detail is probably important in his job. He uses that ability on the X-Men comic books, and then to an even greater degree on this issue (and the storyline as a whole, written by Jeph Loeb).

There are some who think that buying comics you don’t like is wrong and is killing comics. This is bollocks, by the way, but that’s beside the point. Paul is not only doing an important job of keeping track of the books, he is also doing an excellent job of writing about them. He eviscerates the issue, and its role as resolution to the arc, for the complete and utter tosh it is (apart from the pretty pictures from Simone Bianchi).

I have yet to read something written by Loeb that I liked, and Paul nails the reasons why in this wonderfully entertaining review. Loeb has created a ludicrous concept (Logan and Sabretooth being archetypes of wolf-men throughout the ages because of their black and blonde hair respectively) and a boring sounding villain in a story that is nothing more than flimsy justification for introducing his villain and stating that we should take notice because Loeb says so. And Paul shows him how wrong he is at every turn. Delightful reading for anyone. Thank you, Paul, for doing what you do so well.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

EDIT: I forgot to include this bit, which fits into the post.

On his blog (now calling itself ‘Dick May or May Not Read Your Blog’ rather than its previous name of ‘Dick Hates Your Blog’), Dick Hyacinth provides a trip down memory lane as he talks about his personal experiences of being a reader/collector of comics in the 1990s. With some warm and honest writing, it is an enjoyable and nostalgia-sparking recollection of a different time. It is also fascinating to see the differences in comic book reading, and the maturation of taste in someone who enjoys the medium so much.

Comic Review: John Woo’s 7 Brothers

Created by John Woo, written by Garth Ennis and drawn by Jeevan Kang

7 Brothers was one of the first titles to come from Virgin Comics, the attempt by Richard Branson to get into the comic book business. Despite having very silly credits on the inside cover – ‘Chief Visionaries’? – the level of creative star power behind the output is formidable, with some talented people at the helm.

If you had asked me if John Woo was going to come up with a comic book, I would have thought you were taking the piss. Yet, here we are – a story by John Woo, the man of heroic bloodshed, honour among friends, loyalty and Chow Yun Fat. Life is very strange sometimes.

Being a famous film director, Woo doesn’t have the time to actually write the comic book in question. Fortunately, they decided to hire somebody who could, and do it well. Is there any company he hasn’t written for? Marvel, DC, Image, Acclaim, Avatar – he just doesn’t care. Which is good for us.

The first issue, ‘Son of Heaven, Son of Hell’, introduces to the Chinese treasure fleet of 1421, the discovery of the new world and how it was written out of history. With some evocative art by Kang, this is an enchanting and atmospheric start to a story – not what one would expect from Woo or Ennis.

So we jump to the modern times (which somehow makes the art seem slightly strange in comparison – it is competent and stylish and the backgrounds are realistic, but it feels odd when it comes to the people, like the faces aren’t right or something), where we meet a ridiculous wannabe pimp, calling himself Double-Double, a silly looking black American who gets dissed by his hoped-for hos and beaten by their real pimps, only to be saved by a Chinese woman who seems to have beaten the men by going back in time …

The woman is Rachel Kim, and she takes Double-Double, real name Ronald, to six other men she has brought together: Robert Akimbe, from Africa; Daniel Falling Water, a native American; Barry Hooker, from Australia; Gabriel Castillo, from South America; Jagadish Verna, from India; and Muhammed Ridwan Salim, from the Middle East. They are all in LA after getting a cheque for $50K and an offer of $50K more.

Rachel then tells the men of their special abilities: Daniel can run very fast; Robert can see beyond the horizon; Barry can hear over vast distances; Jagdish can find things that are lost by picturing them in his mind; Muhammed shot down a gunship with his voice when he screamed at it; Gabriel can jump very far. Having heard this, it convinces them to stay. Meanwhile, the an expedition find the last resting of place of the ‘Son of Hell’.

In the next issue, Rachel tells the brothers the history of the treasure fleet, how it had a sorcerer to protect it – the Son of Hell. He had an apprentice, Fong, who was learning everything, including the sorcerer’s true plans: the mapping of the Dragon Lines, the power of Earth’s elemental energy concentrated into unseen lines of power. The sorcerer placed control stones at every intersection of the Dragon Lines, so that he would rule and possess their power. Fong knows he had to stop him but he is not ready, so he put a mojo on his seed and impregnates women on the seven continents to leave seven children … When further voyages were banned, the sorcerer cursed the fleet to everlasting torment, and Fong battles him under the ground and brings the earth down on them.

In current time, a man called Zheng is trying to negotiate between the NY gangs – he removes a boss’s eye with a chopstick and informs them that he has killed their wives and children. That’s negotiation for you.

Rachel is the last of Fong’s normal children in China, who has been told of what happened and what is needed: the Son of Hell would return and the seven brothers would stop him. Now, the Son of Hell has returned and Robert can see him. The Son of Hell has eaten the brains of Jack Donald, a vastly wealthy man, in order to be him in the real world, getting Zheng to help him …

Zheng is to be the sorcerer’s bodyguard as he aims to rule the world – Robert can see this and Barry can hear it. The brothers argue (as brothers do), while the sorcerer sends his men to deposit stones to the locations of the Dragon Lines. The brothers go to the address that Jagdish was able to attain, only to be met by Zheng. Rachel tries to use her magic but Zheng is ahead of her, and he kills the brothers …

Ronald finds himself in a cold place but he is counselled by Fong, who tells him that Ronald can lead the brothers out of hell. Ronald finds them all, leads them out and brings them back to life, surprising the cops standing over their bodies. They see Rachel being knocked out of a skyscraper by Zheng after fighting him, and Gabrielle jumps to save her. Ronald tells them that Fong said that Ronald would know how to stop the sorcerer, but he has no idea what that is …

The final issue sees the confrontation between the brothers and the Son of Hell, who is now a conduit for the power of the Dragon Lines. The six brothers use their abilities to find the way to defeat the sorcerer, while Ronald realises the real reason why they are called Dragon Lines …

I have to admit that I wasn’t too sure what to expect of Garth Ennis creating a comic book from an idea by John Woo, but it wasn’t this. I was pleasantly surprised. Not that Ennis knows how to tell a good tale; the man’s a natural born storyteller. But this is actually an entertaining story, told well and a nice idea. The art is a little on the painted/scratchy side for my person tastes, but it conveys the mix of the old and the new, incorporating talking heads and violence and Chinese legend. It makes me want to see it as a film, but I know that they won’t make it – the mix of the fantasy and the swearing/ultraviolence is not cineplex-friendly. That’s what comics are for, aren’t they?

TV: Heroes

If there is one disadvantage to the internet, it is the knowing about all the cool stuff in advance that I know won’t be coming for a noticeable length of time. This time, the cool thing was Heroes – reading the comic blogosphere and news sites, I have known about it but haven’t been able to read anything about it.

This is extremely frustrating, because Heroes sounded exactly as if it was made me: a drama told in a serious manner about people with unusual powers who don’t decide to put on spandex and stop bank robbers.

Heroes is finally on terrestrial television, arriving on BBC2 last Wednesday with a double episode (and a strong web presence; BBC seem to want to go for the geek crowd strong, and they want it to be a success – announcing the numbers the next day on their news site to ensure it). And it was worth the wait.

We are introduced to a variety of characters who, for no explained reason, have ‘super powers’: invulnerability, flight, telepathy, seeing the future, time travel and something about a parallel existence in a mirror dimension. Well, there may be a reason: a professor of genetics had some unusual theories, which got him killed, explaining the existence and location of people with extra abilities. His son decides to come to America to find out more, after fleeing a man who was in his father’s apartment (a man who turns out to be the adoptive parent of one of the supers). And our time traveller seems to have jumped to a future where something will destroy New York, something foreseen by the man who can see the future …

The vibe of the programme is very enjoyable – this isn’t tongue in cheek, or mocking – it plays everything straight without being poe-faced. The tone of the show is perfect, evoking the ‘Lost’ vibe nicely, with the mysteries and multiple characters interacting in ways that only we see (the Petrelli election ads on the television in the background). Fortunately, this seems to have a point rather than constantly teasing.

If I have a quibble, it’s about the dialogue. In the early scenes, it is so ‘on the nose’ (ooh, listen to him with the fancy screenwriter lingo, as if he was some sort of expert) that it made my teeth hurt, with the professor’s son and his friend explaining exactly why he was distant from his father. The rest of the dialogue doesn’t feel particularly natural or flowing, which I hope improves in the rest of the series.

The show is heavily influenced by comic books – the feel of Watchmen and the spectre of Rising Stars loom over it (although apparently the latter is a case of convergent evolution, and JMS went for the more comic booky feel of spandex) – and the feel of the Marvel New Universe (does the eclipse logo have the feel of the Star Brand, or is that just me?) but in a good way. Which is all fine with me.

I may have had to wait, but I think I’ll enjoy it nonetheless. I look forward to the rest of the series with tingling anticipation …

(Old) Film Review: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

(All the talk of Harry Potter had me looking around at my old notes, where I found my original review of the third film. So I thought I'd include it for completeness.)

This is the best film of the franchise so far. This is probably helped by the fact that the book was the best so far, but the film itself is a cracking film in its own right as well.

Everything about it works wonderfully; the younger cast are growing in their roles and really look the part, and are more like teenagers in general; the mood and atmosphere is wonderfully evoked throughout; the humour is very funny; the older generation are a delight, particularly Alan Rickman and David Thewlis (Gary Oldman was perfect for Sirius Black, and I look forward to seeing more of him in the next two films); the CGI is brilliant yet subtle, giving the film the genuine ethereal element, where all the images and painting that are supposed to move, move (like the wanted poster of Black on the walls, for example); and the director brings a sense of real 'magic' to the film, if you'll pardon the expression, where Columbus only brought the Spielbergian sense of awe and wonder.

The film is not a direct translation of the book, unlike the previous two, which helps as well. A film is a film, not a book, so some things that work in the book won't work on screen. The film follows the main points of the book, with Dementors surrounding Hogwarts after the escape of Sirius Black from Azkaban, the prison for wizards, who everyone believes will be out to kill Harry. The new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, Professor Lupin, seems to know what he's doing for once – Harry connects with him when Lupin saves Harry from a Dementor and reveals that he knew Harry’s parents, and then teaches Harry how to defend himself against Dementors.

Everyone is so good that you wish there was more for them to do. The actors playing teachers turn up mostly for information roles, but it's still nice to see them. Gambon is an able replacement for Richard Harris, but I have to admit to a preference for the latter as Albus Dumbledore. Fortunately, the actors in the main roles are all so absorbing that you almost forget there are others to enjoy, such as Emma Thompson as the simpering divinity teacher.

There are some great twists and turns throughout, as anyone who read the books will know, and the film moves at a brisk pace. However, the film also provides space to enjoy quieter pauses, and uses the Wheeping Willow to mark the passage of time in an amusing manner. Also, the film ends better than the last two, as there is none of that 'hurrah' end of school nonsense, but with a rather more sombre feel, and the two new close adult friends that Harry makes are not allowed to stay around to remind him of his parents. But, as The Empire Strikes Back shows, the ambiguous endings are always the better ones.

There are some great lines (‘Does my hair really look like that from the back?’), the romance between Hermione and Ron is subtly moved along (although I personally prefer Harry and Hermione to become a couple, all indications in the book are against this), and the film just looks so good that it's a shame that Alfonso Cuaron is moving on and Mike Newell is on board for the fourth film. For now, though, we have a wonderful Harry Potter film for fans and novices alike.

Rating: DAVE

The Observer's Funniest 50 Films ... Ever?

The Observer announced the results of the poll for their readers’ favourite comedy films. You can find the results here and here. Note that they say ‘hundreds’ voted – that's not very much, is it? If it wasn't for the fact they had been trailing it in their paper for a few weeks, they might have tried to forget it and not bothered. So, with that in mind, let’s take a look …

1. Life of Brian
Directed by Terry Jones, 1979
Very happy with this choice. Funny in of itself and as a film, it transcends their sketch nature and is a complete cinematic entity. Deserving of the number one slot on the list.

2. Airplane!
Dir. Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker, 1980
Based on the gag ratio, this earns its place.

3. This Is Spinal Tap
Dir. Rob Reiner, 1984
I’ve never been a big fan, but I can appreciate what it means to a lot of people.

4. Some Like It Hot
Dir. Billy Wilder, 1959
Happy to see this so high – some old films don’t hold up so well, or fall out of favour with the times, but this still has it after all these years. One of the great last lines ever.

5. Withnail and I
Dir. Bruce Robinson, 1986
The student classic – I am one of those who saw it just before attending university to claim it as our own – so my bias gets in the way. You won’t find this on a US list – I had to introduce it to my fellow Americans in a film appreciation society I was a member of, as a sort of cultural exchange.

6. Blazing Saddles
Dir. Mel Brooks, 1974
This gets in solely for the fireside farting scene – there is no single scene funnier in cinema history.

7. The Big Lebowski
Dir. Joel Coen, 1998
With the reverence around this film, a lot of people clamour for the earlier Raising Arizona (which is also on the list). Not me; this film is endlessly watchable, with a wonderful central performance by Bridges and ably supported by the sterling Coen troop.

8. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Dir. Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, 1975
This is the really funny one, but falls really flat at the end (strangely, the breaking of the fourth wall works much better in Spamalot).

9. Duck Soup
Dir. Leo Mccarey, 1933
It’s hard to pin down the favourite Marx Brothers films – the memory plays tricks that make you want to mush all your favourite moments into one, joyous film – especially with some of the unnecessary singing and romance bits forced on them by the studio. I think people went for this one because of the ‘There’s no sanity clause’ line.

10. Young Frankenstein
Dir. Mel Brooks, 1974
I prefer this to The Producers, which it beats in the list, with its affection for the original material and the silliness (‘Igor, help me with the bags.’ ‘Soitenly. You take the blonde, I'll take the one in the turban.’ ‘Abby. Abby Normal.’) but I haven’t watched it years, so does that say something?

11. The Producers
Dir. Mel Brooks, 1968
Apart from the genius idea of the Busby Berkely ‘Springtime For Hitler’, this doesn’t do much for me. This is one of those films that highlights the divisiveness of comedy – while films in general can be deemed good or bad on a comparison of factors, comedy either makes you laugh or it doesn’t. This doesn’t.

12. Shaun of the Dead
Dir. Edgar Wright, 2004
Whereas this does. I’m a huge fan of Spaced, so this was a dead cert; the only question was how much I would like it. Combine the quality pair of Pegg and Frost, the film references, the London theme, and the packing of jokes into a good story, and Bingo.

13. Groundhog Day
Dir. Harold Ramis, 1993
I’m always surprised to see this film so fondly remembered, as it always feels like something you discovered alone. It isn’t full of quotes but it has a magic too it – how else could you explain a film so watchable based on repeating the same day again and again and again …?

14. Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Dir. Stanley Kubrick, 1964
A classic film that you don’t think of as a ‘comedy’ because it is very black comedy. However, it’s good to see here among the more recent entries, giving hope to the rest of the list. ('Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.')

15. Planes, Trains and Automobiles
Dir. John Hughes, 1987
I suppose this is amusing but I’m not a fan of John Candy and Martin is not interesting when he plays it straight. I’m surprised it’s so high on the list.

16. The Man with Two Brains
Dir. Carl Reiner, 1983
As they mention in the article, this has one of the great lines: ‘I couldn’t fuck a gorilla …’ and Steve Martin on totally funny form. It’s completely silly, but in a good way, and deserves its status on the list.

17. There's Something About Mary
Dir. Peter and Bobby Farrelly, 1998
This is a symptom of short-term memory – it’s funny but not that funny; it’s more sweet than anything else, with some gross-out moments that everybody remembers. Personally, the moment I remember is wife coming up from fellating her husband while he watches the news on TV and sees Ben Stiller’s character, wiping her mouth before saying something, and then him pushing her down again, but that could just be me …

18. Annie Hall
Dir. Woody Allen, 1977
A comedy with an Oscar – huzzah. The best mix of funny Allen and character piece he has made, with lots of wonderful moments. You have to feel sorry for him having to match his earlier catalogue in the films he makes now.

19. Dumb and Dumber
Dir. Peter and Bobby Farrelly, 1994
I don’t have anything against the Farrelly bothers, but I don’t understand why this is on the list – It’s mind-boggling. I refuse to discuss it further.

20. Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Burgundy
Dir. Adam Mckay, 2004
Of the many comedies he has made, this is the one that captures Ferrell’s wonderful sense of the absurd while in character ('San Diego, which of course in German means a whale's vagina'). It’s the most ‘blokey’ of his comedies, i.e. endlessly quotable, completely silly and not necessarily a great film, but the funny bits are really, really funny.

21. Mr Hulot's Holiday
Dir. Jacques Tati, 1953
Never seen it, don’t want to (mostly based on the fact that Rowan Atkinson uses it to justify the totally unfunny Mr Bean antics).

22. Shrek
Dir. Andrew Adamson, Vicky Jenson, 2001
Good to see what is supposedly a kids’ film so high up, especially as it mocks the children’s beloved Disney so much. This is indeed very funny stuff, so much so that it gave others the idea that film references in CGI films are all you need to make something funny which isn’t (e.g. Shark’s Tale)

23. Best in Show
Dir. Christopher Guest, 2000
'And to think that in some countries these dogs are eaten.' Is this funnier than A Mighty Wind or Waiting For Guffman? I’m not sure; perhaps it is the more Brit-friendly conceit of dogs, rather than folk music or amateur theatre respectively. Still, the quality shines through in a very funny mockumentary.

24. Kind Hearts and Coronets
Dir. Robert Hamer, 1949
Ah, some Ealing black comedy. I don’t remember it as huge belly laughs, though …

25. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
Dir. Larry Charles, 2006
Now, this is all about huge belly laughs; painful, wet yourself, I can’t believe they just did that laughs. I don’t know if this survives repeated viewing, but the first time is absolutely hilarious. Cohen suffers for his art.

26. The General
Dir. Buster Keaton, Clyde Bruckman, 1927
People usually bring up the trio of old comedy: Chaplain (the artist), Keaton (the perfectionist), Laurel & Hardy (the populists). Personally, I prefer Harold Lloyd. Therefore, I cannot comment.

27. A Fish Called Wanda
Dir. Charles Crichton, 1988
Despite having that old Ealing feel, this was charmingly funny and delightfully English. And Kevin Kline is the best thing in it, which is why he got the Oscar for best supporting actor.

28. Way Out West
Dir. James W Horne, 1937
See comments for The General. I like Stan and Ollie, but don’t love them. Still, good song.

29. The Odd Couple
Dir. Gene Saks, 1968
Lemmon and Matthau in perfect harmony, with a great script from Neil Simon – sometimes he just has a good line, here it all works well.

30. The Ladykillers
Dir. Alexander MacKendrick, 1955
More evidence for the fact that this was a British poll. How dark do we like our comedy? This is quite delicious; please don’t bother with the remake unless you are a Coen completist.

31. The Blues Brothers
Dir. John Landis, 1980
When I think of this, I think of the music rather than the comedy. (Also, where is the love for Animal House? A US vs UK thing, perhaps?) It’s a film I can watch anytime, but not necessarily for the laughs, despite the scene with the nun punishing them for swearing.

32. Arsenic and Old Lace
Dir. Frank Capra, 1944
I have not seen; my film buff status revoked.

33. Bringing Up Baby
Dir. Howard Hawks, 1938
I’m not a great fan of the screwball comedies – they irritate me. Watching them is like hearing a metal glove on a blackboard. But it’s all opinion, isn’t it?

34. A Night at the Opera
Dir. Sam Wood, 1935
All the Marx brothers films should be equal in their status.

35. Kingpin
Dir. Bobby and Peter Farrelly, 1996
I’m going to look like a Farrelly hater, but I don’t find this funny. Perhaps because I don’t like Woody Harrelson very much (don’t know why), but this is, at best, amusing. Sorry.

36. The Naked Gun
Dir. David Zucker, 1988
The humour in this gets pretty awful at times, but the gag rate compensates. However, it doesn’t rate Top 50 funniest film status.

37. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Dir. Stanley Kramer, 1963
A comedy of its time – seeing all those ‘mad’s in the title turns me off. You couldn’t have made me want to see it less if you’d called it ‘Wacky’ or ‘Zany’. Surely people’s affection for this is for the cameos?

38. Raising Arizona
Dir. Joel Coen, 1987
Funny as a whole rather than the individual parts, I always feel. The brash energy of young filmmakers getting the opportunity to unleash, but I would prefer O Brother, Where Art Thou instead, which I find much funnier.

39. Team America: World Police
Dir. Trey Parker, 2004
Personally, I think that South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut is funnier, but this is still pretty damn hilarious and is the sort of comedy one thinks of when you talk about ‘comedy films’.

40. Trading Places
Dir. John Landis, 1983
Should a film where a man is sodomised by a gorilla be allowed to be funny? (Is that something to do with Eddie Murphy? His Dr Doolittle has a man being buggered by a giant hamster.) I wouldn’t put it on the list, even for Jamie Lee Curtis’ breasts.

41. American Pie
Dir. Paul Weitz, 1999
No, no, no, no. A Porky’s for the millennium does not deserve to be on the list. It’s not very funny. A simpleton sticking his genitals in warm pastry products? Are you that obvious?

42. Hot Fuzz
Dir. Edgar Wright, 2007
Even though this is current, I think it has the chops to earn its place on the list. The big laughs come from Nick Frost, but the whole thing is a piss-take of epic proportions, so well done to the boys.

43. Love and Death
Dir. Woody Allen, 1975
It’s all the ‘early, funny ones’, isn’t it? It’s a shame that Allen feels guilty about having a God-given gift for writing funny lines that he needs to make amends by doing his Bergman imitation. It is all right to be funny, Woody …

44. Meet the Fockers
Dir. Jay Roach, 2004
Fuck. Off.

45. Sleeper
Dir. Woody Allen, 1973
See comments for Love and Death. Like the Marx brothers, the good Allen films should earn joint position to balance them out.

46. South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut
Dir. Trey Parker, 1999
When I saw this in the cinema, I was amazed that my then-girlfriend fell asleep next to me as I was laughing like an idiot. Uncle Fucker is genius, and the satire is funny too.

47. Stir Crazy
Dir. Sidney Poitier, 1980
Really? Really? Have you watched it again recently?

48. The Music Box
Dir. James Parrott, 1932
Laurel and Hardy moving a piano is classic stuff. I feel hard-pressed to include it but I can’t deny their comedy magic.

49. Tootsie
Dir. Sydney Pollack, 1982
Haven’t seen it, don’t want to.

50. Uncle Buck
Dir. John Hughes, 1989
Of the many films that could be on the list and this makes it? That’s bizarre. Occasionally amusing but Top 50? I don’t think so.

This could have been worse but it comes down to the fact that it is a list of votes from people who use the internet and in no way representative of a sufficiently large selection of people (but that’s a good thing, as they would probably have bloody Mr Bean in there). And it all comes down to particular taste in comedy, which is why it always has such a difficult time when it comes to the Oscars, because there is no easy rating system for it.

Personally, I would have Clerks in there, as well as When Harry Met Sally …, which gets relegated in these things because it is a romantic comedy, despite the fact that it’s really, really funny. There are some surprise omissions – no Ghostbusters? Zoolander? Austin Powers? – based on the rest of the list, and there are of course very few old films (comedy is very subject to the time it was made). However, it does provoke discussion and, of course, easy blog posts …

Book: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

As I’ve mentioned, I enjoy the Harry Potter series. I enjoy the world that JK Rowling has created and the characters that fill it. The attention to detail, from the huge history to the names of people and spells, and the placing of a world of magic next to the context of the modern world of the mundane are wonderful. Therefore, I was looking forward with anticipation to how it would all come together in the final book.

I was amazed by the hype and coverage that surrounded the release of the book. The media coverage was particularly impressive and wide-ranging, but the fan level was even more amazing. And this was all for a book. Isn’t that great? Doesn’t that hold out hope for the human race? That people were that excited about a book. It gave me a warm tingle. It was probably this that made the going out, just before midnight, to pick up the book along with many others, seeing the queues outside book shops of people eager to get their hands on a copy. I’m glad I was out there at 12:01 along with everyone else, being part of the phenomenon.

I read it in a rush over the course of Saturday and Sunday, finishing it too quickly on Sunday and giving myself a bit of a headache in the process. But it was worth it, and there’s no higher praise I can give it. Even though, as a fan, it was going to be hard to be disappointed by this book, the final book follows on and completely ties up everything that has gone before in a marvelously satisfying read. Everything is connected, with even minor characters from earlier stories making appearances, and details from throughout the previous six books have an impact on what happens in this book, in logical and narratively satisfying manner.

We find Harry at the Dursleys, getting them into protection as we near his seventeenth birthday, when the protections on him and the house will end, and he has to go into hiding. Along with Hermione and Ron, they go on their mission to find the remaining Horcruxes (which hold the portions of Voldemort’s soul, keeping him immortal) without the aid of the Order of the Phoenix or Dumbledore’s Army. The story gets off to an exciting start immediately, as we are plunged into a world of darkness and sorrow, as Death Eaters have infiltrated the Ministry and magical families without the right blood connections are suspected and Muggle-born folk are seen as dirty and animal-like. The book wins the title of darkest yet, as death is a constant companion through the story, with many characters facing their ends.

The darkness continues throughout the middle section of the book, as our trio are cut off from the normal world they know and the characters we have come to love. This section may be slow in comparison, but it is needed for all the backstory and for isolating Harry in his hero status, before the final climax, not only to the book but to the entire saga. A lot of the humour for which Rowling is known has to be absent from this part, dark as it is, because we can’t be allowed too much relief at this point. However, when you reach the last 200 pages, you will not want to put the book down or stop reading, as you race through the excitement of the finale. It is an exhilarating read that explains everything and reaches its thrilling conclusion. There is laughter, sadness, revelation, love, loyalty, courage, nobility, death and resolution. What more can you ask for?

I know there are some that decry the popularity of the books, the effects on the book retail industry, the writing style of Rowling (and her excess use of adverbs), the fact that they are for children, but they are missing the point. The books are deliriously entertaining stories, and that is the most important factor. The delightful characters, the thrilling plots, the amazing singular vision (obviously in place from the first word of the first book), the humour, the magic have all provided hours of entertainment for many people, myself included, and, while I will miss the them (I felt a little empty after finishing Deathly Hallows, knowing that there was no more), I was filled with a happiness at having read it all and was thoroughly entertained throughout. JK Rowling, thank you.

Film Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

There are many aspects of the Harry Potter films that have got darker as they have progressed, to be expected from a series about the rise of a dark wizard who killed the hero's parents, with the last film including the onscreen death of an albeit minor character. And this doesn't even mention the darkness of Daniel Radcliffe'e eyebrows. But the fifth film has the darkest yet – the sight of Dudley Dursley as a hoodie in training. Scary.

The film opens with Harry and Dudders being attacked by two Dementors in Little Whinging; he uses a Patronus charm to repel them, only to receive a letter from the Ministry of Magic telling him that he has been expelled from Hogwarts and has to attend a hearing at the Ministry about it. Before that happens, he is taken to a secret house belonging to Sirius Black by other members of the Order of the Phoenix (Moody, Lupin, and new characters Kingsley Shacklebolt and Tonks). There, talk is of the return of Voldermort and keeping Harry safe; he wants to fight, something that makes Sirius happy but nobody else.

Arthur Weasley takes Harry to the hearing (the set design for the Ministry of Magic is quite spectacular), which has been abruptly moved up the schedule. Even though it looks like Fudge is trying to railroad Harry, Dumbledore turns up to save the day, even though he refuses to talk to Harry afterwards. Harry returns to school, but is greeted by cold shoulders of school mates who believe the Ministry-enforced line of the Daily Prophet, which suggests that Harry is lying and Dumbledore is an idiot for believing him.

Life at school isn't helped by the introduction of a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, the Under Secretary of the Ministry, Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton in wonderful form as the pink-suited smiling evil woman who makes you glad you are not at school anymore). When they are told that their Defense classes will be theoretical from now on, Hermione persuades the only person with practical experience to teach them how to fight: Harry.

Although lacking confidence, Harry turns out to be a good teacher, and the relationship with Cho Chang blossoms, while their group (Dumbledore’s Army) avoids Umbridge (now Inquisitor) and her Slytherin-packed group of schoolchildren enforcers, until the DA is betrayed. This leads to Dumbledore being accused of leading this rebellion – he assumes the guilt but escapes Hogwarts, leaving Umbridge to become Headmistress. Thanks to some quick thinking from both Hermione and Ron, they escape in order to act on the visions Harry has been receiving from Voldemort’s brain, leading to the fight for what Voldemort has been seeking and what the Order of the Phoenix has been protecting …

The fifth film in the Harry Potter series is definitely as good as the last two have been. However, it seems that they took the ‘darkest yet’ theme too far in the visual aspect of the movie. The film itself is very dark in colour – the bright lights seem to have avoided the entirety of the movie, with the dark sets of the Ministry and the school only occasionally being alleviated by the lightness of the scenes in the Room of Requirement. Matching this with the absence of much of the character-based humour of the previous installments (and the books) makes for a tonal change that doesn’t fully grasp the full nature of the books. Yes, the books are getting more serious, but that doesn’t make them poe-faced plot machines.

The darkness of the visuals doesn’t help with the director’s handling of the action and the magic of the films. The climactic showdown at the end is muddied by the dark visual palette, which, as well as condensing the action, doesn’t allow it to punch its way out of the ‘serious’ constrictions of the film itself. There is some hint of the magic (the DA producing their patronuses) but the flourishes are few and far between. Yates doesn’t appear to be a visually gifted director, which is a shame for a movie that cries out for it (see my adoration of the Alfonso Cuaron-directed third film).

Where Yates succeeds admirably (along with the well-written and slimmed-down script by new-to-the-series Michael Goldenberg) is in the character moments – the actors are allowed to shine in their interaction with each other, making the film come alive. The adults involved, most with very little to do in this film, all wring as much out of their moments as possible (Staunton having the most fun with her large screen time, but Rickman shining as Snape as always); particularly affecting is the interplay between Radcliffe and Oldman, who make the Harry–Sirius relationship completely believable. Oldman has a lot of fun with his rogueish character, particularly the skilful yet dazzling use of a wand in the final showdown.

As with the last film, the book had to be chopped down considerably to become a film (even at over two hours, it crams everything in to a fast running time), meaning that a lot is left out for fans of the book and Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have little to do as Hermione and Ron. Admittedly, this is Harry’s story (as they all are) and film prefers the arc of a single protagonist, but these three are very much the heart of the series. Another factor, as mentioned in my run up to this review, is that the specifics that are left out indicate aspects which are not important for the final book – there is no discussion about the similarity between Harry and Neville in the prediction that occurs in the book, suggesting that it was a red herring.

Taken as a film in its own right, the fifth film is still and enjoyable and exciting spectacle; the actors are fully immersed in their roles, the sense of doom (both from the Death Eaters and the Ministry, with its allusion to 1984) is palpable, the world in which they habit feels real and believable and the pace of the story leaves you breathless and eager for more. It’s not perfect, and I have my doubts about Yates as the helmer for the next film, but I want to watch it again, which shows you he must have done something right. Now, the only question remains is why the Ministry has a room full of crystal balls on thousands of very high shelves but seemingly no magical protection in case one of the shelves gets accidentally knocked over …

Rating: DAVE

More reflections on Harry Potter films

(When I said tomorrow, I obviously meant the day after the day after tomorrow. You knew that.)

The third film is where things begin to click and is my personal favourite. It is utterly charming – Aunt Marge is still floating in the sky when we see Harry leave the Dursleys; Stan looking around the corner of the bus to where Harry can see the dog; the fun of the Whomping Willow used to show the passage of time throughout the film (the film may only be a few hours, but it relates to 8 months); the use of moving wizard images of Sirius Black on the newspaper and the posters – and the film is infused with humour and fun: Tom at the Leaky Cauldron; ‘Room Service!’, the boggart scene; ‘You tell those spiders, Ron.’

The introduction of two characters that are so endearing and so linked to Harry’s family, in the forms of Sirius and Remus Lupin, also make this film a particularly warm film. It allows the film to connect with us via the characters. The actors are all very enjoyable – Oldman, Thewlis, Snape, Smith – but not everyone is perfect. Gambon is okay, but I’ll always see Harris as Albus (even though Gambon seems to adhere to the more flaky character of the book version of Dumbledore). Julie Christie has a very silly accent as Rosemerta. And there is the bizarre appearance of a large black boy in Harry’s class that we’ve never seen before who gets all the ominous exposition lines in a scene. What’s worse, he delivers them really badly, and he has an abnormally low voice for someone his age. The need to add ‘colour’ to the school was one of the few wrong decisions in this movie.

The most wonderful aspect of this film is the visual delight and sense of magic that pervades the whole fabric of the film. Cuaron uses CGI wonderfully, to illuminate a world that is like our own but is decidedly not. There is always something to remind you in the background that this is not our world, and that is wonderful thing. The films should exude this fantasy element, not as the defining characteristic but as part of the scenery. One of the worries I have about Order of the Phoenix was a quote from the director David Yates, saying he was brought in to make it more real. That is completely missing the point of the magical world that JK Rowling has created. If I want a searing political drama, I’ll watch that. I want to watch a film about a young wizard and his battle against evil.

The fourth film is a cracking little thriller – which means that lots of things have to be dropped from the book, but that is inevitable and okay – that is a lot of fun, even if it lacks a lot of the magic of Cuaron’s visual stylism. Everyone gets better in the acting stakes, and there is the sense of darkness that we are promised. However, having a film where someone escapes from Azkaban and not explained AT ALL after the film where the whole point was about how impossible to escape from there seems that the thriller element overtook explaining all the nuances that are in the book. In fact, it would seem that if you compare the book and the film, the film will tell you which parts aren’t important for the final book because of their absence. If it’s not important enough to be in the film, then it doesn’t matter to the denouement.

Which brings us up to date, in preparation for the fifth film, ‘the darkest yet’. As an obvious fan, I’m looking forward to it, so will enjoy it anyway. I just hope that it will be a good film in its own right. I’ll share my thoughts when I’ve seen it.

Reflections on the Harry Potter films

As the fifth Harry Potter film gets ready to hit our cinemas, and the final novel gets ready to assault our book shops, it seemed an appropriate time to remember the earlier films.

I enjoy the books and the films, and have read and seen them a few times respectively. I’m not a Potter maniac, but I know my way around them. This, and a hypercritical eye, make for odd viewpoints on the first film.

For example, the opening scene of the film has Dumbledore and McGonagall meeting up and putting baby Harry on the Dursley’s doorstep. Except they refer to each other as ‘Professor Dumbledore’ and ‘Professor McGonagall’, as if they were at school in front of pupils, rather than old friends who call each other ‘Albus’ and ‘Minerva’ all the time. This is part of the problem of introducing characters in a new universe, but it grates on the nerves slightly.

Of course, this slightly unsure tone leads to more discomfort in the film. The worst, for me, has to be the most ridiculous line ever, spoken by Hagrid when he takes Harry to Daigon Alley for the first time: ‘There you can get all your bits’n’bobs for wizardry.’ What the hell is that? Who would say that, apart from someone who was dropped on their head? What does it mean? We have seen specific shops, like the wand shop and the broomstick shop, but apparently you need ‘bits and bobs’ to do wizardry, says a man who used to go to the wizarding school and currently works at it. And how is that helpful to Harry? Would he like a cauldron? A wand? Some scales? Parchment? Ingredients? No – he now thinks that all you need to ask for is ‘bits and bobs’ for him to be fully set up to perform magic. As you can see, it really riles me.

Having watched the film, I start wondering about logistics. Like, do all the people who go to Hogwarts use the Hogwarts Express? Not having researched it online, my guestimate for the number of pupils is close to 300. This is based on Harry’s first year: he joins Gryffindor, with four other boys, so let’s say that’s average, so five girls joined, so that makes 40 in a year, making 280 pupils, with a 10% error. How do they all get on that old fashioned train, with its separate carriages? It just doesn’t make sense.

And how does Harry end up with a carriage all to himself in the first film? Surely he’d have to share – wouldn’t he want to, to find out more about the wizarding world into which he is being introduced? No, he has to wait for Ron Weasley, who apparently is hated so much by his older brothers that he is left to fend for himself on his first time on the Hogwarts Express. And Harry, who is so happy that someone is talking to him, demonstrates his disturbed psyche (after the horrendous abuse he has suffered under the Dursleys) by having to buy Ron’s affection literally by purchasing the entire sweet trolley. Nothing says be my friend more than a train carriage full of confectionary.

Then there is the racism, by having Seamus, the only Irish kid in the school, shown trying to use a spell to make rum out of water. Bear in mind, HE’S ONLY ELEVEN AT THE TIME. Thanks Chris Columbus or Steve Kloves, whoever was responsible for the ‘comedy’ of showing all Irish people as lovable alcoholics.

By the way, Minerva McGonagall should be investigated – how can she afford a Firebolt for Harry on a teacher’s salary? And surely it is highly unethical for her to show such favouritism towards a pupil in her house? Albus should have a word … And talking of the gift, how do they know it’s for Harry? It could have been for almost anyone on that table. And then the three of them wonder what the gift could actually be? What sort of shape is that, I wonder? Stupid kids …

I haven’t mentioned the kids’ acting. It’s a little harsh to expect brilliance from children (not everyone can by Haley Joel Osment or Dakota Fanning) and they are being spoon-fed direction. However, there is one moment that makes me laugh. At the large-scale chess game, Ron has just been taken out; Harry and Hermione scream, ‘Ron!’ at his predicament. Hermione is going to run over to him, but Harry holds her back by explaining that they are still playing the game. However, he does it in the most expository voice you will ever hear. You’ve just seen him show fear and worry for his best friend, not knowing if he’s alive or dead, but then he talks as if he is reading it straight from the script. It always makes me laugh.

The second film doesn’t merit as much discussion – the workmanlike direction hasn’t improved, the kids are getting a little better, and Kenneth Brannagh provides a lot of fun (nearly as much as Alan Rickman as Snape does all the time) – except for the godawfulness of the end. It makes me quite ill every time I watch it, when everyone starts applauding for Hagrid’s return to the feast.

More tomorrow, when I talk about the next two films, in anticipation of seeing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix on Saturday.

Somebody Read My Blog

Rather than reviewing stuff, as I usually do, I have to comment on a comment.

Recently, I posted an old review of mine for a film called Londinium. Today, I was notified of a comment left about that post. It said:

Hey man, thanks for taking the time to bash my work. Love your site as well. All's good.

Live clean

Mike Binder

mikebinder.net
Thefreebird.com

I’m still quite dumbfounded about it. Someone posted a comment to my blog … Seriously, it is rather bizarre. Now, I don’t know if this is genuine (the two sites exist: one is Mike Binder's official site, the other a promo for a DVD of a film Binder wrote/directed/starred in from 2001), but I can’t imagine that someone of his stature would Google himself and then reply to a (rather scathing, I have to admit) review on someone’s blog. It seems quite strange, to say the least.

The other alternative is that it is a rather elaborate, well-researched hoax. It’s quite easy to set up an anonymous Blogger profile for the purposes of commenting on people’s blogs, but why bother? It’s a very small joke with not much pay off.

If it is the real Mike Binder, I can’t quite see the point of it. However, it made me think about the power of words in a review. I stand by what I said, but I never thought that the creator of a theatrically released movie would ever see my review of his film. I try to write my reviews to be fairly even handed, putting my thoughts across in a reasoned and (hopefully) articulate manner so that I am not misunderstood, bearing in mind that nobody goes out of their way to produce something bad. They are still human beings, and deserve to be treated with respect.

So, Mr Binder, if it is you, thank you for taking the time to leave a comment, and best wishes for the future.

Still, it could have been worse. A post of mine about British television comedy, of which I am quite proud, received the terse and to the point comment from Anonymous:

You fucking dick

You’ve got to admire the economy of phrasing.

-----------------------------

In a different vein, but still in the world of film and leaving me a little gobsmacked, I learn via Empire that The Dark Is Rising film trailer is online. As I commented in Clandestine Chum Jim Roeg of Double Articulation’s post about the reading material of his youth, I loved The Dark Is Rising cycle of books. They were the first books I remember REALLY enjoying reading when I was given them as a teenager. They either filtered my preference for genre reading, or were perfectly in sync with what I wanted to read. Whichever, they had a deep impact on my reading psyche and I have a huge affection for them to this day.

To learn that the second book in the series, also called The Dark Is Rising, has been turned into a film was something of a shock. I either never knew or I had blanked that from my mind. It makes perfect sense based on the success of The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and the upcoming His Dark Materials films: here is a series (i.e. a franchise) of books about mythology/folklore/fantasy, written by a British author, and specifically aimed at a teenage audience (read: key demographic for movie executives).

However, from viewing the trailer, I wonder if they know what they are doing with the source material.

Despite being adapted by John Hodge, of Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, 28 Days Later, The Beach fame, the film seems to be bizarrely updated to modern day America with more of an emphasis on the SFX action of the piece than the story. As Empire says, to take the narrative away from the country from which it takes its mythology seems a particularly odd choice, which I can’t see being justified other than a solely American-centric approach to the material. This seems quite sad, and doesn’t inspire hope for the film.

And, what is Christopher Ecclestone doing in this film? It really doesn’t seem like him – perhaps he was similarly affected by the source material when he was younger?

I will no doubt see this film (although unlikely in the cinema), just because it is The Dark Is Rising, but it will be hard to separate the dispassionate critic from the fan of the books. Just as long as I don’t turn into one of those Transformers fans who were screaming at Michael Bay before the film came out about all the changes he made …

Film Reviews: Spider-Man 3 and 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer

It’s been too long since these films to come out for these thoughts to be considered current or topical, and neither film merits intense discussion, so I’ll merge my musings (alliteration!) on the two into one semi-coherent post.

Let’s take it chronologically, with Spider-Man 3. After the first two films, which increased in quality (an impressive feat), the pressure was on for the third film. Perhaps because of this, it would be inevitable that the result couldn’t match its predecessors. A bloated film that still felt lacking in content, it can only be graded as competent.

A big sticking point in the narrative flow is the huge pile-up of coincidences that litter the film (John August covers it perfectly in this piece). There’s suspension of disbelief and then there’s taking the piss. Another aspect is too many villains; I can understand that Venom is thematically the satisfactory choice, linking to the dark Spider-Man theme, and is visually arresting, but so little time is devoted to him it feels tagged on (perhaps a reaction from Raimi’s reluctance to use the character at the insistence of Avi Arad). The Sandman looks amazing, but the weak character backstory, the ridiculously unnecessary retcon of him being the murder of Uncle Ben, and the feeble use of the character throughout all add up to a shoulder shrug towards him. Harry Osborn fits better, but the amnesia thing (oh dear), the being told information by his butler and the sudden about turn at the end all came out as silly, rather than a noble transformation.

Visually, the film had some spectacular moments (although the fight between Harry and Spidey had too much going on too quickly – I understand how this reflects the way a super-powered battle would ensue, but it doesn’t make it fun to watch) but kept on being let down by the story and by moments that I couldn’t believe I had just seen: the English TV reporter was the most embarrassing thing I’ve seen on film in some time; this is after the Emo Peter has done the stupid brush of his hair downwards (oh dear) and his ‘is it deliberately funny or accidentally funny’ Saturday Night Fever dance walk. Why did we need Gwen Stacey by the way? Completely pointless. Almost as pointless as having James Cromwell in the film; as Mike calls it, what a waste of James Cromwell. All in all, a film that could have been so much better.

The verdict for Spider-Man 3 can be applied to 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (silly title) – it could have been so much better. A film with the Silver Surfer in it can’t be all bad – just seeing him on screen brought a smile to my face. However, a single item does not a film make, and he couldn’t save this movie.

Let me start with the major problem with the film: Jessica Alba. She is not Sue Storm. The rest of the Fantastic Four is well cast – Chiklis and Evans fill their roles perfectly, and Gruffudd has matured into Richards well – but Alba seems completely out of place, even when they try to convince you she is smart by putting glasses on (the classic movie shorthand for a pretty girl with brains). This is a real shame, because her character is a strong female character in the normally male world of superheroes and Alba does not do the Sue justice, no matter how easy on the eye she is.

The next problem is the piecemeal approach to the story, taking some aspects from the original comics and some from Warren Ellis’ Ultimate Extinction version (and wasn’t that great, having Richards do the Ellis-written speech about nerds? Even with the easy coda of Alba saying ‘I’m so hot for you right now’ afterwards.) and not mixing them very well. The Ultimate version gave us the Galactus Cloud, which works in that story, but the original comics (which inspire these films more) need to have the giant Galactus with the silly helmet for the heroes to fight against, rather than leave the climactic final battle to the guest star in this film.

Still, the film is light and entertaining and slightly better than the first film, even if it doesn’t get the real feel of a FF story. There is a great scene at the end where Johnny is essentially the Super Skrull and fighting Doom, who has Silver Surfer's powers. That’s what a FF film should be like the whole way through. The character moments should still be there but as an accessory to the action, rather than the clunky bits in between they have here. There is a lightness to the whole thing (perhaps too light, to go for the family audience) that makes the fast 90 minutes zip by, but you are left feeling that there was more of a movie in there.

However, when you have the Silver Surfer in a film (albeit in too few scenes, and I didn’t think the voice of Lawrence Fishburne was quite right for the character) and he looks that good, it’s hard to be too harsh.

Rating for both films: VID

Buffy Brings Me Back

No, I’m not dead.

I’ve felt like it sometimes, but that’s just work for you.

So, with a mix of serious work overload, fatigue and a few days off for a break, no blogging for some time now. This regular blogging mularkey is tough.

Enough with the angsting, and get with the writing.

Another reason for lack of blogging inclination has been Buffy the Vampire Slayer. With the Season 8 comics from Joss Whedon hitting stores, I rekindled my relationship with my favourite television series. Ever since my best mate introduced me to the series when I visited him in the US, Buffy was show for me – it was funny, smart and filled with genre, and great characters.

I own the first three seasons of the show on DVD. I’m not in the Noxon-produced-hating camp; I just didn’t connect as much with the later seasons. True, there are some excellent episodes in the later seasons (Hush, The Body, Once More With Feeling) but each of the later seasons as a whole didn’t work for me. This started from Season 4, when Buffy became Whiny Buffy (the only reason to watch season 4 is Anya) and didn’t change much for the last seasons. But still I watched. Because it was Buffy.

So, I’ve been reliving the fun Buffy, when it worked on its original principle – high school as horror – which it lost when it moved away from high school. Still, the enjoyable is still enjoyable – the much loved season enders, the double episode of Innocence/Surprise – but there is so much else that can be viewed again and again. Watching it reminded me why it was so fun in the first place, especially an episode like Doppelgangland, a personal favourite, but that could be just me.

Anyway, I hope to be blogging again now that I can only watch Buffy via my DVD rental account, and start talking about recently watched films and comics and books (I just picked up Mike Carey’s The Devil You Know, right before CBR has an interview with him about the release of the novel in the US), so let’s try this ‘regular’ blogging thing again.