Unexpected Hiatus

Hello to the greater world out there.

Evidently, this week my laptop has decided that it now wants to die. There will be no updates until I'm able to get this sorted out.

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

Starring: Danny Elfman, Chris Sarandon, Catherine O'Hara, William Hickey, Glenn Shadix, Ken Page

Director: Henry Selick

Genre: Animation, Family, Fantasy, Musical

Rating: A

It's almost Halloween, which means that it's officially the time to question whether The Nightmare Before Christmas qualifies as a Halloween or Christmas movie.  I personally like to think both.

Jack Skellington (Sarandon, singing voice by Elfman) is the Pumpkin King of Halloween town, but as of late his heart hasn't been in the scarring people business - he wants something more.  This something more is found after Jack discovers the portal to Christmas Town and decides that this year Halloween Town will do Christmas.  With the help of the town he prepares for Christmas, even going so far as to have Lock (Paul Reubens), Shock (O'Hara), and Barrel (Elfman), kidnap 'Sandy Claws' so that Jack can replace him - although unbenknownst to Jack, the trio deliver Sandy to town bogeyman Oogie Boogie (Page).  Watching it all with apprehension is rag-doll and love interest Sally (O'Hara), who is certain that Jack's Christmas is not going to be a success.

It's no surprise that the best part about this movie is the music.  The songs are simplistic, catchy, and well sung.  Honestly, in my opinion one of the best parts about most Tim Burton films is the Danny Elfman soundtrack, and Nightmare really shines as one of his best.  Some of the songs aren't as good, but most of the music is just iconic of the stylings of this film.  It's a perfect blending of the styles of Burton and Elfman - sadly, for actual director Henry Selick he's kind of left out of the limelight a bit here by the two bigger names.

The next thing that makes this movie great is the world that Burton and Selick have created.  It's beautifully crafted stop motion animation, meaning that everything about it has actually been crafted.  The attention to details and what not isn't just some computer program - I realize that there's more to computer animation than just the computer doing it, but it has a different feel to it.  Somehow, the knowledge that the creations in Nightmare are all actually crafted things makes it feel more real.  You might not be able to have as much going on in the background when you're using stop motion, but what happens in the foreground just has this extra little charm to it - and really, Nightmare doesn't lose all that much of the background either.  The fact that they had about 400 heads for Jack alone says something about the time and effort that went into this movie.

Rounding out the greatness is the fact that it's a movie that does, or at least can, appeal to people of all ages.  It's animated and intended to appeal to a younger audience, but it also works really well as a movie for adults.  I actually hated this movie as a kid because I found it to be too scary, but as I got older and it began to reemerge a bit I really got into it.  It's fun, it's cute, it's dark, but it's also light at times.  It's probably the best thing that's come out of Tim Burton, or at least pretty close.  Definitely the best thing Henry Selick's directed.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Starring: Tim Curry, Susan Sarandon, Barry Bostwick, Richard O'Brien, Patricia Quinn, Nell Campbell, Jonathan Adams, Peter Hinwood, Meat Loaf, Charles Gray

Director: Jim Sharman

Genre: Comedy, Musical

Rating: A+

If you somehow don't already know The Rocky Horror Picture Show my recommendation is to go and check it out now.  An update of the classic Frankenstein story, this one is one of the few to really take the idea and go in a completely different direction.  Here we have newly engaged, rather vanilla couple Brad (Bostwick) and Janet (Sarandon) are on their way to see Dr. Everett Scott (Adams) when their car breaks down, so they go to the nearest house looking for a phone (this is well before the advent of cell phones).  There they find the eccentric and mad Dr. Frank-N-Furter (Curry), a transvestite from Transsexual, Transylvania, and his attendees, namely Riff Raff (O'Brien), Magenta (Quinn), and Columbia (Campbell).  Dr. Frank is a scientist who has made a man, Rocky Horror (Hinwood), although there is talk of another man, Eddie (Loaf).  Overseeing and narrating the whole thing is the Criminologist (Grey).

The thing I like most about this movie is the fact that every time you watch it you notice some other little thing about it.  While a total B-flick at best - or, really a parody of B-flicks - it's also horribly intricate and has all these little details to it.  There's something new to notice every time you watch it.  It's about more than just transvestites, aliens, cross-dressing, and songs - that's all very much in the foreground, but there is more going on.

Actually, that's a lie.  That's not my favourite part about this film, although it's up there.  My favourite part is the music.  The movie in general is fun, if not really weird and at times a bit confusing, and that's largely because of the music.  The soundtrack is just fun and there isn't a single song in it that doesn't serve a great purpose.  The best part here is the fact that the eclecticness of some of the music really embraces the eclecticness of the overall film.  It's really all over the place, but in Rocky Horror it somehow works.  The fact that this is meant to be a parody just makes things better.  It covers both the B-flicks and in a way life in general.  Looking at it - a movie about a singing transvestite who creates a man while basically holding two strangers hostage before things all go to shit - you wouldn't expect it to say anything really profound, but the more you watch it the more you start to see this kind of commentary.  There's a reason it's the longest-running release film in history.  It's something you want to see in theatres on the big screen, and not just because of the audience participation.

Angel: After the Fall (Continuing Series)

Creator: Brian Lynch, Joss Whedon
Publisher: IDW Publishing
Genre: Fantasy, Drama, Horror, Comic
Rating: C

The problem with the second half of Angel: After the Fall is that it retains all of the problems of the first half, while losing much of the strengths.  Here, Angel: After the Fall ceases to really retain the tone of the earlier series, but becomes increasingly confusing.  One of the things that I love most about Joss Whedon in general is the humour, even if it’s something that makes you stop and scratch your head for a moment or feel bad because what you’re laughing at shouldn’t be funny.

Here After the Fall embarks on life-post Hell.  Everyone is trying to regroup and reconcile post the trauma that they’ve been through, without having actually lived through due to the tricky nature of time travel, and the world of magic and demons has been fully revealed to the people of L.A.  Throughout this arch the issue of humanity is approached repeatedly, as is the issue of how to make amends and overcome past deeds – which I have to admit relates really well to the overall theme of Angel the series.

The big problem that I had with the first half of After the Fall was that the art isn’t consistent, a problem that pops up once again in this half.  I actually really liked the art at the start of this half, but then that arch finished and things changed and once again I was left questioning who was who and what the hell was going on.  Making things worse is that there is a lot less overall continuity here, and many of the storylines of different arches are pretty much dropped at the end.  There seems to be less continuity among the characters, making the big reveals to be just all that much more confusing.  Another big issue that I had was that characters are introduced or reintroduced, then forgotten about.  I really did like how Nina and Kate returned to the series, but they seemed to be forgotten about midway through – similarly Gwen returns, then disappears.  This happens as well with main characters, and while this is sometimes covered by little miniseries that occur alongside the greater arch of After the Fall, the whole thing gets rather confusing.  Perhaps I was just missing the cues within the individual comics that a miniseries was coming up, but at times it really appeared as though I was reading a series that had crossover episodes with another show that I hadn’t watched yet.

The other problem is that a lot of the humour is really gone. The show worked really well as the opposition of two forces; usually Angel against someone else, and most notably in the final season Angel against Spike. The dynamic of the two souled vampires was one that in my opinion really saved the show (even if it didn’t go so far as to actually save the show), and is one that was really lacking in the comics. A lot of the time either Angel is gone, Spike is gone, or they’re both gone, and we’re left questioning where they are, what’s going on, and why is this so dark and bleak. I can do dark and bleak, but I like Joss because it integrates both the dark and bleak with the light and humourous really nicely. This is lacking here.

Another note; I really did like how this arch made reference to the many people that Angel has lost, both in terms of character deaths and actor deaths. I missed Lorne in the second half of the series, although I really respect the decision to not use him following the death of Andy Hallett I don’t think they did enough to explain his absence. There’s a shot later on in the series that shows all the Angel dead, with Wesley, Cordelia, Fred, and Lorne each being pictured (I can’t remember if Doyle was also shown), although Lorne’s death is never explained or even stated – it isn’t clear in this continuation if Lorne is still alive and just elsewhere – continuing his estrangement from the Angel crew following the demands Angel made of him in the finale – or if he’s died off screen.  Through the use of Wikipedia I was able to discover that there was a special Lorne tribute comic, which I love, but this wasn't explained in this comic, which I dislike.

Angel: After the Fall (Maxi-Series)

Creator: Brian Lynch, Joss Whedon
Publisher: IDW Publishing
Genre: Fantasy, Drama, Horror, Comic
Rating: C+

I’ve long been a fan of Joss Whedon’s Buffyverse, to which the series Angel belongs.  While I never loved Angel as much as its predecessor, I did pretty much enjoy all five seasons of it and was also happy to hear about the continuation of the series via a comic book.  In my opinion, the medium of comics is pretty much perfect for works like those that come from Joss Whedon’s mind as you’re restricted not by money or the limitations of technology but rather by your own imagination.  Whedon and his crew have amazing imaginations, thus when I heard about Angel: After the Fall I was really excited.

The story picks up shortly after the events of the series finale, and following Team Angel’s attempt to eliminate Wolfram & Hart and the Circle of the Black Thorne, our favourite group of evil lawyers retaliated by sending Angel, his crew, and all of Los Angeles to Hell – literally.  The bulk of the old crew is back, but each has been transformed in some way or another by the final battle, and it’s up to Team Angel – or perhaps just Angel – to figure out how to get L.A. out of Hell, or at least just make it a better place for the many humans now enslaved by the demon population.

I liked the overall arch of the first half of this series, and the way that Angel’s problems are both the same things that he’s been dealing with since the time he was on Buffy while also being completely knew.  The Buffyverse world has completely changed, and After the Fall really shows how it’s changing.  It’s a fun world to watch, although certainly not a fun one to be in.  Another thing that I liked was the fact that the first half of the series did retain a lot of the Angel elements, notably the tone and humour, while embarking into this new world.  The things that attracted me to the show are still here, just slightly different.

What I disliked, however, was the fact that things were confusing.  The introduction of the series is a bit confusing and things are presented out of order – I liked the First Night arch, but as a reader who is potentially waiting for monthly installments it took way too long to get there.  Furthermore there’s the introduction of new characters, characters who appeared in Angel, and characters who have appeared in previous Buffyverse comics but neither TV series.  A lot of this gets really confusing, leaving the reader going ‘who the hell is that’ a lot of the time.  Even when this does get clarified, if it gets clarified, it’s still a bit jarring at first.  This is particularly annoying in regards to the Angel regulars; the people who we should be able to recognize but don’t do so quickly because of the way they’re drawn.  Making matters worse is the fact that the art itself isn’t always consistent, thus Angel in one issue might look different from Angel in another issue, and thus you have to reintroduce yourself to even major characters every few issues.  The only exceptions here are the characters who really stand out – Lorne (who is green and has horns), Illyria (who has blue hair), Gunn (who is black), and Spike (who is Spike).  This is something that really gets worse as the series continues and more characters are introduced.  It’s not a good sign when the main character of your series is not easily recognizable.

To end this arch on a good note, however, I did really like the dragon and the way that his name was alluded to but not revealed for so long. It was a nice running joke as different people figured it out, and then more so as the reader finally figured it out. There are nice hints and I think the name in general really shows the way  that Angel has evolved over the course of the series.

Week in Review: October 22 - 27

Birthdays - This week we did a few birthdays; Christopher Lloyd turned 74, Kevin Kline 64, Cary Elwes 50, and John Cleese 73.  On a related note, the post for John Cleese was also my 200th post since starting this.

Movies - This week we finished off the Pierce Brosnan Bonds, with Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, and Die Another Day. Of the lot, the best was probably Tomorrow Never Dies, although none were as good as the new film, Seven Psychopaths.

Books - Book of the week was the superbly written The Casual Vacancy by J.K. Rowling.  Her first foray into adult literature I enjoyed it, at least once I got over the shock of it.

TV - This week we did one of the recent miniseries on the Titanic, of the same name.  I enjoyed it, but I feel that it could have been done better.

Recommendations - Out this week is Cloud Atlas and Fun Size, both of which I'm looking forward to seeing.  In DVD we had a myriad of things that I've seen and reviewed over the months, so now it's your chance to check them out.

Next Week - Next week we are taking a break from the Bond!  We are also doing a bit of a movie overload, with a total of six films.  There's a bit of a Halloween theme, a bit of a Tim Burton theme, and a definite musical theme: we'll be doing my favourite Halloween related or somehow dark and messed up musicals, Nightmare Before Christmas, Sweeney Todd, Repo! The Genetic Opera, and Rocky Horror Picture Show.  New movies will be Frankenweenie and Fun Size.

Requests- Anything I should check out? Let me know!

Birthday: John Cleese

Today is the 73rd birthday of British actor, comedian, and many other things, John Cleese.

Cleese really became famous through his work as a member of Monty Python, where he starred and wrote for both the sketch show and the four movies. Cleese went on to do his own show, Fawlty Towers with then wife Connie Booth, then embarked on a film career of his own.  He has appeared in two James Bond films, two Harry Potters, and three Shreks, and a large number of stand alone films.  I always love when I see Cleese in something, just because he's such a funny man.  In addition to his lengthy film and TV career, Cleese has also been honoured in other ways; a species of lemur has been named for him (Avahi cleesei), an asteroid has been named for him (9618 Johncleese), and a New Zealand rubbish heap has been named for him (Mt Cleese).  He has also declined both a CBE and a life peerage, the former because he thought it was "silly" and the latter because it would require staying in England year round and England in the winter was "too much of a price to pay."  He did, however, play Sir Lancelot the Brave in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, so he's definitely got his titles.

Happy birthday, sir!

Titanic (2012 Miniseries)

Starring: Linus Roache, Geraldine Somerville, Celia Imrie, Toby Jones, Perdita Weeks, Lee Ross, Jenna-Louise Coleman, Sophie Winkleman, Steve Waddington, David Calder, James Wilby, Antonio Magro, Stephen Campbell Moore, Noah Reid, Lyndsey Marshal, Mark Lewis Jones, Ruth Bradley, Peter McDonald, Sylvestra Le Touzel, Glen Blackhall, Dragos Bucur, Maria Doyle Kennedy, David Eisner, Linda Kash, Brian McCardie, Peter Wright

Creator: Nigel Strafford-Clark

Genre: Miniseries, Period Drama

Rating: B-

I'm still a bit undecided on this show. There are elements that I really enjoyed - particularly in the way they ended it. I don't just mean in that the boat sank and some people died while others didn't, I mean that after three rather disjointed and confusing episodes they still managed to make it suspenseful and make me care about who lived and who died.

The basic story behind this is obvious, and because of the sheer volume of characters within it I'm not going to really summarize things too much. Basically, the show is four episodes long with each of the first three episodes introducing the audience to the characters as they embark on the Titanic and leading up to the hitting of the iceberg. Each of these first episodes ends with this moment, and as such each episode introduces things differently and largely covers the same span of time. The final episode is the sinking and we find out the fates of the characters we've kind of gotten to know.

Because of the nature of the show things get a bit confusing. There are characters in the first episode who seem to disappear until the fourth, and there are events that happen multiple times in the series, with each repetition being altered to follow a different point of view. I really like what they tried to do here overall, but it gets a bit bogged down after awhile. The short length of the series doesn't mesh well with the sheer volume of the cast. The creators were trying to tell too much of a story in too little of a time.

That being said, because of the nature of the show I did still manage to get attached to the characters, and as the boat sunk I was anxious about who would survive and who wouldn't, particularly among the male and lower class characters. If you think about it, that's what a show about the Titanic is supposed to do.

Birthday: Cary Elwes

Today is Cary Elwes' 50th birthday!

Elwes has been around for a long time now, and no that's not intended to be an old joke.  He got his start as a disco dancer in the 1979 Yesterday's Hero, but since then has gone on to great things.  Well, okay, great thing: eight years after his appearance in Yesterday's Hero Elwes took on the role of the dashing Westley in the film adaptation of The Princess Bride.  This film really made him, or at least his 25-year-old self, recognizable to people of all generations.  Since then he's been in a number of movies, but has yet to really recapture the greatness of Princess Bride.  You can see him in Glory, Days of Thunder, Bram Stroker's Dracula, Robin Hood: Men in Tights, Liar Liar, and both Saw and Saw 3D, to name some of his movies.  In my opinion, the appeal of having Cary Elwes in films is more the moment of "hey, it's Westley!" than anything else, but I still enjoy watching him act.

Happy 50th!

Recommendations: October 26

Cloud Atlas - This movie could either be great or really bad, depending on how they do it.  It kind of goes into the whole thing of reincarnation and what not, following the ways that the actions of individuals impact one another through time.  This is from the Wachowskis who are known for making both great movies and horrible ones, so we'll see.

Fun Size -The newest thing from TV executive Josh Schwartz, this is another one that could be great or really bad. It follows a teenage girl, Wren (Victoria Justice), on Halloween night.  Her plans go to shit when she's forced to babysit her brother, and then even more to shit when he disappears.

Magic Mike - The movie loosely inspired by Channing Tatum's life as a stripper.  It's a weird one, it's not entirely sure what it's trying to be here.  At best, I'd say it's a mindless entertainment flick with some pretty boys.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - I'm not recommending this movie at all.  In fact, I'm recommending that you avoid this movie.  This was probably the worst movie I've seen all year.

Blade Runner - The only older movie that I'm recommending this week, Blade Runner is being re-released in time for its 30th anniversary.  Get it now on Blu-ray or the extra special pack!

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World - How about a comedy about the end of the world?  This one actually really surprised me, so if you haven't checked it out yet I'd say do so now.

Take This Waltz - Another one that I think hasn't really decided what it wants to be.  I liked elements of this and hated other elements.  It's skillfully acted, but I'm not a huge fan of really any of the characters or the decisions they make.

Angela's Ashes - Frank McCourt's first autobiography follows the early years of his life, first in Brooklyn, New York, then in Ireland during the 1930s and 1940s.  McCourt's family embodies the divide between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, as well as the struggles of a working class family in Ireland at the time - made all the worse by McCourt's father's alcoholism.  This is a really heart wrenching book, but still amazingly written and deserving of the accolades it's received.  If you haven't checked it out yet, do so now.

Die Another Day (2002)

Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Judi Dench, John Cleese, Halle Berry, Toby Stephens, Rick Yune, Rosamund Pike, Will Yun Lee, Michael Madsen, Rachel Grant

Director: Lee Tamahori

Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller

Rating: C

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this movie.  While it does escape from the evil Soviets plot, the twist did surprise me, and I really liked a lot of the references and allusions to previous Bonds, it was also overly complicated, cheesy, and a bit too much.  Roger Moore said of the film "I thought it just went too far – and that’s from me, the first Bond in space! Invisible cars and dodgy CGI footage? Please!"  That's actually pretty much exactly how I feel.  I like Brosnan overall as a Bond, but this movie in general felt like it should have been a Roger Moore one - and in my opinion, that's not a good thing.

The background to this is that Bond (Brosnan) was captured by the North Koreans while on a mission related to illegally traded African conflict diamonds.  After 14 months of captivity Bond is released in exchange for the release of North Korean agent Zao (Yune), whose face had been disfigured by diamond fragments during the struggle with Bond.  Once released, Bond is suspended from active duty because M (Dench) doesn't believe that he hasn't leaked information, so Bond escapes to complete his mission.  In Havana (because that where you go when your mission involves North Korea) Bond meets NSA agent Giacinti 'Jinx' Johnson (Berry), who he follows (along with Zao) to a gene therapy treatment, where more conflict diamonds are discovered, this time with the company crest of British billionaire Gustav Graves (Stephens).  Bond returns to England to continue the investigation, where he meets fellow MI6 agent Miranda Frost (Pike), who is undercover as Graves' assistant.  Points if you guess who's sleeping with who!

There's a lot about this movie that is really classic Bond and in a way, I admire Tamahori for trying to recreate that feel of the series.  The problem is, however, that you really can't go back.  What made movies like Dr. No work only worked because of the time in which they were created.  Outside of the sixties and seventies, classic Bond doesn't work as well; that was one of the problems of the Roger Moore films.  Die Another Day fails even more because in addition to trying to grasp that classic feel it also tries to incorporate new technology, namely CGI.  The result is rather disastrous.  No, the result is horrendous.  Actually, there's more to it than that.  Another part of the problem is that while trying to envoke a lot of the old classic feel Die fails to intentionally invoke the humour and the cheese.  As such, it's a lame and cheesy movie that fails to realize it's as much.  It's okay to be ridiculous, when you know that's what you're doing - that's why Dr. Strangelove is so awesome.  If you take yourself seriously but fail to be serious, you just don't work out in the end.

The World is Not Enough (1999)

Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Judi Dench, Sophie Marceau, Robert Carlyle, Denise Richards

Director: Michael Apted

Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller

Rating: C-

I didn't actually need to watch this movie to know what would happen in it.   A plot twist is always great, and their are some movies (as well as other works of fiction) that handle the twist so adeptly that when it happens you're left flabbergasted.  Others you can figure out easily enough, but the way it happens is still enjoyable so even if you're not surprised it's still great.  The World is Not Enough, however, is so predictable that you can figure out the bulk of the plot, twist included, by the time M's finished her initial brief.  There's no suspense, no surprise, nothing.

A British oil tycoon, who happened to have been M (Judi Dench)'s friend, has been killed and his daughter, Elektra King (Maurceau) has been threatened.  Bond is sent to investigate and protect Elektra, during which he uncovers a plot that involves Soviet terrorist Renard (Carlyle) and nuclear physicist Christmas Jones (Richards).  Renard previously kidnapped Elektra, and it's believed that he's going to make an attack on her again, while Christmas fits in in a weird way.... there's an oil pipeline and a silo and it's needlessly complicated.  If you've started making connections and figuring out who's good and who's bad, and what blows up what you're not alone.  Oh, bonus points as usual if you guess who sleeps with Bond.

I'm really not sure what to say about this movie beyond the fact that it was predictable to the point that I couldn't enjoy it.  It was just... disappointing.  One thing I did like, however, was the introduction of the new Q, or in this case the Q-to-be.  Here he's called R (John Cleese), although jokingly so, and is introduced as the current Q (Desmond Llewelyn)'s assistant.  From what I understand, there weren't actual plans to have Llewelyn retire from the franchise and "R" was just introduced as a bit of a joke gag, and it's done wonderfully so.  Llewelyn's death prevented his return to the franchise in later movies, so in Die Another Day Cleese steps up.  As such, this is Llewelyn's last film in the franchise - after having been in 17 films, and having worked with five different Bonds.

Birthday: Kevin Kline

Today is actor Kevin Kline's 64th birthday!

Kline has been in roughly a gazillion movies over the previous thirty years, most of them really good.  He was nominated for the BAFTA for best Newcomer in his first film, the 1982 Sophie's Choice, and has been on a role since then.  Since then he's been in The Big Chill, A Fish Called Wanda, Chaplin, Dave, Life as a House, De-Lovely, A Prairie Home Companion, As You Like It, and many, many more films.  He's one of those actors that I don't really actively seek out but I always love to watch when I come across.

Happy birthday, Mr. Kline!

Seven Psycopaths (2012)

Starring: Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Christopher Walken, Tom Waits, Abbie Cornish, Olga Kurylenko

Director: Martin McDonagh

Genre: Comedy, Crime, Drama

Rating: A-

This movie is nothing like what you expect it to be.  That's the warning; the trailers and even the poster for this movie make it seem like it's about seven people, each one of them a psychopath, as they get up to shenanigans following a dognapping.  It is about that... but it's also about a lot more, and people who are implied to be a psychopath in the promotion for this (and even are implied to have a major role) aren't.  Not really, or at least not in the manner that you expect.

Marty (Farrell) is a screenwriter, currently working on a film titled Seven Psychopaths.  He has a few problems, however; one he's an alcoholic, two he's suffering from a bit of a writer's block, and three his screwball best friend, Billy (Rockwell) keeps on offering to help.  In addition to wanting to help Marty out, Billy is also a professional dognapper.  He and his partner, Hans (Walken), kidnap dogs then after a few days return them to their owners for a reward.  This is all going great, until they kidnap Bonny, the dog of a gangster, Charlie (Harrelson).  Charlie is willing to go to great lengths to get his dog back, killing and destroying anything that is related to this dognapping.  Through this all, Marty begins to find his inspiration for his film - although whether he or any of his friends will survive long enough to finish the script is debatable.

I did have a problem with how this film was advertised.  The trailer presents each of the stars as one of the psychopaths, and while this isn't entirely false, some of them are psychopaths, the reasons for which aren't what happens in the movie.  Furthermore, three of the stars aren't really stars and have very minor roles in the film - I loved Tom Waits' role, but it's not really an important one overall to the film, and neither of the women really have anything to do in this movie.  It's just very misleading to have them in presented as being so important and then barely have them present.

That having been said, I loved this film.  I love the way in which they tie in Marty's script and the overall plot of the film, and the struggle between the belief systems of the core characters - with Marty and Hans being pacifists, Billy being all gungho for the action sequences, and Charlie being hell bent on revenge and getting his dog back.  There are as many sequences of long talking as the characters articulate and argue about their beliefs as there are fight sequences, if not actually more.  A lot of this is a talk about what's going on with Marty's script, but everything that they say about the script relates to what's actually happening in the film's plot. It all really ties in nicely, which I loved.  The one thing that did worry me for a bit was that things wouldn't be resolved, or that the ending would be anticlimatical.  Having seen Martin McDonagh's films before, I should have known better than to worry.

The acting was also really great.  I thought the actors were really well cast.  Sam Rockwell plays the perfect weird, creepy guy, as does Christopher Walken, and to have them together is just awesome.  I thought Colin Farrell did a really good job of providing the straight man to them, particularly Rockwell, while also embracing his character's issues - somehow, Colin Farrell does drunk Irishman with a lot of life problems in general.  It was really good and made me want to watch it again and, even better, made me want to watch more of McDonagh's films.  The first thing I wanted to do when I got home was put on In Brughes.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Judi Dench, Jonathan Pryce, Michelle Yeoh, Teri Hatcher

Director: Roger Spottiswoode

Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller

Rating: C+

Bond (Brosnan) is back, saving the world from another techno-terrorist.  Media baron Elliot Carver (Pryce) has a plot to provoke a war between China and the United Kingdom, in a manner that would give him the exclusive broadcasting rights to it.

This was not the worst Bond film. I think that might be the extent of the good things that I can say about it.  Actually, that's a lie: I also liked the fact that the bad guys this time round were neither Russians nor Soviets but rather a good ol' British (well, Welsh) mogul, a combination of Robert Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch gone horribly, horribly wrong.  The best thing about this film is the villain, which is always a good sign of a Bond film.  I also do really like Brosnan's Bond.  He's slick and suave.  He's got the confidence and arrogance of previous Bonds, but doesn't push it too far, and is definitely starting to break free of the sexism and racism.  There's definitely a "I've seen this stuff before" feel to the movie overall, but I'm comfortable with the lead, which puts it a bit higher than some of the previous films.

Birthday: Christopher Lloyd

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."

Today is the 74th birthday of everyone's favourite and occassionally mad... well, everything really.  Christopher Lloyd has played everything from the mad scientist who discovered time travel, in the Back to the Future trilogy, to Uncle Fester in The Addams Family and its sequel, to Judge Doom in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Jim Ignatowski in the TV series Taxi.

As a child I watched a lot of movies with Christopher Lloyd in them, he was always the excentric character that I really liked watching - with the exception of Roger Rabbit where he freaked me out.  While the quality of his movies may have gone a bit downhill in more recent years, I'll always have a soft spot for him and will continue to watch his movies - or at least continue to watch the old ones.

Happy birthday, sir!

The Casual Vacancy

Author: J.K. Rowling

Genre: Tragicomedy

Rating: B

When I was a teenager I stumbled across the comedic styling of George Carlin almost by accident.  I was flipping channels while waiting for the parents of the kids I was babysitting to come home, the kids having been put to bed, and I found this comedy special that caught my attention.  The entire time I was watching it I was trying to figure out where I knew the comic from, but I just couldn't place him.  Then, all of a sudden, he told me stating that he'd been Mr. Conductor and I realized that this man who had been cursing up a storm was from one of my favourite shows as a child, Shining Time Station.  It was really rather jarring.

I had a similar feeling in reading The Casual Vacancy, although I knew the entire time where I knew the author from.  Vacancy is so unlike the Harry Potter books that if you go into it expecting magic you'll be sourly disappointed.  I'm not sure how much I went into it expecting magic and how much I went in with no expectations. It did take me a while to really get into this novel and I was thoroughly shocked when topics and language that were so unlike the ones utilized in Harry Potter.  Perhaps I was expecting some magic.

The Casual Vacancy follows the little town of Pagford after the death of Parish Councillor Barry Fairbrother, particularly the many people affected in some way or another by Fairbrother's death.  The issue at hand, beyond the actual death, is the case of the Fields, a rundown and poor local estate that some town members wish to be rid off because of the way in which it degrades the reputation of the town.  Among the adult characters factions form between those who are in favour of the Fields, or simply want to honour Fairbrother's memory, and those who wish to be rid of it all.  The younger generation is no less divided, although somewhat less so on the issue of for or against the Fields.  Through its course, Vacancy covers the huge issues of class, politics, drugs, prostitution, rape, bullying, sex, sexuality, suicide, and race.

This book is immense, both in size and scope, and as such I found it really took a lot to get into.  The big problem of Vacancy is that there are so many characters and it's such a negative world that things seem really bleak and dark and ugly.  It wasn't until I was about half way through the novel that I realized I was hooked on it, and even further in that I realized that I was thoroughly attached to some of the characters.  Things had to really start going wrong for them before I realized I cared.  I think a big problem that this novel has is the comparison to Harry Potter, which is unfair to Rowling.  Vacancy may not have the magic of her previous series, nor even the joy of it, but it's still a wonder to read.  The style is different but the writing is still magnificent.  There are weak moments, as their are in Harry Potter, but I enjoyed it overall - once I realized that I was hooked on.

Week in Review: October 15 - 20

Movies - We had an action (or thriller) packed week, with Bonds Licence to Kill and GoldenEye sandwiching sort-of based on a true story Argo.  I really enjoyed Argo, even it if offended me as both a historian and a Canadian.  Not exactly the truth, but still entertaining.  For the Bonds... well, both were good movies, and I'm definitely liking Pierce Brosnan so far, plus GoldenEye had Sean Bean.  You cannot go wrong with Sean Bean.

Books - Book-of-the-Week was Diana Gabaldon's Dragonfly in Amber.  While I enjoyed the book, it wasn't as good as its predecessor, Outlander.

TV - This week we did the 10th season of Project Runway.  While I was disappointed by the winner it was purely because I didn't like that person personally, and I have to admit that the best collection won.

Recommendations - Out this week is Alex Cross, the latest film based on the books by James Patterson, and The Sessions.  I've always enjoyed the Alex Cross books, but never been a big fan of the movies so I think I'll skip that one, but I am intrigued by The Sessions.

Next Week - Up next week is a massive dose of Bond.  We'll be finishing off Brosnan with three movies, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough, and Die Another Day.  We're almost ready for Skyfall!  To round out the week'll be Seven Psychopaths.  Oh! And we'll also have my review of J.K. Rowling's foray into adult literature, The Casual Vacancy.

Requests -Anything I should check out? Let me know.

Project Runway (Season 10)

Starring: Heidi Klum, Tim Gunn, Michael Kors, Nina Garcia

Creator: Eli Holzman

Genre: Reality, Competition, Fashion

Rating: B

I really enjoyed the designers on the 10th regular season of Project Runway, even if I also absolutely hated some of them.  If you're not familiar with the show, the series takes a group of aspiring designers (this year 16), puts them through a series of tasks (this year 12), eliminating designers along the way.  At the end of it all, the top designers are given the opportunity to create a collection for Fashion Week with the best collection winning and presumably pushing forward the careers of the winning designer.  Along the way there are a vast number of celebrity guests judges, ranging from people in the fashion industry, to famous business owners, to actors and singers.

This year's guests judges included Lauren Graham, Krysten Ritter, Hayden Panettiere, Debra Messing, Hilary Duff, Zoe Saldana, and Jennifer Hudson.  The thing that I really like about this show is that the guest judges are more than just random celebrities come to promote their newest project; they're usually people who are somehow involved in the fashion industry, if only because they have an interest in clothes, and the tasks that they judge on are often somehow tied to their personal life.  As such, they're not typically sitting there gushing about how awesome the designers are; often they can be as critical and harsh as the regular judges.

The designers this season were not all really good designers, nor would I say they were all necessarily sane.  The first few episodes of this show is always about weeding out the weak, and I was really happy to see that the designers who I thought were the weakest overall were weeded out fairly quickly.  Sure there were a few whose personalities I liked, but you could tell that they weren't as strong as some of the others.  Granted, there were a few designers who carried on whose personalities I didn't like, but I did have to admit that they were skilled.

That's actually exactly how I felt about this season's winner.  I really didn't like the person, I hated their attitude although I didn't mind their aesthetic.  I understood why they won, and when it came down to it I have to admit that they did present the best (and most cohesive) show, even if going into the finale I had listed who I wanted to win most in order, and the person who won was at the bottom of that list.  Actually, my list ended up being the exact opposite of how the results went down, but I admit I know nothing about fashion and had based that list entirely on who I liked as a person most.  While I wasn't a fan, the right person probably won, which doesn't often happen in reality tv shows.

Recommendations: October 19

Alex Cross -The latest in the series of Alex Cross films, based on the books by James Patterson, this one is... I don't know.  I'm not sure if it's a reboot of the franchise, a continuation of the franchise, or if there ever really was a franchise at all - it is entirely possible that they're just movies that have only the flimsiest of connections.  I'm probably going to skip this one; I usually enjoy Patterson's books, but I'm not a big fan of his movies.

The Sessions - I actually really want to see this one.  The synopsis on IMDb alone has made me interested: "A man in an iron lung who wishes to lose his virginity contacts a professional sex surrogate with the help of his therapist and priest."  I want to see this.

The Paperboy - This one's not getting the best reviews, but I want to see it just because of the cast.  It's about a reporter who is investigating the death of a death row inmate in his hometown, and features Matthew McConaughey, Nicole Kidman, John Cusack, and Zac Efron, among others.

Moonrise Kingdom - I'm really not sure what to think about this movie.  I still haven't seen it, and I'm not sure if I want to.  It's Wes Anderson's latest, and it's gotten good reviews and has a good cast, I'm just not sure if I want to check it out. I'm sure I will, eventually.

Pete's Dragon - It is the 35th anniversary of this childhood classic.  All I really remember about this movie was that it both made me feel happy and disturbed, although not necessarily at the same time.  Now that it's being released on Blu-ray I feel like I have the opportunity to rewatch it and see if it still gives me that feeling.

The Suicide Index -Speaking of things that disturb you, book recommendation of the week is The Suicide Index, by Joan Wickersham.  When I first started reading this book I thought it was a novel, and a weird one at that.  Since then I've learned that it's actually a memoir, although still a weird one.  It's definitely a good one though.  Worth checking out, although you've been warned it's dark and follows Wickersham after she learns of the suicide of her father.

GoldenEye (1995)

Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Judi Dench, Sean Bean, Izabella Scorupco, Famke Janssen

Director: Martin Campbell

Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller

Rating: B

"You don't like me, Bond. You don't like my methods. You think I'm an accountant, a bean counter more interested in my numbers than your instincts." "The thought had occurred to me." "Good, because I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War, whose boyish charms, though wasted on me, obviously appealed to that young woman I sent out to evaluate you." "Point taken."

How to summarize the plot without spoiling... Nine years after the death of agent 006, Alec Trevelyan (Bean), during an infiltration of a Soviet chemical weapons facility, Bond (Brosnan) is charged with following Xenia Onatopp (Janssen), a member of the Janus crime syndicate.  After killing a Royal Canadian Navy admiral Xenia and a colleague massacre a bunch of people and steal the control disc for the dual GoldenEye satellite weapons, which emits electromagnetic pulses and destroys computers basically.  But, of course, Bond is on the mission, and is aided by the only survivor of the massacre, Natalya Simonov (Scorupco).

My big problem with GoldenEye is that there was a huge set up for the villains to be the Russians.  I got bored with the Soviets as villains in the previous films, I'm not looking forward to it's slightly different but basically the same variation now that the Cold War has ended.  That being said, though, I really like the direction that the movie then decided to go in.  The whole rouge agent plot is awesome, especially if you realize that they did it from the other angel in Licence to Kill, where Bond was the rouge.

My favourite moment in this movie, however, is when M (Dench) called Bond out on his behaviour.  Everything that she said in the line (which I quoted at the top) is exactly what I've been saying for a lot of movies now. Bond is sexist and myogynistic.  He's also a relic of the Cold War simply because so many of these movies have to do with the idea of Soviets/Russians being the villains.  I only hope that by calling him on it M is predicting a change in the movies, a leap forward.  Another thing, weirdly enough, that I liked was that Bond showed no problem with the idea of killing Xenia.  When she was introduced I was kind of worried that they would go the way of May Day (Grace Jones) in A View to Kill, but I was happy that they didn't.  Bond's changing, however slowly.

Argo (2012)

Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman

Director: Ben Affleck

Genre: Biography, Drama, Thriller

Rating: A-

"The whole country is watching you, they just don't know it."

I'm just going to start this by stating that I'm not an American.  I do not now live in the States, nor have I ever lived there.  As such I really don't buy into the whole "rah, rah, yay America!" act that a lot of movies do.  I am, however, a historian, and as such I love historical films because in my opinion history is always an interesting story and has so much drama to it... in a story like the one of the Canadian Capers, you don't need to add fictional elements - the story is already there.

Argo is the story of the Canadian Capers, although to my disappointment it does do a lot of fiction weaving within the story.  During the 1979 Iranian Revolution the U.S. embassy in Tehran is taken over by Islamic militants, with the bulk of the American employees being taken as hostages.  Six of them, however, managed to escape and take cover in the home of the Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor (played by actual Canadian Victor Garber).  Enter the CIA: specialist Tony Mendez (Affleck) is brought to help come up with a way to get the Americans out of Iran, and he comes up with the idea of posing as a film crew in Iran scouting locations for a science fiction movie.  With the help of Hollywood make-up artist John Chambers (Goodman) and film producer Lester Siegel (Arkin) Tony creates an elaborate plot, goes in to Iran, and sets out to save the Americans.

In regards to the necessary components of a good film, Argo really does have it all.  There's suspense and action, and it really makes your heart race.  Even going into the movie with a basic knowledge of what happened and the end results, I was sitting on the edge of my seats anxious to see whether the Capers would make it out, and if so just how. There's a lot of humour to it too, some of it appropriate and some of it less so, but all of it good.  One of my favourite lines was when one of the Capers said that they were a Canadian, then tossed in the obligatory "eh."  Somehow I think the laugh in the Canadian theatre that I was in was somewhat different from the one that was intended to get from that.  There were a lot of laughs like that, one liners that you really weren't expecting but had everyone in the theatre laughing.  Some were lines that you saw in the trailer, but in the actual film it was somehow funnier.

That being said... as both a historian and a Canadian, I do have problems with this movie.  It was really enjoyable, I'll give you that, and I can even understand why it's getting Oscar buzz.  However, there are huge liberties taken with the history of this film (and the portrayal of the characters within it, Affleck's getting a fair bit of flack for choosing to portray the Latino Mendez).  The story itself is changed in order to create some sort of suspense and an action sequence, particularly in the latter third of the film.  I really can't see how this is necessary, and as someone who's read a bit about this incident and who is interested in history, it bothers me that filmmakers (in general, not just Affleck) feel the need to do this.  The story is already there, they don't need to change it in order to make it better.  The reason why the Canadian Caper is such a great story is not because Affleck was able to introduce a good chase scene, it's a great story because it's about people coming together to do what many would think to be impossible.  When you couple it with the postscript that initially accompanied the film (which I haven't read itself, but reports of it say that it essentially indicated that the CIA let Taylor take credit for the incident, implying that he doesn't really deserve the accolades he (and the Canadian government) received because this incident), it becomes a bit of an insult and a piece of pro-American propaganda.  That in itself was a disappointment.  While the postscript was changed, the film itself still keeps much of that tone.

Licence to Kill (1989)

Starring: Timothy Dalton, Carey Lowell, Robert Davi, Talisa Soto

Director: John Glen

Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller

Rating: B

This was not a Bond film.  It was about 007 and was a part of the franchise, but it wasn't a Bond film, not in the way that we've come to know (and love?) Bond.  In a lot of ways it actually really reminded me of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, except with a better lead.

Bond (Dalton) and his DEA friend Felix Leiter (David Hedison, last seen in Live and Let Die) come together to assist in the capture of drug lord Franz Sanchez (Davi) before going to Leiter's wedding.  All is fine and dandy and the wedding goes off with a hitch... until Sanchez escapes and attacks Leiter and his wife, raping and killing her and having him maimed by a shark.  Bond finds out and embarks on a mission of revenge, without the approval or assistance of MI6 (although Q (Desmond Llewelyn) does pop in for the typical gadget giveaway).  Fortunately, though, he does have the assistance of ex-Army pilot and CIA informant Pam Bouvier (Lowell), because all Bond really needs is a mission, a few gadgets, and hot chick by his side.

There was a lot about this movie that really reminded me of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, although not really in a good way.  There's a lot that seems to be trying to set Bond up as something more than a playboy, and throughout the entire wedding scene I couldn't help but feel like the film was going to end with another wedding scene (and subsequent death), like it's precursor did.  Let me make this clear; I think Bond is somewhat of a sexist pig, constantly going from one sexual conquest to another, at times even having multiple consorts at one time.  It's what makes Bond Bond though, and attempts to change that - especially when they forget that they changed it for the next movie.  There's a sort of consistency that the movies where he's just a playboy has, and a disconnect that the ones where he tries (or pretends) to be something more have.  It's rather annoying.

Playboy issues aside, the whole drug lord revenge plot was both really good and really not Bond.  Part of who Bond is is this element of MI6, and removing him from that in such a way - for the revenge of the death of this woman we've never seen before and this man who we don't really remember from a Bond several movies back.  While I don't mind the idea of Bond going rouge, it just doesn't work as well with the incarnation of this Bond - especially if you think about the emphasis that they put on him being the guy who follows the rules (kind of) in The Living Daylights.  It was a good plot idea, and it was a good movie overall... it just wasn't very Bond-y.

A Dragonfly in Amber

Author: Diana Gabaldon
Genre: Historical, Romance, Sci-Fi
Rating: B+

The sequel to Outlander, A Dragonfly in Amber is a bit more jumpy than its predecessor – particularly in the start and finish.  Rather than being a straight continuation of the story where it left off, Dragonfly jumps to the future – thus establishing that Claire both survives the rising and returns to the future, while leaving the how, why, and (most importantly) what happens to Jamie left hanging.  I think a big part of the reason why Dragonfly isn’t as strong as Outlander is because of this immediate jump to the ‘future’; it’s a bit disjaring (which is okay, given the nature of the series), but more significantly it kind of interrupts the story.  Outlander is one concise story, about a woman out of time, with the reader experiencing things as she’s experiencing them (despite the novel being written in the past tense).  By starting Dragonfly twenty (and 203) years after the events of Outlander Gabaldon is establishing Claire as this older, wiser woman now telling a story to her daughter – and, frankly, some of the story that she tells the readers is stuff that I would hope she isn’t also telling Brianna.  The story that Claire tells Brianna and Roger is one that picks up very roughly where Outlander ends and brings our English woman and Scotsman into France on the eve of the 1745 Rising. Knowing what they know about the future, Claire and Jamie are faced with a problem: can they use what they know to change the future and if so, should they be trying to prevent the Rising or work to make it successful?

I really like the way this book ends, even if I wasn’t a big fan of the way in which it was started.  Honestly, I love the idea of a narrator telling us a story from a much older perspective, as they look back on their life.  It’s actually a big part of why I enjoy Bernard Cornwell's The Warlord Chronicles and The Saxon Stories.  As I said, the problem that I had with the way Dragonfly did this was that it interrupted the overall narration of the story.  I think I would have rather seen the jump forward twenty years to a Claire telling the story to Brianna and Roger at the end; have her in the present with her daughter be the big reveal at the end instead of the shock at the start.  But that’s all coulda, woulda, shoulda, and while I’m not a big fan of how Gabaldon did this overall I do have to admit it works.

That being said, what I don’t think worked as well was the period of the novel where our heroes are in France.  While I loved the characters that are introduced here – especially Master Raymond – and would love to see some of them remerge in later books, the overall story here in itself was a bit on the dull side.  The charm of Outlander was its setting, but the bulk of Dragonfly is really removed from this setting.  Claire was a fish out of water to begin with, but while in France it’s more like she’s… I donno… a whale out of water.  She’s able to survive, but not for long – likewise with my attention span.

One of the things that I do love, however, is the introduction of Roger as a narrator, even if it is in the third person. I really like the way Roger sees things. Like myself he’s a historian who’s intrigued by a good tale, and it’s made very clear very quickly that the only way Claire is able to move forward and Brianna is able to accept the truth is through Roger. The part of me that enjoys a good mind fuck in literature almost thinks that it’d be fun if Claire was revealed to have been a complete nutjob who dreamed her time in the eighteenth century, but I realize that’s not going to happen – there’s too much pseudo-science to these books to make them just a mind fuck.