Just Humor Me A Little

The other day, I was watching Bridesmaids for the second time (first time on DVD, though), and while I found myself enjoying it more this time around, a thought occurred to me in regards to what people have been saying in regards to the female-centric nature of the movie (for an extended review of the movie itself, that will be the topic of the next blog)

It can't have escaped your attention that there aren't really a lot of starring vehicles for female comedians these days, or a large cast of females in a comedy. I mean, sure there's the Sex And The City franchise, but the four leads are actresses and not comedians by trade.
I'm probably saying what's been said before, but I'd put it down to this myth we have that women can't be as funny as men, especially on the stand-up circuit.

To be honest, besides one aspect I will cover next paragraph I've never really thought of stand-up in terms of “men's humor/women's humor” and such. If I like a comedian, it's based on their observations and their... well, their jokes of course, since that's the name of the game. Some of the most intelligent things I've ever heard or read have come from the minds of comedians (like a routine the late, great George Carlin had on religion, in which he states that to him, most of the ten commandments are just segments or sub-divisions of the same category)

But, I have to admit, I have been disappointed by several comedians who think that topics like sex and the differences between men and women are like a mine that needs to be continually visited.

For example, years ago, there was a special down here in Australia, called World Comedy Unplugged. Hosted by two local comedians, it was a showcase of comedians from different parts of the world. One of the Americans up for the night was Vanessa Hollingshead.
Before I go further, I want it known for the record that I am not dismissing anyone's entire career when I go into the specific details, but from the viewpoint of someone they're trying to entice, if this is what I can expect in a 5 minute spot, I'm not sure I want to find out if I'm going to get more of the same in a 90 minute-2 hour block.
Now, her first half was solid. She talked about English serial killers and how weird they'd be (and her English accent was spot-on) and it was hilarious. Then she started talking about the things she had given up/gotten rid of (it's been years since I've seen this so I can't remember everything word for word and chances are the DVD is out of print) some things in her life, one of those being “her marriage” to which she kind of chuckles and its at this point my smile fades and I think “Oh please don't, you were doing so well!” She then proceeds to tell a story about her having sex with her new boyfriend. At this point, it seems more like she just wanted to tell the story as opposed to coming up with witty observations.

You know, I don't find it funny when I'm hearing this kind of thing. Is there really humor to be had by hearing someone describe their sex life? It's a different story for fiction, they're usually unaware of an audience, so they talk like there are no observers. That works fine for shows like the aforementioned Sex And The City, because they aren't talking directly to us. We may be listening but the characters don't know that, since shows don't often break the fourth wall.

It's not just women, it's men too. People, sex is something you don't share stories of to large audiences, regardless of whether or not they know you.
I'm also not fond of “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” thing, but that's not here or there. I will say, and I'm not trying to stereotype, but at least a few men add some self-depreciation into it. Actually, that's another reason I didn't like the second half of that particular act: I didn't catch anything that was remotely self-depreciating. Maybe I need to watch that part again when I can, but I don't recall hearing anything along those lines. And self-depreciation (not too much, mind you) is a good thing, because it shows you can laugh at yourself.

To go back briefly to the men/women thing, it almost seems like a lot of male comics going into this territory go the way of “Men, women, we're both weird and do stupid things” and some female comics will go the way of “Yeah, guys do weird and stupid things”. That's unfair, wouldn't you say? How is that equal?

That's not to say all female comics will sink that low. Hell, the first act of the World Comedy Unplugged special was a delightful comedian named Kitty Flanagan and her topics were wide and varied, with self-depreciation, but mostly quirky observations (I love her bit on the French version of the Burton directed Planet Of The Apes and how the movie doesn't quite work because the French don't have a different word for apes and monkeys, they're both “sange”. That may not be the correct spelling but that's beside the point, though I do apologize if it is wrong, and it was one of the most memorable bits of the night).

And Hattie Hayridge, who I know for being the second Holly on Red Dwarf (and I really wish the producers would get her back for the new seasons if Norman Lovett won't come back. Please?) and she had this funny line about cooking: “God, why doesn't Jamie Oliver just bring out a cookbook 'Things You Can Stand And Eat Over The Sink'? “

And yet, people wonder why female comedians “aren't as funny”? They are, you're just looking at the wrong ones! The ones who seem to cater exclusively to female audiences only, thus being exclusionary to a larger audience. I mean, a lot of people could say every comedian is exclusionary because not everyone is going to share their exact same experience. That might be true to some extent, but when comedians talk about everyday things like the idiots in traffic or the weird people you see at a party, that's still reaching a wide audience and it says “Well, you may not have experienced this, but you could, so enjoy” as opposed to “Well, you're not a part of this group, so stay out”. It's not just gender, it applies to race, religion, age and all sorts of divides. Sometimes it's a matter of tailor-making things for your audience (and for comedians who do a lot of audience participation, they would probably already know this). For example, an American going to a third would country and complaining how they can't get a solid gold toilet would be extremely inappropriate.

Going back one last time to the comedy special (I apologize if this blog is all over the place, a lot of this gets written up as I think of it, working off dot points and scribbled notes in some cases), I will say Vanessa was not the worst act of the night, mostly due to how she started. I don't remember the comedian, but there was one guy who told this one long story, which ended up being about an elephant farting. That was the entire build-up. An elephant farting in his face. And he's standing there, sounding like some geek, with a dopey expression on his face, talking like its the most amazing thing that has ever happened to him (granted, it probably was).

…

I don't get it. Was that meant to be funny or were you trying to get us to kill ourselves? Much like Vanessa's sex story, it's a story we don't need to hear, there's no observation, it's just “Here is something inappropriate I want to share because I got nothing”. I would be very surprised if this man is still a comedian.

Now, for anyone who doesn't think women are funny, I say this: did you come from a parallel universe where Tina Fey, Madeline Kahn, Sarah Silverman, Maria Bamford and Janeane Garafolo don't exist?
And between Australia and New Zealand, there's Sarah Kendall, Fiona O'Loughlan and Cal Wilson and many more.

But when it comes to movies, men are still the ones that get to be goofballs while the women have to just stand there and be all frumpy and serious, while usually somehow still being attracted to the goofball (this comes up quite a bit in Adam Sandler movies, see Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison for example).
In fact, I can only think of one example right now (knowing me, I'll end up thinking of more an hour or so after the blog goes up) in which the female gets to be the “fun” one, while the male is more serious and that's (500) Days Of Summer, and even then, that's more of a bittersweet comedy, rather than a rapid-fire-gag affair. Or is Zooey Deschanel the only female allowed to be zany?

What I'm saying is, why can't women in comedies be allowed to do the same things men do, and not mention the gender divide? Why can't they have wacky adventures, while their male counterpart just stands off to the side, shaking their head in disbelief? Because its sexist? So, if a man acts silly and a woman acts serious, that's totally fine but you reverse it and suddenly women are in a negative light? Considering the amount of complaints from actresses that the women aren't allowed to have fun, I'd say there's a large portion of people who wouldn't mind a gender flip.

Here, I'm going to use this webcomic as an example of how it can be done: http://thedevilspanties.com/ Basically, I would describe it as a slightly embellished autobiographical gag-a-day webcomic, about what creator Jennie Breeden does or her thoughts, and she's largely carefree and whimsical. Now, I'm only on her strips from 2008 (I started right from the beginning and if you want to do the same, you're in for a long haul as it began in 2001) but it seems that her boyfriend, Will (not sure if she's still seeing him currently) is more relaxed but also questioning of some of the stranger things she does (questioning in a “I'm confused, why are you doing this?” way and not “I don't like what you're doing, why are you trying to piss me off?” kind of way, just to be clear) while Jennie's the one who does all sorts of crazy things. Hell, one of her favourite hobbies is getting a leaf blower and using it on men with kilts to see underneath!
While I'm not saying The Devil's Panties (it's not Satanic porn, I swear) should be a movie (since there's no real plot-line or set of arcs, there's not much to base a movie around), I'm saying look to that as to how a female can be funny, wacky but still a positive influence.

Or, to break it down further, let women do the things men in comedies would do. Let them punch other people square in the jaw, let them make mad dashes to the airport to make amends for how a relationship turned out, let them have random conversations about trivial things ala Clerks or Seinfeld. It's not about acting like men, it's about letting them be the ones to put things in motion, rather than letting the men kick things off and have them react with shame and disapproval. Be more creative, let them be more free, stop pigeon-holing them into one-note roles.

Come on, Hollywood, if Judd Apatow can realize this, why can't you? Maybe Bridesmaids will turn the tide. I hope so. But I'll get into Bridesmaids next time.

It's A Thankful Job But Someone's Gotta Do It

While we in Australia don't celebrate Thanksgiving (unless you're an American citizen who migrated to Australia), that doesn't mean I don't have a list the length of a skyscraper of things I am thankful for. While I could take up all your time and list them all (even the short version I could set to Billy Joel's We Didn't Start The Fire and it would still leave a lot out), I'm going to list some of the biggest things I am thankful for, be they small things like entertainment that has gotten me through tough times or bigger things. And with that, let us begin:

*I am thankful for the creation of some of my favourite foods and beverages, like meatloaf, chicken parmigiana, lasagna, meatballs, pizza, mashed potato, chocolate, strawberry milk and most pineapple flavoured drinks (curiously, I do not thank pineapples themselves, can't stand pineapple on a pizza)

*I am thankful for the music of artists like Queen, Muse, Powderfinger, Alanis Morrisette, Pink, Weird Al Yankovic, Madonna (yes, you read that right), Hall and Oates, Huey Lewis and The News, U2, Eminem, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen, Linkin Park, Green Day, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Metallica, Kasey Chambers, Jewel, Rihanna, R.E.M, Coldplay, Radiohead, Garbage and many more, for lifting my spirits or giving me something new to think about

*I am thankful that movies exist, especially with gems like A Clockwork Orange, The Silence Of The Lambs, Chasing Amy, The Dark Knight, the Back To The Future trilogy, the Evil Dead trilogy, the Monty Python films, the Marvel "Movieverse", the Harry Potter adaptations, the rest of Christopher Nolan's filmography (save for Following, which I still need to see) and many, many more for telling wonderful stories and inspiring me to get into writing (as well as the books I've read. On that subject...)

*I am thankful for fantastic books like The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold, the Harry Potter series, the Red Dwarf tie-ins, Thomas Harris' Hannibal Lecter series (maybe not Hannibal Rising though), the Darwin Awards series, Friendly Fire by Wil Anderson, Stupid White Men by Michael Moore but most of all, the works of Stephen King (in particular, The Shining, Gerald's Game, Firestarter, Nightmares And Dreamscapes, The Dark Tower series, Bag Of Bones, The Bachman Books and Danse Macabre). I thank all of these for filling me with all sorts of wonderful information and amusing anecdotes and for getting my creative gears going

*For the same reasons, I thank Bob Kane and Bill finger for the creation of Batman and Dick Grayson, Stan Lee and Steve Ditko for Spider-Man, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster for Superman, William Moulton Marston for Wonder Woman and Joe Kelly and Fabian Nicieza for injecting Deadpool with his lovable personality (not Rob Liefeld though, he sucks at drawing). I am also thankful for stories like Y: The Last Man, Watchmen, Scott Pilgrim, Identity Crisis and the creators of each, as well as the concepts and characters of the Green Lantern Corps, nearly all of Batman's supporting cast and villains and the creators and companies of each. Oh and Dark Horse for publishing the Buffy The Vampire Slayer follow-ups to the show. On that note, I'd like to thank Joss Whedon for his creations, for the wonderful worlds he's created and for taking on The Avengers adaptation, I'm sure it'll be a marvelous (pun intended) day

*To prevent this from getting long, I'll just do another two paragraphs after this but this will sum up everything I miss, whether it be the video games, characters and publishers I'm thankful for (like Nintendo and the Mario franchise), the TV shows I've spent countless hours engrossed in (the Law And Order franchise, Red Dwarf, M*A*S*H, How I Met Your Mother) and all sorts of things I'm likely to forget. Now, on to the two most important dedications

*I am very thankful for the existence of That Guy With The Glasses (www.thatguywiththeglasses.com) and the contributors who lifted me out of a state of depression almost a year and a half ago, with their hilarious videos. They are a huge inspiration to me, since they are regular people who just happen to pick apart things we know and get adoration for it. Those I'd like to thank especially are Doug (The Nostalgia Critic and others) and Rob Walker, Lindsey Ellis (The Nostalgia Chick), Noah Antwiller (The Spoony One and others) but most of all, Lewis Lovhaug (Linkara and others) and his girlfriend, Iron Liz (you can visit them on http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com). They gave me a new lease on life and I hope to achieve my new ambition sometime within the next two-three years.

*But the people I am most thankful for are my friends and family. I know for a fact I would not be here today, or be who I am, without these people in my life. It's almost like they descended into Hell to pluck me out, no questions asked. And I would do it for them a hundred times over. I'm not going to name each and every person because I know for damn sure I would forget someone. But they are special to me. While I don't say this often enough, or even at all in some cases, but for any of my friends and family reading this, I'd just like to say this: I love all of you. And I thank each and everyone of you for the way you've shaped my life in the past, the way you're shaping it now, and the ways you will shape it. And it's something I want you to never forget.

Well, I could go on all day but I imagine some of you have delicious Thanksgiving food going cold. Thank you for reading. Now go enjoy your turkey, your turducken, your turturkeykey, whatever you have, enjoy, stay safe and best wishes!

Young Avengers: Thankfully, Not Avenger Babies

Well, it's time for another comic review. I know, I know, you're asking yourself “God, why is he punishing us?” Well, about 95% of my entire blog library is punishment (unless you have similar interests than mine, so the percentage fluctuates) so on some level, you knew what you were in for.

Despite the title of the blog, I should point out that DC has a title known as Tiny Titans, which emphasizes comedy and isn't doing long term story arcs, and I actually want to read that. Likewise, Marvel itself has the Mini-Marvels strips and they're a hoot. What's my point in all this? That those work because of the comedy angle. But if there WERE actual Avenger babies (not the kids seen in Next Avengers: Heroes Of Tomorrow, plus that story's kinda dark anyway), that would be a stupid concept. Hell, I'm not even that supportive of the Muppet Babies show.

But with that out of the way, let's get to the review proper, starting with the synopsis/overview of the Young Avengers, in our comic for today, Young Avengers: Sidekicks, which collects the first six issues of the Young Avengers title. As usual, there may be spoilers (yeah the story's over five years old but if you haven't read it, it's new to you, which is my stance on most media).

After the events of Avengers Disassembled (in which a few of the Avengers were killed off), the Avengers as a team ceased to be (hence the title), due to the fact that Tony Stark cannot sustain both the Avengers and his company due to lack of money at the time. With no financial support, the Avengers called it a day.

In the Young Avengers title itself, four youngsters popped up, with looks similar to well known Avengers, doing good deeds. Led by Patriot (inspired by Captain America, so much so that he was referred to as Lieutenant America by J. Jonah Jameson), the team consists of Asgardian (also known as Thor Junior, again coined by Jameson. He would later changes his code name to Wiccan), Hulkling (gee, wonder who he shares his name with?) and Iron Lad (...yeah, that's a headscratcher). New members join up later but we'll get to that.

Captain America and Iron Man seek out Jessica Jones (at the time, former crimefighting hero Jewel, these days better known as Power Woman and wife to Luke Cage) to help them find the youngsters, since Jameson has tasked her to get more information about them. Upon finding them, they find out that Iron Lad is actually a younger version of recurring Marvel-wide supervillain Kang, and not too long after, the version they know appears from even further in the future with the intent of taking Iron Lad back to his timeline and restoring things to the way they should be. Naturally, he is defeated but Iron Lad still must go back or else the time stream will suffer even more. And so, the story ends with the remaining Young Avengers (including the two new recruits mentioned earlier) swearing that despite being told by Captain America and Iron Man they will be stopped if they go crimefighting without their parents knowing about their secret identities, the kids will continue to be Young Avengers.

Created by writer Allan Heinberg and penciller Jim Cheung, it's a damn good read. It's a great origin story, the major action sequences are intense and the character interactions are well written and often funny, with exchanges like this:

Asgardian/Wiccan: “Okay, this completely violates Growing Man continuity”
Iron Lad: “What do we do?”
Hulkling: “We're fanboys, aren't we? So, we collect them all”

One of the key elements to writing a team book is how the team interacts with each other. For a team like the Justice League, each member is usually cordial with each other, with only minimal confrontation, which usually ends in debate (and in most incarnations throughout the mediums, it's usually Green Arrow in debate with someone else). Meanwhile, with the Avengers, while they generally do get along, theirs is a more dysfunctional team, with Captain America usually being the one stuck in the middle trying to find a resolution. Usually, Hawkeye is the instigator (so, is this a trend with archers? Not content with just shooting literal arrows, they have to shoot verbal ones too?)
Initially, the team squabbles with each other, mostly over tactics but with the addition of Cassie Lang (who later dons the mantle of Ant-Girl, before changing that to Stature, honouring the second Ant-Man, her father, Scott Lang) and Kate Bishop (the new Hawkeye, the original being one of the casualties of Avengers Disassembled), debate then shifts to whether or not they should join.
The team's arguments seem authentic to me, like the natural thought processes of savvy comic book crimefighting teens (now there's a sentence I never thought I'd say or type). While they are relatively efficient, not everything is a clean victory and that's something that they bring up with each other, mostly Patriot chewing them out.

Now, since this blog might get a bit too long, I'll just go briefly over the character traits on display in the first arc.

Patriot does start off as being a little bit dickish and that pops up again when Kate joins the battle with them (not really sure if they get into a relationship later on but I picked up on what seems like flirting between the two).
Asgardian/Wiccan comes off as sensible but unsure about his abilities (he's a magic user) and whether or not he will be able to deliver in a fight
Hulkling is similar in nature to Asgardian, though much more confident in his abilities (shape-shifting) and a little more easygoing. Piss him off, however, and he will quickly act like his namesake. And for some reason it is he, more than anyone else, who objects to the team being named “Young Avengers” by the press, never mind his own name pays tribute to one of Marvel's biggest names and a founder of the original Avengers (a founder who left less than 10 issues into the book's run but a founder nonetheless). Also, just want to put on record, he was my favourite character in the book.
Iron Lad is a mature young man, with a clear goal of getting the Young Avengers together, though he does freak out at the thought of having to go back to his time to restore the timeline. He's also very respective of Cap, Iron Man and Jessica and just about everyone he comes into contact with.
Ant-Girl/Stature is very keen to become a Young Avenger, and clearly had a lot of respect for her father. In fact, when the timeline starts to change, she believes he may still be alive and wants to go looking for him but her request is turned down. To an extent, she is headstrong but listens to reason and is easygoing too.
And Kate (I'm going by her first name because it would be less confusing) is extremely stubborn and argumentative to Patriot (as mentioned above), but is clearly not someone who can just stand around and not do something (as evidenced in the first issue where she attempts to pick up a gun to use against the men holding the church she's attending in a bridesmaid capacity hostage). She also forms a bond with Cassie, and the two get along really well.

So, all in all, a good start. Combine the sharp writing with the fantastic art (loved the designs on Asgardian/Wiccan and Iron Lad) and you have a semi-lighthearted adventure debut. Hopefully, the second arc will prove to stand up just as well.

Manners On My Mind And My Mind On Manners

Yep, it's rant time again. I'll try to make it quick *Gets soapbox out*

I'm about to say some words and terms and I want to know if you find these offensive: “Hello”, “Please” and “Thank you”
If you don't find them offensive, congratulations, you recognize that they are manners.
If these words are offensive or foreign to you... what the Hell is wrong with you?

Working in retail, you have to expect a lot of rudeness. Comes with the territory, and you can't expect everyone to be pleasant. But over time, I've noticed that the concept of manners appears to be dying out. Maybe it's because we're online more and the rules of etiquette have been changed, sign of the times and all that jazz. Maybe generations haven't been taught manners and, like several languages of times past, manners are getting committed to history and eventually won't be seen in the modern world. Or maybe people have been trained to legitimately fear or disregard manners and in their place, be an even bigger jerk. I don't know why but there's no excuse.

Let's break it down one thing at a time. Let's start with the world “hello”

When someone greets you, generally, you greet them in return. Or, in lieu of a hello or variant there of, say “How's it going?” or some other pleasantry, that's fine. It shows acknowledgment. But if you approach someone behind a counter and you don't bother with a greeting, you are rude. No one's asking you to get emotionally involved, just respond back with a friggin' hello. It's not a chore, is it?

Related to that, if you want the attention of an employee, you might want to greet them or, at the very least, say “Excuse me” or get their attention the right way. Shouting to them from across the room or walking near them and just asking is not only rude but it's not a guarantee they'll understand what you're saying, because you haven't gotten their attention. They're probably doing their own work, not expecting people to come up to them. That doesn't mean they don't notice you, just that if you haven't gone to them, you don't need them and thus, they will carry on. So, if you want to ask where something is, don't go “Where's the bathroom?”, instead “Excuse me, where's the bathroom?” Though adding a please is a nice bonus.

Let's talk about please. We use the word please when we want something (or thank you at the end of the sentence, both work with me) from someone else. Let us observe this sentence: “Give me a muffin.” With an attitude like that, I really don't see why I should. You've failed to acknowledge me, you only recognize there is another human-shaped being in front of you.

Likewise, when you've gotten your items and the transaction is finished, don't just walk off without saying anything, that's just being ungrateful. If you can't say thank you, why not “have a good day” or “take it easy” or something to show acknowledgment?

Rudeness isn't just limited to things not being said, timing also plays a part. For example, if someone behind the counter is in a transaction with someone or responding to someone's inquiry, unless you have an emergency or something of actual importance, do not interrupt them just for your own selfish reasons. Wait your turn like everyone else.

There's a lot more I could go into, but with the basics being neglected, let's just get those down first.
When we're with friends, you establish your own ways so it's not like you have to be cordial and overly-polite every hour of every day, but when in public, would it hurt to just remember these basics?
Like I said before, you don't have to be emotionally involved, you can be casual, but it's really annoying that people just neglect these things. Here's a tip for those of you who are not aware: the world was not created just for YOU. When you want something from a store, the store does not bring itself into existence to serve you and it doesn't vanish once you don't need it anymore. You are not a god among us mortals, you're just like the rest of us. And when you don't acknowledge others, they will feel no need to acknowledge you. So, be a little more considerate.

Anyway, rant's over. If you do remember your manners, thank you and I apologize if you feel I've been directing this at you.

So please, just a little effort. Just a little. It may not seem like much, but a “hello” or a “thank you” can mean something.

If The Apocalypse Comes, Beep Me (Part 2)

And welcome back. If you've read my previous blog, you'll know that I'm a fan of the show Buffy The Vampire Slayer, and in fact, a huge Joss Whedon fan (though I haven't seen Dollhouse yet, because no one will announce when the DVD releases are heading my way...)
So, without further ado, the final five to make up my top ten favourite Buffy episodes. Maybe someday I'll do a top ten least favourite list or even a general overview. Probably not until next year, though.

5. The Replacement (Season 5, Episode 3)
I consider Xander Harris a role model of sorts, one amongst many. He's not the brightest (but very, very far from stupid), he lacks special powers and he usually gets the short end of the stick. But he has a heart and determination so powerful, you could weaponize it and devastate a small army. So, I am a big fan of any episode in which he is the focus and his positive aspects shine through. In this episode, he discovers that despite his shortcomings, he is capable of moving up in the workplace and getting an apartment all on his own gumption. He grows a lot too, and his comforting Anya when she worries about their future is really touching.
Also, the antagonist, the demon Toth, I really liked him. He had a certain dignity to him and his plan (split Buffy into two separate beings, one being weaker and then kill the weaker one to destroy both) is genius. Of course, it doesn't quite work that way but that's through no fault of his own.

4. Grave (Season 6, Episode 22)
The other season finale to make it here and oh man, this is an edge-of-your-seat kind of affair. While it still tries for an “the entire world is doomed” type of ending, it's a LOT more personal when you look at who's involved (no spoilers here, I will not ruin it for anyone yet to see it). I nearly cried with this episode, mostly due to Xander (seriously, when I was younger, I wanted to BE Xander Harris when I grew up) and there's a hilariously wonderful moment with Buffy and Giles just laughing and discussing things. The best of all the “heavily serious” episodes of Buffy.
3. Life Serial (Season 6, Episode 5)
This and the next two episodes are nearly gag-a-minute affairs and they work so well because of it. Whether it's Buffy being annoyed at college, losing her construction job after one day or wanting to scream out in agony in retail, the humor is never absent for long. And her encounter with a mummy hand... oh, that is the sweetest plum of all “Fingers sold separately”

2. Intervention (Season 5, Episode 18)
After the heavy atmosphere of the previous two episodes (the aforementioned The Body and Forever), some levity was needed and it came thick and fast with this episode. Another robot is seen and this time, resembling Buffy. Sarah Michelle looks like she's having the time of her life playing the constantly perky and smiling sex-bot, while delivering such lines like:
“You are recently gay”
“It's Spike! And he's wearing a coat!”
“Spike! You're covered in sexy wounds!”
And one of the greatest exchanges of dialogue ever in Buffy, with everyone's favourite capitalist supporter, Anya: “Anya! How is your money?” “Fine! Thank you for asking!”
Throw in one of Tara's best lines “What are you kidding? She's nuts!” and some great acting from James Marsters and you have a nearly unrivalled gem

1. Something Blue (Season 4, Episode 9)
While season four may be my least favourite season (oh wow, the military is up to something involving monsters, yawn), this episode downplays that aspect and just decides to go in for some hi-jinx. Willow's spellcasting causes odd things to happen, like Xander becoming a demon magnet and Buffy and Spike suddenly deciding to get married (they fall in love, eh? Hmm... have to wonder if that wasn't planned from the start, considering where things end up at the show's conclusion) and it's just a hoot.
And, interesting trivia, Buffy wants Wind Beneath My Wings played at her wedding.

Well, there you have it. I haven't read all of the season eight comics but what I have read has ranged from average to excellent, so it's definitely worth checking out (especially the second arc, No Future For You. I want a Giles and Faith spin-off live action series. NOW.)

So, any fellow Buffy fans care to name a few of their favourites?

Xander, That's Not The North Star, It's An Airplane (Part 1)

You ever watch something on TV that you have on DVD and have seen several times before but you end up watching the rest of the episode/movie anyway and you feel the urge to watch the entire thing again? I had that recently. I was sitting down to dinner before going to work and while channel surfing, I saw an episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer and since there wasn't anything else particularly engaging on any other channel, I kept watching to determine what episode it was. It ended up being I Was Made For Loving You, a season 5 episode involving a robot (not the first robot to appear on the show either) and a rather enjoyable one at that.

For those not in the know, here's the skinny: Buffy is a young woman who is destined to fight off the vampires, the demons, the monsters, the things that go bump in the night. She is the latest (at first) in a long line of vampire slayers. With her friends, she is not alone as she tackles high school (initially) and the forces of darkness. The show ran for seven seasons, from 1997-2003 and is still fondly remembered today. The legacy even lives on in comic book form, with season eight having finished and now season nine is currently being written. And of course, the show had a spin-off with Angel (which I will discuss another time)

I could go on about the show but, partly inspired by re-watching that episode and my best friend's own blog post about Buffy (http://daveherndon.blogspot.com/2011/10/buffy-vampire-slayer-discussed.html#comment-form), I have decided to do my own top ten list of favourite episodes, spread out over two blog posts.

Before we get into that, of the TV series itself, here is how I rank the seasons, from best to worst:
6, 3, 5, 2, 1, 7, 4
Oh and I should point out there may be spoilers so if you have not yet watched the show or are still on the early seasons, you have been warned.

Now, for the episode list itself, we'll do in reverse:
10. Graduation Day Part 2 (Season 3, Episode 22)
Season finales are of course a big deal for any show though only two have made my list. The key theme is ascension. Not just for the season's villain (literal in his case as he transforms from man to demon), but for Buffy and her friends too as they graduate high school (as the title states) and thus, they ascend into adulthood of sorts.
I think my favourite aspect has to be the fact that throughout the seasons, Buffy and her friends have been unable to stop the ascension or the villain's plans and are up against a wall in trying to vanquish him. However, by the episode's end, she not only has a plan, but she got the whole student body in on it, even though she's never really fit in. A nice pre-cursor to her leadership role in season 7.
The action is top-notch and it has one of my absolute favourite lines of the show: “Fire bad, tree pretty”

9. Storyteller (Season 7, Episode 16)
Despite how serious the show is and how it handles mature and complex issues, Buffy still has razor sharp wit and in some cases, creates whole episodes of hilarity. Like this episode.
Newly reformed Andrew (one of my favourite characters of the franchise, hands down) takes up the bulk of this episode, with video camera at the ready to film Buffy and her potential slayers as they train for an upcoming war.
Like some of the best episodes, it is capable of putting you into hysterics one minute and then make you sad in the next. Andrew stops denying the truth about what happened to his former friend (a friend he killed and refused to take the blame for) and thus, he grows a little. Character development is a huge part of why this show is so damn good.

8. Crush (Season 5, Episode 14)
In which ensemble dark horse Spike confesses his love for Buffy, who just reacts with outright disgust. A funny episode, though it's dark. Also notable for being the last non-flashback appearance of Spike's former lover and sire, Drusilla.

7. Forever (Season 5, Episode 17)
The episode right after the very infamous shock of The Body. While many fans will state this as a favourite (indeed, The Body is an extremely fine piece of work and were this a top twenty, it would have been here no doubt), the aftermath deals more directly with Dawn and Spike's perspectives, with excellent dialogue between Buffy and Dawn and both Sarah Michelle Gellar and Michelle Trachtenberg act the Hell out of their scenes.

6. Once More With Feeling (Season 6, Episode 7)
If you're not a hardcore fan, you probably still know the name Once More With Feeling. But if you're not in the know, it's the musical episode. A fantastic musical, too. And it actually goes to great lengths to explain WHY everyone's bursting into spontaneous song and dance routines, with lampshade hanging on the types of songs found in musicals and the measures of success (basically, Anya asking different questions like if a certain character's song could be considered a breakaway pop hit).
Throw in a smooth, sophisticated demon as the “villain” (I'd be hard pressed to call him that, he doesn't seem entirely evil) and you have a highlight for the series. Incidentally, my favourite songs are Under Your Spell, Rest In Peace and Walk Through The Fire. And yes, I know the words to each of those off by heart...

Iron Man: Rage Against The Machines.

I wasn't going to do another comic book review so soon after X-Men: Second Coming but with this week being very busy in my work schedule, I've pushed my original plans back a bit and decided to once more dive into the comic realm with the few titles I've been reading when I've had the chance.

Today, the review is on Iron Man: War Of The Iron Men, collecting Iron Man Legacy #1-5 and the one-shot Iron Man: Titanium.

Since the one-shot has little if anything to do with the main story, I'll do a brief synopsis and review: in a story set before Civil War, Iron Man's locked in combat with a giant robot, which Tony says is reminiscent of a robot he has seen before, called Ultimo. During the fight, he's in communication with S.H.I.E.L.D's director, Maria Hill, about how to deal with the situation.

As a one-shot, it's good. The art is good, the characterization is true to what we know for Tony Stark and it could be seen as a tiny pre-cursor of things to come with Civil War (though obviously now it wouldn't matter so much, unless you haven't read it. If that is the case, you should do so, it's actually a pretty damn good story) with the idea of how far is too far when it comes to firepower and how do you measure success in the superhero world. It's not always going to be about being able to save life, limb and property and vanquishing the villain for good. Sometimes the best you can settle for is a low mortality rate, a couple houses gone and the supervillain running off to lick their wounds

But now, onto the main story: in the country of Transia, the Iron Man technology has been duplicated by persons unknown and being used in a civil war. Tony travels to Transia to track down the tyrants responsible, which leads him into conflict not just with Dr. Doom, Ivan Vanko and the Radioactive Man, but also the citizens of the country and the United States over the proper way of ending the bloodshed.

That's as far as I'll go for a synopsis, so as not to spoil. Written by Fred Van Lente and penciled by Steve Kurth, it's an enjoyable story. One of the biggest recurring themes of the Iron Man mythology is that of the Iron Man technology falling into the wrong hands or facing a rival version from one of Tony's enemies (usually, the Crimson Dynamo or the Titanium Man) and Tony questioning whether or not this is his doing for bringing Iron Man into the world. It's nicely handled here and Tony doesn't let himself fall into a guilt trip over it. Rather, he reacts much like we've come to expect: he gets a bit repulsor-happy and sets off to blast someone or something to smithereens until they give in. He retains his rapid-fire wit and never loses his cool, which is something I'm very glad the movies retain.

There's a real life parallel with Iron Man's interference overseas with that of the idea of Americans getting involved with struggles not related to them and people acting out on their own, often not thinking about how this reflects on the government's stance. But then, that's integral to Tony's character, with interpretations that he's just that altruistic (with great power comes great responsibility, y'know) or that it's more of an ego-stroker (quite valid, but who says it can't be both?)

Tony's supporting cast don't get very much to do, though, with Pepper actually in jail for a good portion of the story thanks to Tony's actions (since the government doesn't know the entire situation with the renegade Iron Men and assumes Tony's behind it in some way). And I don't recall seeing Happy Hogan either. Also, Rhodey's kind of sidelined on this adventure.

Finally, I just wanted to bring up one really damn good moment (slight spoiler): with his plans foiled, Dr. Doom says this to his royal biographer, in the calmest manner possible (Doom's nothing if not classy) ”Plan number seven hundred and forty-six shall be tabled indefinitely. Make a note of it. I am moving on to plan seven hundred and forty-seven. Ready the Venom symbiote satellites.”
I just love how once his schemes go up in smoke, he just shrugs his shoulders and says “Well, that's one plan down, time to pull another one from up my sleeve”. Granted, he can still be prone to usual stock villain lines like “You'll rue this day!” or “One day, I will be victorious!” but to be fair, a lot of that is aimed towards his arch nemesis Reed Richards, so naturally it would get under his skin. But still, scenes like that paint why Doom is one of the best Marvel villains: he notes his failures, he moves on, and always has a contingency plan (in his case, his never-ending supply of Doombots and yes, one was present in this story.

So, all in all, a good story. Sorry for the short blog but I have a bit of catching up to do.

She May Be The Messiah, But She's A Very Very Confused Girl.

This is going to be a recurring thing for this blog, a blog devoted to reviews of different mediums. Films, seasons of TV shows, etc. Today, we're looking at comics. Now, Australia has never really been a huge market for comics, or at least in my experience. Trade paperbacks are hard to come by and most newsagents only seem to stock Simpsons and Futurama comics. While I do collect and enjoy those, superhero titles aren't all that common. Sure, I'll see issues of Amazing Spider-Man or Action Comics, but I can never be sure if the title will be stocked next month and I've had to rely on mini-series and one shots when going comic shopping.

Luckily, my local library often has plenty of trades for me to indulge in, or at the very least, I can order them from another library at no cost.
So, most of my reviews will be based on what I can find through the library or from what I have read in the past and can remember a lot of.

Today we're looking at X-Men: Second Coming. However, I acknowledge that I am nowhere near as good as Lewis Lovhaug (better known as Linkara) at reviewing, he's a frickin' genius and I'm some schmuck with a blog. That being said, I will try my best.

The arc is comprised of at least fifteen issues ranging from three issues of Uncanny X-Men to three issues of X-Force and various in-between.
Now, I've long held the thought that amongst all the different series of comics, past and present, finished and ongoing, the X-Men franchise is the hardest to follow. The biggest reason I have for this is the character roster. I mean, before M-Day (or, the end of the events of House Of M), you couldn't swing a dead cat in the Marvel universe without hitting a mutant (chances are, that dead cat WAS a mutant). And not only did you have the various X-Teams and the Brotherhood, but various Avenger teams had mutants at one time or another (most famous of those being Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Beast and Wolverine, though what team hasn't he been on?). Then you have your mutants that strike out on their own, whether they be hero, villain or in-between. Mutants like Apocalypse, Proteus, Namor, Sebastian Shaw and the ever-loveable Merc With The Mouth, Deadpool (who, incidentally, is one of my absolute favourite comic book characters).
There are so many characters within these comics (and let's not forget the non-mutant supporting cast and antagonists, like Moira MacTaggert and Arcade) that its easy to get lost. Often, I've played the game of “Wait, Who's That Guy? And You, What's Your Power?” while reading an X-Men comic, that's how out of the loop I am with modern X-Men comics. And this was AFTER the numbers were reduced to under two hundred mutants. New X-Teams spout up all the time, then disband, then reform with new members. It's hard enough keeping up with rebooted volumes, how can we be expected to keep up with the constantly changing line-ups?
Reducing the population to under two hundred didn't exactly help, because now the game changes to “Who Kept Their Powers?”, even though we all know most of the A-listers would have because you can't change status quo TOO much, lest you actually try and be daring.
Though, on that subject, that is one thing I'll give the Marvel universe credit for. While these days I slant more towards the DC universe (having Batman is a major drawcard, though heavy hitters like Green Lantern and the Flash help, not to mention wonderful series like 52 and Identity Crisis), Marvel almost always tries to keep its changes stuck the way they are and if they don't stick, the resolution is at least either acceptable or was always planted from the start so at least they put some thought into it. Unlike DC, which seems to say “This is boring. Reboot, reboot, REEEEEBOOOOOOT!” and push a big red button. Of course, sometimes Marvel gets an attack of the stupid (or, in the case of One More Day, a near fatal case of total freaking moron. I really, really hate that story. Like All-Star Batman And Robin, the beautiful art is the sole redeeming feature to a story that makes my brain want to cry) but sometimes the changes in one story escalate to something more universal and the resolution seems natural in light of those events (like the events of Civil War kind of being resolved after Siege, with the Superhuman Registration Act being abolished. It didn't take magic or time travel to fix it, just pure simple logic.)

Also, another part of what makes the X-Men hard to follow is all the allegiance changing. Juggernaut kept flip-flopping around for a while, though I believe he's currently a freelancer who'll be on either side provided they pay for him; Gambit, for a time, was one of Apocalypse's Horsemen; and Magneto, well, he goes all over the spectrum any given day (currently, he's kinda-sorta not a villain, but I wouldn't say he's an anti-hero or anti-villain either).

But anyway, enough rambling about that. Time to ramble about the arc itself

So, the plot is laid out thusly: Hope Summers (ugh, that's yet another confusing thing, the goddamn Summers family tree. I'm not going into that here) is the first new mutant born since M-Day. Cyclops' son Cable (damn it, I said I'm not going into it!) has taken her into the future (...not going into that either) to protect her and train her.
Well, that's actually the set up to this story. This arc deals with her coming back and being hunted by a highly evolved Sentinel known as Bastion and various human factions bent on eliminating the so called “Mutant Messiah”. Cyclops is leading the X-Men against all those who wish to see the mutant race ended once and for all but not every decision he makes is being followed without question.

Overall, it's a good story. I wouldn't say great, partly due to its length (it really, really feels a lot longer) and the fact that some of the villains can have their dialogue replaced with “Those muties are nuthin' but scum, we gotta git them keeeeled, yeeeee-haw!” and you'd get the same thing. Really, that's partly why I like the DC universe more: the humans are a lot more appreciative of their superheroes and crimefighters, which was a huge point in 52. But the Marvel universe is filled with ungrateful assholes. I mean, I know that mutants are basically racism and homophobia parallels in comics but if people are willing to accept a chemically enhanced soldier, a man who can go giant and ant-size and a thunder god, it just comes across as petty jealousy and that's why they smear mutants. Humans are just pissed that they got their special status taken away and don't like the fact that some mutants ARE better than they are, because of their attitude.

Anyway, I quite liked the relationship between Hope and Cable, it's reminiscent of Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor, only making the relationship one of surrogate father and daughter, rather than a romantic one (which would be really squicky). Hope's in a world she doesn't know and Cable's the only one she feels comfortable with and while she's with him, her character is tolerable. When he's not... well, let's just say, the words “You better be worth this, I swear to God” sum her up really well. She had better improve next time, or I won't bother reading about a petulant child. She may be confused and scared but it doesn't give her the right to act like Dawn Summers (different Summers family this time, not comic related) circa Buffy Seasons 5-6.
Cyclops I really liked in this story. For a long time, Cyclops was treated like the butt monkey of the X-Men and barely anyone (in-universe or out of it) gave him the time of day. Now, I think he started getting really awesome around the time Joss Whedon began an X-Men title, Astonishing X-Men. I've read a few of his arcs and damn if they don't kick ass. Now he's the full-fledged leader of the X-Men. But it seems a few of his long time friends don't see things the way he does and they let him know about it.

But now, for what I actually hate about this book. There will be spoilers, I warn you now.

Death in comics is pretty common. So common it gets joked about. And the X-Men has one of the most well known with Jean Grey (I think she's dead as of this blog... possibly?)
But that doesn't mean it doesn't still hurt when a beloved character dies. Whether it's pointlessly (see the Atop The Fourth Wall review of Cry For Justice for an example, and Lewis is right on with the reasons why these deaths can hurt us so much)
And, it is within this arc, one of the most beloved X-Men, Nightcrawler, dies. He dies the death of a hero, teleporting in between Hope and Bastion to take Hope to safety and gets impaled by Bastion because of it. He gets a worthy send-off, with so many of his comrades speaking about his warmth and compassion, his sense of humor. Even Wolverine has his moment, when he says that Nightcrawler always treated him like a man and with respect. “He was my best friend and he never treated me like a damn animal.”
Beast calls Cyclops out at the funeral, saying: “This is yours. You own this. Now and forever. Do you understand? Do. You. Understand?”, further cementing that there are those who question Cyclops' methods
Now, it may be asked, why do I hate this if Nightcrawler died valiantly and he was given a heartwarming send-off? Well, remember that quote I posted earlier about Hope? That is the reason. Since I found the character uneven, I have to wonder if his death is in vain. I guess time will tell, but so far, I'm not impressed.
Also, well, he's one of my favourite X-Men. In fact, second only to Beast. He had a wonderful heart, he was courageous, he had a great sense of humor and a kick-ass power. He had his hang-ups, but he never let them defeat him.
And, like Linkara says in the Cry For Justice review, not everybody comes back to life in comics. Hell, it took over twenty years for Barry Allen to return to the world, and I don't think anyone actually saw that coming.
So, who knows if he's coming back or not? Especially with Marvel supposedly having a “dead is dead” policy now. That being said, at least this is a better send-off than the logic-bending death of Nightcrawler of the Ultimate Universe. I mean, death by drowning? A teleporter dying by drowning? Maybe if they were weakened or knocked out or something, but come on!

So, all in all, mutantkind looks to the future with new mutants popping up, perhaps suggesting that while not every former mutant will get their powers back, they also will not be going extinct. But whether or not Hope is a messiah remains to be seen.

While I did have a few problems (especially with the length), I do recommend the story. Out of 5, I'd give it a 3. However, if your knowledge of X-Men is from the movies only, I'd suggest boning up on X-Men history first.

Call From Duty? Tell Them I'll Get Back To Them.

So, Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (or MW3 to most) came out a couple days ago. I would not have known this if it weren't for a conversation I had with a customer at work. He mentioned he had purchased the game 30 minutes previous and was on his way home to play it, stopping by for energy drinks to keep him going. Now, I work overnight and this was 12:30 am. So, it came as a surprise to me that gaming stores actually had midnight openings for newly released games like that. I mean, I knew cinemas did this for some of its biggest releases and when the later Harry Potter books came out, people flocked out in droves to get their hands on a copy (though I didn't have any trouble getting my copy of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows).

To be honest, a part of this surprise is due to the fact that I've never closely followed the Call Of Duty series. Hell, if you asked me how many games the series had, I'd shrug my shoulders and say "Uh... five?" Yeah... turns out, including expansions and such, there are at least eighteen. So, I would be way off-base. Though even if I were to exclude the titles that are spin-offs or portable versions and stick with the main series, I'd still be off by a few.

I've only played one game in the franchise, and I think it was the first Modern Warfare. The graphics were superb, the atmosphere engaging and the voices for the soldiers didn't distract from the experience and made it authentic. I got into the game and found it to be a really impressive first person shooter, which isn't easy, considering how it appears to be the predominant game type these days. That, or general sandbox games (personally, I'm hoping to see a resurgence in the survival horror genre in a big way).

But I can't help but wonder why the franchise has grown as large as it has. My theory is it comes down to the realism. Besides the obvious game mechanic of respawning (I mean if anyone bought a game where you died once and your game could never be played again, that would be the single dumbest thing you could ever do in a game. Well, besides doing a crossover with Echo The Dolphin), just about everything else simulates a war-like experience, right in the comfort of your own home. You're in the trenches, fighting with your buddies, defending the world against the enemy. Immersion is key to many a good game and COD seems to have gotten that down to a science.

But the relative realism might not always be the best thing for a game. Sometimes, we look to entertainment as the gateway to another world, a world that's sometimes not quite the same as ours or to other worlds and dimensions. Granted, we may get realism in movies (or as close as we can) when they lack sci-fi or fantastical elements, but the big difference is that we're watching characters grow and develop. In video games, YOU are the protagonist. And there's nothing you really need to develop, because once the game ends, that's it.
What I'm saying is, sometimes we like the idea of strange lands, of worlds beyond the stars. Or possible futures with technology we can only dream of. Whether it's exploring space with Samus Aran, killing monsters with Simon Belmont, fighting robots with Mega Man, trekking through Silent Hill or climbing the ranks through Mortal Kombat, we're less concerned with realism and more about what we can discover from these strange and foreign lands. Lands like Hyrule and the Mushroom Kingdom.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with realism in a game, it all depends on the game itself. Obviously, I can't expect Halo to adhere to the same rules as Haze and vice versa. But realistic games also suffer from that fact that there aren't many surprises in store, because if they were to break away from that realism, people would assume it was a gimmick. Unless it was a game that was essentially labeled as "like our world, but..." very much like the Resistance series has the label of "like our world in the past, but with aliens".

All in all, I've got nothing against the COD series, though like I said, I've only played the one game. But I've got to admit, I'm perplexed at what makes this franchise so popular. Is it the settings? The feeling of taking out bad guys and using it as a release from the stress of the world?
And, more to the point, is it really that good that it makes you want to wait at midnight for the latest game?

Eventually, I will get these games and see if I can recapture that same feeling from when I first played. But I don't think I'll be waiting at midnight for the next game. I didn't even do that for Arkham City and I've been looking forward to that game all year (and it's glorious, too).

So, I put it to anyone reading this blog: have you ever waited outside a store for a midnight opening for a brand new game? Or movie? Or even a book? Hell, has there been anything you've waited for, late at night, camped out, in a long line?

Have I Got A Story To Sell You

Word of warning, this won't really be a fun blog. Nothing really nerdy or geeky to discuss. This will be me getting up on my soapbox and ranting about a recent event down here in Australia. Granted, it's not like I have many readers at this point but if someone should stumble across it somehow, they should have fair warning. This is just my opinion, based on whatever information I've come across on this, and I don't know every little intimate detail.

For any overseas reader, here's the situation: over in Bali, a fourteen year old boy vacationing with his parents was arrested for buying drugs, in an alleged sting operation. He's facing at least 12 years in prison if convicted.
Now, I'm not blogging that he should be released, far from it. I mean, his defense at the time? "He said he [the dealer] needed the money". If I had a poster of someone facepalming right now, that would be the most appropriate response. Then it emerged he had a recurring drug habit before entering Bali. Yeah, now your story looks real credible now, kid.

I'm also not blogging about how we've cared more for getting him back than another convicted Australian in Bali. OK, I'm not commenting one way or another on whether or not I think Schapelle Corby is innocent, but my point is, Australia did very little to try and help her. The government's response basically amounted to "Um, we have a letter. Will that help?"
But for this boy (who has not been named, nor have his parents as far as I know, it's almost like he'd been kidnapped and the government will send in the air force! Why him? Is it because of his age? Never mind the fact he knew exactly what he was doing. He's old enough to be willingly buy drugs, he's old enough to await his fate in the hands of the justice system of Bali.

No, what gets my goat even more that any of that is the fact that his parents are trying to sell the rights to this story, like it's something that's destined to be a heartwarming triumph over adversity that NEEDS to be a telemovie.
Look, I have no problem with television networks offering large sums and telemovie deals to people, if the people involved have had something happen to them that wasn't through fault of their own.

For example, the survivor of the Thredbo landslide of 1997, Stuart Diver. The lone survivor, he was trapped under debris for over 65 hours. He had courage, determination and great willpower to survive. As he was pulled from the wreckage, his first words were "That sky's fantastic!" and he gave new hope that more survivors would be found, though tragically, it would not be the case.
He would later have his story turned into a made-for-TV drama called Heroes Mountain, in which he was played by Craig McLachlan.

Or to use another Australian example, the Beaconsfield Mine collapse of 2006. A small earthquake caused an underground rock fall, trapping three miners, one of whom died in the disaster. Brant Webb and Todd Russell were rescued after two weeks, maintaining their sense of humor and spirit throughout. The media down here went nuts from start to finish. Hell, even Dave Grohl knew about it when he found out they were huge fans based on a request from the miners to have the Foo Fighters' music on their MP3's sent down (so for anyone who wasn't sure what inspired Ballad Of The Beaconsfield Miners, there's your music history lesson for the day). They were offered several lucrative deals and they deserve it.

So, what's my point in all this? That this is the kind of thing that will inspire the wrong message in people. That you can misbehave and commit all sorts of crimes and people will just throw money at you for being a delinquent. I know its his parents shopping the story around but its his antics that started this off.
And you can't tell me "oh, it's for his legal defense", that will make it look worse.

Quite frankly, he would be getting off light if he's able to come back here and go to rehab, which if that's not a buzzword these days, it's on its way. Rehab is not some "super instant magical cure", it requires a discipline that needs to be maintained once you leave. And if he doesn't have the discipline to not buy drugs in a foreign land, or to not buy drugs at all, I highly doubt rehab is the way to go.

Anyway, that's enough ranting from me. I apologize if anything I've said has offended anyone but that's just how I feel.
Next time, I'll go back to something low-key or nerdy.

Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps)

Halloween may have passed but horror is not chained to one mere time of the year.
It’s always with us, infiltrating our daily routines, often in small ways and in ways we can’t ever expect. However, Halloween does seem to have an affinity for horror and it appears to be more in force around that last October week, with people reminiscing of trick-or-treat sessions long past or movies to watch around that time.

Well, that’s what we’re here for today. Below are my top ten horror films and thus, the ones I would watch around Halloween.
Being the odd sort person that I am, I have self-imposed rules for this list. I’m explaining this now so that no one writes in the comments asking why particular films didn’t make the list.

First, though this mostly applies to the honourable mentions, only one film per series is accepted. Otherwise, if this was a top twenty or higher, it would probably be flooded with entries from the Nightmare On Elm Street series or Romero films involving zombies.
Second, for this particular list, the villain must be one of the following:
- supernatural in origin. No serial killers or mass murderers or people that just snapped, mainly because I’ve always felt it’s more of a thriller when the antagonist is human. Even with high body counts and true scares, stuff like the Scream series may be horror but it's borderline thriller because the Ghostface killers are all human, with human motivations. Same with Leatherface and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise (one day I'll very possibly do a horror list involving human villains)
- if not supernatural, aliens or science will be accepted. It may have more of a sci-fi slant but wouldn’t you be scared if you had a Facehugger all up in your... well, face? Likewise, humans turned monsters through science also works due to the loss of humanity and in fact, makes for a great study on whether or not a human can maintain their sense of self when undergoing transformations and such. Body horror can also count if there is no real supernatural/alien force, because it often does involve horrifying imagery and things that couldn’t really be achieved in a thriller.
- a human CAN be the main antagonist, however, as long as the film has some kind of supernatural force driving them or involved somehow (for example, if you altered It so that Pennywise was more a corrupting force for Henry Bowers but never had a personification and made Henry the main villain, it would be accepted. Though I should point out It was never ruled out anyway)
Finally, the film can mix with other genres but it must be mostly horror or at least not let its horror atmosphere be severely undermined.

Now, for the honourable mentions and films I highly recommend even if they missed the top 10: 28 Days Later, Asylum (1972), The House That Dripped Blood, The Beast Must Die!, Ginger Snaps, The Vault Of Horror, Tales From The Darkside: The Movie, Hellraiser, Dawn Of The Dead (1978), A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, Demons (1985), Suspiria, Fright Night (1985), Alien and Evil Dead 2.

OK, with all that out of the way, I just have one thing left to say: besides entry number 1, these aren’t in any particular order.
So, let’s begin with number 10

10: In The Mouth Of Madness- Sam Neill plays John Trent, an insurance investigator who has been assigned to locate missing horror author Sutter Cane and bring his latest manuscript to his publishing company. His search takes him to the very places we try to avoid.
The third in a thematic trilogy directed by John Carpenter, this film could be a contender for one of the most mind-screwiest films there is.
It's a little hard to talk about this film without spoiling it or the atmosphere but the film works great at exploring the darkness that resides in the mind and of the darkest horrors ever thought up, these taking the forms of Cthulhu-esque abominations. I really love Sam Neill's performance in this and it is my favourite role of his, perhaps closely followed by his work in Memoirs Of An Invisible Man.

9: Tales From The Crypt (1972)- a British anthology film, from Amicus Productions, based upon the comic of the same name. The framing device is a mysterious man describing to five strangers the manner in which they die, with each segment then letting us see the events around it.
Curiously, only two of the five segments are based on actual issues of the Tales From The Crypt, with the others being lifted from other horror titles. That aside, it's the best horror anthology I've ever seen, in part due to some of the make-up and props being damn near scary (segments two and three having the best examples, particularly on Peter Cushing towards the end of the third), for some of the twist endings being really chilling (though the fourth contains a glaring plot hole or two) and because, as mentioned above, it has Peter Cushing, a horror icon. This might be his most sympathetic role, which in turn comes from the fact that his wife had passed away around the same time and he was never the same without her. The saddest part is reading what he did on the night she died and it's clear he was a very devoted and loving husband.
A great precursor for things to come, even if the movie is only related to the wonderful TV show by name.

8: Pet Sematary- the Creed family move to a new house, right near a pet cemetery and a dangerous stretch of road. Louis (Dale Midkiff) learns of the dark power of the burial ground near the pet cemetery but severely underestimates its effects.
One of the most potent forms of horror is what is known as the “adult fear” (Hell, an image of this movie is the picture for the TV Tropes page!) The adult fear style horror is one where the horror is all the more terrifying because it COULD happen in real life and for bonus horror points, sometimes maybe it HAS (think of the child victims on Law And Order: Special Victims Unit to help get a better grasp on the term). Without going into too much detail about the book or film, I remember when I first saw the film, I actually went pale. The scene was played out so well and so horrifyingly that I was in shock for some time after that. All I will say to keep its secrets is this: that dangerous stretch of road? I mentioned it for a reason. Even if you know what's coming, your body still goes into shock.
It's works like this that reaffirm my belief in the mastery Stephen King has in his craft.

7: Silent Hill- Rose (Radha Mitchell) and her adopted daughter, Sharon (Jodelle Ferland) are travelling to Silent Hill, but get into a car crash as they approach. When Rose comes to, she discovers Sharon is missing and sets off after her, all the while meeting several creatures and sinister citizens of the town.
Much like Resident Evil, Silent Hill is based off a popular survival horror game franchise. Unlike the film of Resident Evil, Silent Hill remembers it's not an action movie where people are stoic badasses with enough weaponry to supply to a small country (yeah, I hated the first Resident Evil. If it didn't bare the RE name, I'd be more tolerant but RE is not a game where you go in guns-a-blazin').
Staying true to most of the game's legacy while carving out its own, the film never devolves into a typical cash-grab by using just the brand name and character names and then going off on its own tangent. It's also unique in that its largely female-populated, with the most notable male character being Rose's husband, Christopher, played by Sean Bean (which is a bonus because it means the film doesn't also try and shove a romantic subplot or gratuitous T&A down our throats)
I look forward to the sequel, titled Silent Hill: Revelation 3D (that last part doesn't particularly please me, though, unless they intend to take advantage of what 3D can do. And also, why Revelation? How many movies have to be called Revelation or use it as part of the title?)

6: From Dusk Till Dawn- Seth Gecko (George Clooney) and his brother, Richie (Quentin Tarantino) are looking to lay low after a bank robbery and kidnap a family in an RV with the intent of reaching a safehouse in Mexico. Before reaching the safehouse, they all stop off at a strip bar, which is later revealed to be a den for vampires.
Now, this may be the most controversial entry on the list because of the whole “it's more action/comedy than horror, it's not balanced” but I did the proviso that if it couldn't be tipped more towards horror on the scale that the horror wasn't completely diminished by the other elements (or, to put it in a less confusing way, it it suddenly turned into an episode of Full House. Or became one big shoot'em up with action movie music and one-liners and suddenly Milla Jovovich appears. I really do hate the first Resident Evil movie, I really do).
While it does have its fair share of action and comedic elements, the vampires themselves look like the stuff of nightmares and hey, it does have some hallmarks of horror. Particularly, the idea that not everyone is going to make it out alive and that, like most horrible situations in the real world, you don't exactly expect to end up in something so terrible (though obviously vampire strippers aren't a common occurrence in our world). Also, I should point out that the prequel and sequel also have horror elements so it is consistent throughout.
The dialogue is sharp, the characters are engaging and you really do care about their fates and wonder if they're going to make it out OK. The effects and make-up on the vampires is superb as well, some of the better movie vampires. Also, a crotch-gun. I don't think I need to go into detail about how awesome that is.

5: Drag Me To Hell- after turning down a mortgage payment extension for a customer, bank loan officer Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is cursed to go through three days of torment before being sent to Hell.
Sam Raimi returns to horror and it's like he came back with a vengeance. Mixing the comedy and the horror is something Raimi has always done masterfully (like in Army Of Darkness, part of one of the best film trilogies I've ever seen) and like any great horror, it doesn't telegraph the parts intended to make you jump. But the ending... oh, the ending is the sweetest part of all. No spoilers but I had to replay that ending several times the first time I watched it, that's how much I loved it. It's one of the best endings I have ever seen in a horror movie and I hope to see more like it. I know Raimi is set to direct Oz, The Great And Powerful (and I WILL be seeing that once it hits cinemas) but I eagerly await his return to horror, should he ever choose to come back.

4: The Thing (1982)- an alien lifeform wreaks havoc on an outpost in the Antarctic and the team of scientists become suspicious of each other, as the lifeform can take on other forms and blend in amongst them.
The Thing is a very good argument as to why old school effects are still awesome and, in some ways, better than CGI. Every time you see it, you're still not sure as to what you're seeing and you're not even sure what its original form is (well, unless you've now seen the prequel, which kind of deflates the mystery but that film's actually not too bad). The overall theme of paranoia and mistrust is played out well and they have a right to be on guard.
I should also point out that this is the first of the thematic trilogy I mentioned in the entry for In The Mouth Of Madness (the second is Prince Of Darkness, which is a very good film), the trilogy known as the Apocalypse Trilogy. There's no order to them since they are only connected by the theme of impending doom. However, I still cite this as the best of the three and the best John Carpenter film.

3: Videodrome- Max Renn (James Woods) is the president of a small TV station and he is searching for something sensationalistic to garner a stronger audience and he stumbles upon Videodrome, a program that appears to be the television equivalent of a snuff film. He becomes obsessed with it and becomes determined to find its origins.
If The Thing is a very good argument to the special effects of old vs. the new way of doing things, Videodrome would be the equivalent of a tag-team partner. Honestly, some of the things that were achieved in this movie are still mind-blowing today. The theme of new technology having sinister usage and the detriment it inflicts upon the masses is only on the surface. Look deeper into the film and you'll be surprised at what you may find.
This may not fit into most conventional horror, due to lacking a supernatural inclination, but the body horror element comes into play here.

2: The Fly (1986)- Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) is on the verge of a magnificent breakthrough in science: a teleportation system. His only problem is getting it to work with organic matter. But after meeting Veronica (Geena Davis), he finds the inspiration he needs to crack his problem. But after using himself as a test subject, without noticing a housefly slip into his teleportation pod, he begins to undergo several changes.
Completing the “trilogy” of movies whose practical effects dominate the movies reliant on CGI (and also being the second David Cronenberg film on this list), The Fly is also remarkable in the fact that, like The Thing, it is usually considered to be one of the best remakes in film history, though if you want to nitpick, both are based on short stories and could be considered a second adaptation.
Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis have excellent chemistry and their characters are extremely well developed (Jeff and Geena were actually married for a time too, so clearly there were multiple levels to their relationship). To me, the key thing that makes this movie excel is the way Cronenberg takes his time not just developing the relationship and the characters but the eventual “evolution” of Seth Brundle into his new form. It's not “Oh no, I'm a monster now, blaaargh!” and then it turns into a creature feature (it may have worked for the first adaptation, I don't know, I haven't seen it) but rather a careful character study as Seth adapts to the changes he's undergoing.
Also, the finale, devastating yet awesome at the same time. I don't know how it's possible but it is.

1: The Shining (1980)- Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson) and his family have become the winter caretakers for the Overlook Hotel. Jack soon becomes a victim of the goings-on of the hotel, which seems to have designs on him.
I don't think I have to say much more about the plot, it's a very well known film, perhaps the most well known on this list. It's also in my top ten films of all time (which I may blog about one day). While there are several changes from the Stephen King novel (mainly focusing less on the subjects of Jack's alcoholism and its effects on his homelife and the strained relationship with his son), what it does still do is create an atmosphere of terror and confusion. Jack Nicholson is so convincing as Jack Torrence you wonder if he didn't retain some of that personality when they weren't shooting. And some of the line deliveries, even when he's calm (or seemingly calm) are downright chilling. Like this:
“Wendy? Darling? Light, of my life. I'm not gonna hurt ya. You didn't let me finish my sentence. I said, I'm not gonna hurt ya. I'm just going to bash your brains in.”
Not to spoil things for the youngsters who have to experience this wonder, but the endings between book and film also vary. Both do work in their respective mediums, however, and I approve of the change made here.
This would later be redone as a mini-series that would be much more faithful to the book and it's actually pretty good. But for evocative sets, music, images and characterisation, I turn to this film.

So, that was my list. I'm fairly certain a lot of you disagree with the way I've conducted my list but that's part of what makes movie discussion so wonderful: that we stand up and speak out about our favourites and share our experiences. So long as we all remember to agree to disagree.

So, what are your favourite horror movies?

Zombies On A Plane. It WILL Happen.

It certainly can’t have escaped anybody’s attention that zombies are popping up in every medium not just as the stars of their own vehicles (such as the term star can apply) but also in places we never expected. The Bennets have a spot of bother with the undead in the Pride And Prejudice And Zombies series (film to be expected in 2013 at this point), the pesky varmints show up in the video game Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare and even Call Of Duty has them marching along in Call Of Duty: World At War: Zombies.

The video game industry seems to be prevalent with zombie games and add-ons. Series like Left 4 Dead and Dead Rising give you more zombies than you ever thought you could imagine and the newly released Dead Island is only adding to the trend (though it can be argued, as it can for 28 Days Later and its sequel, that these aren’t zombies in the traditional sense but that’s for another time).

Comic books love to throw zombies into the mix, most likely because it allows heroes and villains alike to use their powers, weapons and abilities at full force without worrying about the consequences because hey, the dead don’t have rights! Marvel Zombies, The Walking Dead (though not a superhero comic, they are the focal point here), even DC’s crossover event comic Blackest Night offered something similar to zombies.

And movies, well, there are that many films starting with the word zombie they’re almost as overpowering and numerous as the creatures themselves. In 2010, over 40 films about, or featuring, zombies were made and this doesn’t include short films. Granted, a lot of those come from countries where English is not the first language so not many people overseas will know those films but they still count. Arguably, the most well known releases of last year were the latest of George A. Romero’s own zombie series, Survival Of The Dead and Resident Evil: Afterlife
And this is a trend that does not look like it’s dying (no pun intended) down anytime soon. The latest Pirates Of The Carribbean movie features zombies (and apparently vampire mermaids. I haven’t seen it yet so I don’t know if they pull it off well); The [Rec] series, which inspired the Quarantine series (first was a remake but it is now going down an original path), is getting another sequel; the aforementioned Pride And Prejudice And Zombie; World War Z is due next year and there’s even a romantic zombie movie on the way (more on that later)

Yet despite what some might see as an overcrowding of zombie related media, the question is, why is it still so popular?

I have a theory as to why (though I acknowledge that others have probably reached the same conclusion). Part of this theory actually involves a comparison to vampires, so I’ll keep it as short as I can.

Vampires over the years have gone through several interpretations and concepts. Different writers pick and choose parts of vampire lore they want to use and want to ignore.
In the 30‘s and beyond, Dracula was pretty much the first thing that came to mind when talking about vampires. Back then, vampires were usually treated as creatures of olden times, with olden ways and as figures of mystery, though justifiably so.
The Hammer films of the 50‘s and similar productions went with the idea of vampires as seductive creatures, usually not in subtle ways and usually with a female vampire and a female victim. Though it may have boosted some of Hammer’s vampire films into cult status, it may also have inadvertently planted the idea that being a vampire was desirable. Like the other Dracula films, the standard methods for disposing of a vampire were in place (stake to the heart, decapitation, fire).
Others have taken the approach that can be summed up thusly: “Duuuuuuude, being a vampire is awesome! You can stay up all night, do whatever you want and you’ll be young and pretty forever!” (The Lost Boys ran on this)
Some movies involve vampires either running the world and becoming the dominant race and not unlike humans other than bloodlust (Daybreakers), others involve them being societies that move amongst humans or outnumber them but go through power struggles and wars with other supernatural beings (the Underworld series, the Blade series)

However, the most common depiction these days is perhaps the idea that some vampires are tortured, lonely immortals who go through Peter Parker-style wangst at their abilities at being both a gift and a curse. Anne Rice’s vampires ran on the idea that they were somewhat sexy, desirable and even somewhat charming. Some were caught up in the ramifications of their immortality and lifestyle and often wondered if they were dooming others. However, they are also portrayed as hedonistic, vain, self-serving and somewhat oblivious to the needs of others. Now, which part do you think most people attach themselves to, hmm?

And now we get to how vampires are mostly seen today: as the first half of what I described of the Rice style vampires, only usually younger, “good” vampires who like humans and fall in love at first sight (a ridiculous concept) with teenagers. Of course, I refer to Twilight. Since it’s still a hotly debated topic, I will refrain from airing my personal views here, except for this: I don’t care what people decide to ignore or add to vampires, they don’t sparkle and they can’t give birth (and don’t tell me about Darla from Angel, everyone on the show noted it was impossible and that’s why it worked there!)

Though, speaking of Angel, the vampires of the Buffyverse are probably my favourite portrayals of vampires so far, going in-depth on the history of vampires, how they work and such. In a nutshell, the demon infects the body to an extent but its also influenced by who you were before you died. Or, to look at it another way, vampires are some humans with their conscience and inhibitions switched off. Then you have your souled vampires, like Angel himself, who are still vampires they just feel horribly guilty of what they’ve done (usually, anyway).

All sorts of aspects of vampires get thrown out and exchanged and swapped around, from the effects of sunlight, to the weirder aspects like “vampires cannot cross running water”, “throwing salt or seeds over a vampire’s shoulder will cause the vampire to count each individual grain of salt or seed” (incidentally, this is thought to be the basis for the concept of Count Von Count from Sesame Street) and of course, what a vampire can transform to (if they can at all). These forms are most commonly bats or wolves but can include a form of mist (I wish I saw that more often)

So, for those of you who haven’t fallen asleep at this point, you may be asking “I thought this blog was about zombies, what’s this got to do with it?”
Well, the answer is this: zombies have worked so far because no one’s changed the fundamentals. Vampires undergo so many changes over the years, from vicious monsters lacking souls to tortured, innocent immortals to single minded feeding machines (30 Days Of Night displays that kind of vampire).
But zombies? Pretty much the same. In zombie games, to paraphrase Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, this is the basic format: “Zombies over there, kill they ass”
About the only aspects that become altered throughout the mediums are whether or not they can talk (and if they can, whether or not they maintain full vocabularies or just go with “BRRRRAAAIIINS!”) or whether running zombies count as zombies at all (28 Days Later sparked that particular debate). Although some debate still rages about whether or not all flesh obsessed shamblers are zombies or just infected people who resemble zombies.

In any case, because the formula’s remained relatively unchanged, zombies have carried on doing what they do and we keep lapping it up. No tortured Romeo and Juliet style romances (yet) about zombies and the humans who love them (now that would make for a really cool talk show episode). No zombie version of The Road where a zombie and his zombie son roam the post-zombie apocalyptic Earth looking for fresh meat (or, for a twist, one of them is not a zombie and the zombie’s memory makes them resist biting the other though the temptation is there)
Nope, zombies= evil and humans have to fight or flee. That’s how its been since the beginning and that’s how it’ll be for years to come.

Or will it?

Though the title has not yet been decided upon (at least to my knowledge), there actually IS a rom-zom-com in development. I don’t know whether to praise it for trying to shake things up or be wary that the gimmick will be stretched out. It’s one thing to have something different, it’s another to explore what this idea can do. Merely being different doesn’t mean anything if your entire message is “I’m different! Look at me!”
Shaun Of The Dead might be one of the better ideas of shaking things up a little. It accomplishes this not by radically altering the genre but by injecting humour into it, almost deconstructing it and lampshading it. It’s serious in places but still humorous enough to stand out from the crowd and be remembered not just as “that funny film about zombies” but as something inspiring since it tried something different and worked. Part of that is because rather than go “these types of films are rubbish and here’s why” it’s an affectionate funny film featuring zombies. And those are the ones that work best, the ones that satire films or genres but make it clear all throughout that they respect the work and love the concepts.
I mean, it was enough to get Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright cameos for George A. Romero’s Land Of The Dead (I believe they were even offered meatier roles but they chose to cameo out of respect for the works. Also, you get to be a zombie for the man considered to be the father of the zombie. Unless you count that Smurf story where they turn purple after being bitten but that’s yet another debate)

Maybe the zombie craze is already dying down. All good things have to come to an end. Are we getting sick of zombies yet?