The Squeee

Gearing up for FanstRAvaganza 2012

2012-01-30T16:21:00.001Z

Back in 2010, there was an idea for a fanblogging event, where the current Richard Armitage fanblogs would participate, highlighting Richard Armitage's work and/or his fans for a whole week, and this venture was named FanstRAvaganza. You might recall this:

Then, in 2011, it was decided that the FanstRAvaganza, having been a big success and plenty of fun for everyone involved, should return, and return it did. With more participants than the year before.
Remember this?

If you're new to the RA fandom and have never heard of FanstRAvaganza before (man, that's an awkward word to type!), or if you're hungry for another, and you wonder if there's going to be a third one ... why yes, yes there is. :)

FanstRAvaganza 3 will be held 12-18 March 2012, and if you like Mr. Armitage, you're gonna get your fill right here! :D I'm still doing my daily reviews, but all the ones that week will be of productions involving Richard Armitage ... and a few RAndom thoughts inspired by said productions. We'll see how it goes.

[Banner courtesy of BccMee]

This year, we're aiming high, and have got both a Twitter account (@FanstRAvaganza), the Twitter tag #FanstRA and a Facebook page (FanstRAvaganza) and everything. You really won't be able to miss it even if you try! (Okay, maybe if you don't touch a computer that week ...)

We're also doing something a bit different this year. Instead of having a bunch of blogs, we're splitting it into a) a group of anchor blogs that will have a daily(ish) update - this is one of them - and b) a tag chain for those who wish to participate but only want to do one post. It means one poster links to the next one in the chain, and so on, and it's going to be awesome.

Here are all the anchor blogs:

An RA Viewer’s Perspective from 33° 0′ South of the Equator (mulubinba)
bccmee’s Richard Armitage Fan Vids & Graphics (bccmee)
Confessions of a Watcher (judiang)
me + richard armitage (Servetus)
RAFrenzy (RAFrenzy)
Richard Armitage & History & Spooks (CDoart)
Richard Armitage Fan Blog (Nat)
The Squeee (Traxy) - o hai, that's me! :)

We'll all be posting daily during the event, so stay tuned! :)

Do you blog or Tumblr about Richard Armitage and didn't get an invite? Give us a prod on Twitter or Facebook so we know you'd like to join in, or email blog (at) traxy.net and I'll pass the message on. If you're not blogging or don't Tumblr or perhaps you do but not about Richard Armitage, but would like to say a few words about him, my door's always open for guest posters. Again, blog (at) traxy.net would be a good way to get in touch for that. :)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

2012-01-30T08:59:00.000Z

Film review: Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011), directed by Michael Bay

In this third, and what we can only hope is the last installment of the re-booted Transformers franchise (but you know it won't be), Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) has dumped what's-her-face and is now with British hottie Carly Spencer (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) instead. He's nagged by his parents (Kevin Dunn and Julie White again) to get a job, and thanks to Carly's overly nice boss Dylan (Patrick Dempsey), Sam lands a job at some technology company or other, headed by John Malkovich.

But not for long!! Or, okay, things don't stay quiet for very long. There are still the Autobots and the Decepticons to worry about, and they've found some sort of Ultimate Weapon, or rather, they've found the brains behind it - Sentinel Prime (Leonard Nimoy...'s voice).

Then robots fight, Frances McDormand banishes the robots off Earth and the explosions begin, because this is a Michael Bay film.

You'll also find Alan Tudyk in a small but funny part, John Turturro as Simmons, Tyrese Gibson as Epps, James Remar as Sideswipe and of course, Optimus Prime is voiced by Peter Cullen, who probably isn't a vampire.

Surprisingly, I think this film held my attention better than the previous one. Which doesn't say a whole lot, technically, because I still went and grabbed the laundry and hung that up once the explosions started, and I didn't exactly miss anything.

It's got action, explosions, hot girl, robots, fast cars and all that stuff that you're expecting of this franchise, including a nonplussed Shia LaBoeuf. That they booted off Megan Fox isn't a loss, and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (now there's a posh name for ya) is easy on the eye too, which is the whole point. After all, the Hot Chick in Transformers isn't there to be anything other than a Hot Chick, Love Interest, and occasionally, Bargaining Tool. That's it.

Good special effects, impressive robots, lots of robot transforming action, and I still keep wondering when one of them will start dancing. But yeah, plotwise, it feels a bit meh, and anyone who couldn't help themselves exclaiming "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!" at the screen should get a prize. So should anyone who could sit through all of it and not glance at the clock once. The whole robot alien thing, you know, it's not all that intellectually stimulating.

All in all, because I liked it slightly more than the last one, 2.3 out of 5 space shuttles.

The Borrowers (2011)

2012-01-27T08:24:00.000Z

TV film review: The Borrowers (2011), directed by Tom Harper

If yesterday's review of the 1997 version of The Borrowers could be summed up with "we are not amused", how would the latest attempt fare? Again, based on the books by Mary Norton, but this time, it's perfectly clear where we stand in time and location: we're in London, in December 2011.

After the death of his mother, James Millman (Charlie Hiscock) with his dad Robert (Shaun Dooley), move in to live with his potty grandmother (Victoria Wood), who keeps believing there are "little people" living there, and she's determined to find them. Sadly, they're also on the brink of losing the house, as they're struggling financially, and Robert can't seem to find a job.

Underneath their floorboards, it's a different life altogether. There lives the Clock family - a family of tiny people called Borrowers, so called because they "borrow" things from us humans. Father Pod (Christopher Eccleston, looking very dad-like in that beard) is the one who ventures out into the house looking for scraps food and unused items the humans will never miss, while anxious mother Homily (Sharon Horgan) stays at home, where teenager Arrietty (Nottinghamster - yay! - Aisling Loftus) is getting more and more agitated over not getting to explore with her dad.

So, one night, she decides to go exploring, and is discovered by James, but they quickly become friends. However, when he returns her to the hole in the floorboards, his granny catches a glimpse, and starts ripping up floorboards ... and calls in a creepy professor (Stephen Fry) and his assistant Jenny (Anne Hirsch). Professor Mildeye has had a theory about "minature humans" for years without anyone taking any real interest, and here's the opportunity to catch one of them! How marvellous!

For the Clocks, it's less fun - they're forced to flee. In doing so, they discover they aren't the only Borrowers in town ... and that the first one they come across is the rakish Spiller (Robert Sheehan, Misfits) - another teenager ...

To be fair, I don't think this is very much like the Borrowers in the books either, but at least these characters act a whole lot more like I remember them, and these sure aren't curly redheads with quirky hairdos and big teeth. They're just miniature humans, like they should be. That alone is a big plus in my book.

The story is also updated to a modern setting, and I think it works really well. That they've added (remote control) car chases and flying (in model aircraft) ... well, I'm not sold on the idea, but it's fun. It's got plenty of adventure and perhaps isn't quite for the youngest, because what's there for them? James is maybe 10-12, Arrietty is 16, and because Arrietty is a teenager, they deal with teenager issues - including sexual tension (not with James though, for goodness sake!)

There's a very Christmassy feel to this version of The Borrowers. You get to follow passage of time through an advent calendar, and it all ends with Christmas celebrations. Aside from that, it does have a darker tone than you'd perhaps expect. James has lost his mum, his father is unemployed and struggling to get hired, they're about to foreclose on the mortgage ... and the professor will go to any lengths to prove his theory of tiny humans, as well as what he plans to do when he catches one. No, definitely not something for the five-year-olds.

It's not bad, though, and I now really want to read the books again. 3.7 out of 5 strawberry creams.

The Borrowers (1997)

2012-01-26T08:38:00.000Z

Film review: The Borrowers (1997), directed by Peter Hewitt

Based on Mary Norton's books about the Borrowers, is this1997 adaptation (and I use that term loosely), where the Clocks are a family of "Borrowers" - a kind of miniature humans that live under our floorboards and in our walls, living of things which they "borrow" from us humans.

There's father Pod (Jim Broadbent), mother Homily (Celia Imrie), daugher Arrietty (Flora Newbigin), and son Peagreen (Tom Felton, five years before the first Harry Potter film, aww).

The "beings" (humans) that own the house they live in, are the Lenders: father Joe (Aden Gillett), mother Victoria (Doon Mackichan) and son Pete (Bradley Pierce). Pete spots the Borrowers, and is intrigued by having little people in the house.

Unfortunately, that same house belongs to a relative of theirs, and when she dies, the unscrupulous solicitor Ocious P Potter (John Goodman) says that ain't so, b'bye now, because he wants to knock the house down in order to build luxury apartments. He just needs to get into the house and find the old biddy's hidden will and destroy it, but never did he anticipate having to deal with Borrowers ...

Also stars Mark Williams (Arthur Weasley in the Harry Potter films) as the funny exterminator Jeff, Hugh Laurie as a police officer, Ruby Wax as a town hall clerk and Raymond Pickard as Spud Spiller.

Awkward family photo is awkward.
(But lookit how tiny and cute Tom Felton is!)

Everything is bright and colourful in this adaptation, and for some reason, all Borrowers have curly, reddish hair, as if they're some kind of Hobbits with crazy hairdos and freakishly big teeth. Anyone care to explain that one? Because as far as I recall (and let's face it, I probably read these books last when I was about ten), Borrowers were just miniature humans, which means they weren't half as quirky as this film makes it out. And while we're at it, I also don't remember Arrietty having a baby brother! Not that I don't love Tom Felton, who is really adorable here, but there are adaptations, and then there are "we just borrowed - har-har - the main concept, sort of, and made something new with it".

When I heard the BBC were making an adaptation for Christmas 2011, I went and got a Borrowers omnibus, which I've still got to read, but I'm pretty sure the original books have very little in common with this technicolour farce. I remember the Clocks hitching a ride in (or living inside?) a teapot in the country, trying to get to to a town, not being chased through a dairy plant ... which is another thing I'm wondering about.

This is a kids' film, no two ways about it, but wasn't it quite perilous for one of them? Getting trapped inside a milk bottle and it filling up with milk AND capped off sounds not just like a contamination issue for the factory, but a severe drowning hazard for a Borrower - and a child at that! Won't that be really upsetting for a small child to see, even if the little Borrower of course is all right in the end? I was sitting there thinking they'd save him, they'd save him, they'd ... oh, apparently they didn't, and now, if it had any sort of realism to it, there would be a milk bottle with a drowned Borrower inside it, because a Borrower is tiny, and lots of anything pouring over you at that rate and with no escape ... well, you know what happens. So that would be my criticism for parents of young - or particularly sensitive - children to look our for.

People covered in goo is funny to some people.
Those people should like this film very much.
People who don't laugh at people covered in goo, on the other hand ...

The strange mix of US and UK English was confusing too. Was this supposed to be set in the US or somewhere in the UK? Or some fairyland nowhere in particular? Not to mention in what time period, because it was also rather fuzzy on that point.

You might like it, you might not. I found it fairly entertaining, but trying too hard to be quirky, and I'm not really a slapstick kind of person. Bonus points for Mark Williams, he was a joy to behold, and for Hugh Laurie being more Bertie Wooster than Dr. House. But as a film, and as a take on a series of books I grew up reading and remember fondly, it doesn't really work for me.

2 out of 5 paper clips.

Happy Burns Night

2012-01-25T18:00:00.000Z

The Winter It Is Past

The winter it is past, and the summer comes at last
And the small birds, they sing on ev'ry tree;
Now ev'ry thing is glad, while I am very sad,
Since my true love is parted from me.

The rose upon the breer, by the waters running clear,
May have charms for the linnet or the bee;
Their little loves are blest, and their little hearts at rest,
But my true love is parted from me.

[Source: Robert Burns Country]

(Not seasonally accurate just yet, but the poem was short enough to keep my attention and easily enough read and understood to get a modicum of my affection. Robert Burns was a Scottish poet, from the times when cravats were all the rage. His birthday is celebrated in the UK, and in Scotland in particular. Thought I'd mention it for once, even if I can't stand poetry myself. :P)

From Time to Time (2009)

2012-01-25T08:12:00.000Z

Film review: From Time to Time (2009), directed by Julian Fellowes

If this costume drama feels familiar, it's because it's a mixture of a lot of familiar stories. You've got elements of Narnia (WW2), Tom's Midnight Garden (time travel), Wuthering Heights (stray boy the finder's son hates), The Secret Garden (magic), Jane Eyre (house fire), Cluedo ("the butler did it") and I don't know what else, sprinkled with a liberal helping of Downton Abbey actors. All wrapped upsibling in a cozy blanket of period drama for and about children, based on Lucy M. Boston's 1958 novel The Chimneys of Green Knowe.

World War II is raging, and young Tolly (Alex Etel) goes to live with his grandmother (or something like that), Mrs. Oldknow (Maggie Smith) in a big house in the country. He's worried about his father, away in the war, but with the stories told by Mrs. Oldknow, he soon comes out of his shell.

One night, he sees a girl and a servant, but ... they're not there. Is the house haunted? As it happens, it appears Tolly can jump through time, back to the Regency days, when the house was occupied by Captain Oldknow (Hugh Bonneville) with family. The captain's wife Maria (Carice van Houten) is Dutch, and finds her new country uninviting and strange, especially since her husband is gone a lot of the time.

When returning from one of these travels, the Captain has brought with him a young, black man called Jacob (Kwayedza Kureya), who is an escaped slave. Being a surprisingly kind military man for the time, the Captain brings him home to be his blind daughter Susan's (Eliza Hope Bennett) companion.

Susan is delighted to have a friend who can be her eyes and read to her (and climb trees, shush, don't tell anyone!), but her older brother Sefton (Douglas Booth, Pip from the recent BBC adaptation of Great Expectations) is less amused. Who does that foreign slave boy think he is?! (And whyyyy won't father loooove [whiny, spoiled, godawful] meeeee?) Let's abuse him when I think no one's looking! (Unlike in Wuthering Heights, though, Sefton actually gets in trouble. And Jacob would never strangle a puppy, for that matter.)

Also starring Pauline Collins as Mrs. Tweedle, Dominic West as Caxton, Timothy Spall as Boggis in the 1940s, and Allen Leech as his ancestor Fred Boggis in the 1800s. Who's Allen Leech? Why, none but the strapping Irish chauffeur Tom Branson of Downton Abbey, of course!

So yes, Tolly can jump from his time back into the early 1800s or late 1700s, and there, he can only be seen/noticed by Susan, Jacob, and Fred Boggis. He learns more about the history of his family's estate (which is under threat of needing to be sold due to lack of money) and his ancestors.

From Time to Time, which I came across on TV over the Christmas period, said something about "period drama", so the Squeeze recorded it for me. I really enjoyed it. Then again, with Maggie Smith and a script written and directed by Julian Fellowes, it's hard not to. The characters are sympathetic, aside from those whose sole purpose it is to be unsympathetic, and likeable, and it's a touching story with a little bit of magic which feels perfectly suited for the Christmas period, somehow.

It's sweet, it's well acted, and it's surprisingly unheard of, which is a great shame. It's not the most brilliant thing ever, perhaps, but it has oodles of charm and appeal - and Hugh Bonneville in a cravat.

4 out of 5 Christmas trees.

Fairly random review statistics

2012-01-24T17:27:00.000Z

... Also known as "stuff I do when I really should be doing a lot of other stuff". *cough*

To start off with, let's look at when books were released and the ratings I gave them. That shows that even though we're talking three different centuries, they're fairly consistent in average quality/enjoyability:

The 21st Century (2000s): 3.78 (based on 45 items)
The 19th Century (1800s): 3.59 (based on 8 items)
The 20th Century (1900s): 3.21 (based on 20 items)

Note that unrated and/or "date unknown" have not been included here, for obvious reasons. As most of the written items are from the 2000s, I've whittled it down to a per year thing:

2000: 3.8 (1 item)
2001: 5 (1)
2002: 4 (4)
2003: 4 (1)
2004: 4.75 (4)
2005: 3.35 (2)
2006: 3 (2)
2007: 3.6 (3)
2008: 3 (4)
2009: 4 (4)
2010: 3.62 (10)
2011: 3.82 (9)

There's a similar story for films as well. The 21st Century scores 3.45 on average, with the 20th Century coming in at the lower 3.09, but the 1900s had stinkers like Jane Eyre '34 and '49.

From 1992 onwards, I have at least one film or TV-production listed every year.

The problem with these kind of number crunching is that I didn't start giving actual scores until a few months into 2011, at least not for films (most books I've gone back and put in a score after the fact), so that's why there are a lot more scores for 2011. Here are the average scores of the 2000s:

2000: 3.38 (4 items)
2001: 4.5 (2)
2002: 2.35 (2)
2003: 3.20 (5)
2004: 3.59 (9)
2005: 3.16 (5)
2006: 3.17 (6)
2007: 3.56 (11)
2008: 3.93 (16)
2009: 3.38 (9)
2010: 3.11 (5)
2011: 3.31 (20)

And most of the stuff (below) was posted earlier on Facebook. See what you miss if you've not "liked" The Squeee page there? ;)

Did you know:

The film I rated lowest in 2011 was Epic Movie? It got 1 out of 5, which was technically also given to Jane Eyre (1949), but the latter had the excuse of being old, made for TV, and post-war, meaning they had no money to make it properly.

On the plus side, six films got 5 out of 5, even if some technically didn't really deserved it - I just enjoyed them too much! These were:

The Accidental Husband
The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn
Australia
Der Untergang - Downfall
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Rebel Heart

Of those, arguably Downfall is the actual best film, followed by Australia.

A further nine didn't even make a 2 out of 5, and deservedly so:

Brazil
Dirk Gently
Full Frontal
Hulk
Inspector Gadget
Love Potion #9
Sucker Punch
The Witches of Oz
Witchville

All range a groanworthy 1.4 to a dispicable 1.8. Lowest this year so far is Your Highness, on 1.2. On the plus side, January isn't even over, and there have already been three productions scoring top marks:

The Golden Compass
Hunger
Moving On: Poetry of Silence

In books, lowest last year with an impressive 0.5 was Jane and Her Master by Stephen Rawlings from 1996, followed by D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love on 1 and Claire's Not-So-Gothic Romance by Bonnie Blythe on 1.8. Fortunately, these were more than weighed up by the 14 (!) titles earning 5 out of 5:

Douglas Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Tara Bradley: Jane Eyre's Husband
Eoin Colfer: And Another Thing ...
Jasper Fforde: The Eyre Affair, Lost in a Good Book, Something Rotten
Charlotte Hawkins: The Tempest
Frances Hodgson Burnett: The Secret Garden
April Lindner: Jane
Sarah Pawley: Finding Grace

Three of the 14 titles were non-fiction!

Douglas Adams: The Salmon of Doubt
Marti Olsen Laney: The Introvert Advantage
Jon Ronson: The Men Who Stare at Goats

And that's me done for today, I need to go roleplaying for a bit.

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

2012-01-24T09:39:00.000Z

Film review: Conan the Barbarian (2011), directed by Marcus Nispel

Remember the film from somewhere in the 1980s where Arnold Schwartzenegger brandished a big sword? I don't, I've never seen it. Nor have either of the main protagonist actors of this film ... which is probably a good thing, if Arnie in furry diapers doesn't appeal to you.

Conan is a boy born on the battlefield, his mother (Laila Rouass, no less!) dying in the process. Some years later, ~~brave~~ coldblooded and bloodthirsty young Conan ("aww, you're gonna be a psychopath when you grow up, aren't you, sweety?") watches his blacksmith father (Ron Perlman), and indeed his entire village, killed. Evil man Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) is after a piece of a mask which means he has lots of magic and can bring his dear ol' wife back from the dead.

Years later, Conan (now Jason Momoa off of Stargate: Atlantis and Game of Thrones, vastly more pleasant to behold than Arnie, it has to be said) is still looking for the bastard who killed his family, in order to exact his revenge. Not so much in a "you killed my father, prepare to die" way, more of a "RRRRAAAAAAAAAWWWHHHHHHH!!!!!" kinda way. He is, after all, a barbarian.

Paths cross with Tamara (Rachel Nichols), a woman living in some sort of a convent or that kind of thing. Because of her bloodline, she's imperative to the bringing back of TEH EBUL MAGICKS, but in reality, maybe Marique (Rose McGowan off of Charmed), Khalar Zym's sourceress daughter, just wants to snog her. Which, you know, would have made a change from all the blood and carnage, of which there is a lot.

Dressed or undressed, still ridiculously good-looking.
You should see him in glasses. Teh kewtz!

The storyline holds together, but if it doesn't take your fancy, a continuously shirtless Momoa should. And he's also a much better actor than Arnie ever was. Lang is TEH EBUL, McGowan is TEH CREEPY EBUL and Nichols is the damsel in distress who can do a bit more than just cry and wait to be rescued. Aside from when she's actually tied up hands and feet, where she has no choice.

While we're on the subject, wouldn't it have been easier to tie her up after they'd gone to the place where she was going to be tied up? One of the goons could have easily carried her there slung over his shoulder, but instead, they made a big thing about tying her up on a wheel thingy, and then they had the kerfuffle of trying to move said wheel from one awkward place to another awkward place. Just because you are TEH EBULZ doesn't mean you're TEH PRAKTICULZ, obviously.

Special effects are pretty good, fight scenes are well-choreographed, outfits are skimpy, location titles ... pretty meaningless, and even though there's a lot of bare skin, there's not a lot of sex. There's but one scene, which mainly just made me giggle. The thing about casting actors to play roleplaying characters is that when two come together on screen and do something the roleplay characters would not do even if you paid them ... well, hilarity ensues.

Well, anyway. I had a rant yesterday about re-makes of films from the 1980s, and this is one of those. But with a decent budget and better actors, not to mention better graphics, this re-make stands up for itself. It's not half bad. It's not half good either, and it's way too violent and gory for my taste, but Conan seems to be a decent bloke underneath that ~~six-pack~~ eight-pack (if you can see past that distracting heap o' muscle, that is), I quite like Tamara, and I actually enjoyed Conan the Barbarian more than I thought I would, so all in all, 3 out of 5 squid masks.

An inconcievable re-make THAT'S JUST WRONG!

2012-01-23T10:14:00.000Z

Hollywood's done it again, announcing a re-make of a film that is perfectly fine as it is: The Princess Bride. We've heard rumours of a Dirty Dancing re-make, and I think Top Gun was another one. And now, they want to bastardise yet another 1980s favourite that DOESN'T NEED A RE-MAKE, putting Paul Rudd in Cary Elwes's shoes. IT'S NOT ON. Just because you can't think of anything new to do, you have to go back and butcher innocent, unsuspecting cult classics?

"A re-make?"
"Inconcievable!"

Mandy Patinkin (Inigo Montoya), BLESS HIM, is not amused. I'm expecting Inigo to appear, sword in hand, saying words to the effect of "My name is Inigo Montoya. You're killing an awesome film. Prepare to die!"

[EDIT: Apparently, THANK GOODNESS, this was a false alarm. They were just gathering a cast to do a script reading in a library or something.]

So what other classic 1980s films could Hollywood's greed decide to ~~fuck up~~ re-make? Suggestions?

Here are some of my nightmares:

E.T. - The Extra Terrestrial
The Indiana Jones trilogy
Neverending Story
The Goonies
Breakfast Club and anything else starring Molly Ringwald
Ghostbusters (actually, they're probably plotting one already, or is it part 3?)
Poltergeist (admittedly, this film could be improved on ... but that would never happen, they'd just make it suck more)
The Star Wars trilogy, eps. 4-6 (aside from the "improvements" George Lucas have already implemented)

If they're going to re-make stuff, why not go back and re-make REALLY OLD films, like Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz (properly, not spin-offs of various quality), Casablanca and the likes? Sure, they can't exactly improve on them either, other than make the special effects infinitely better, and there's absolutely no need whatsoever to re-make them for a modern audience, but if it was really old films like that, at least I could understand the reasoning behind it. (Should we count the 2011 adaptation of Jane Eyre as a re-make of the 1943 version btw?) This ... NOT SO MUCH.

Get the hell out of my childhood, you greedy bastards!

Department 19 by Will Hill (2011)

2012-01-23T08:58:00.000Z

Book review: Department 19 by Will Hill (HarperCollinsChildren'sBooks, 2011)

In a secret supernatural battle that's been raging for over a century, the stakes have just been raised – and they're not wooden anymore.

When Jamie Carpenter's mother is kidnapped by strange creatures, he finds himself dragged into Department 19, the government's most secret agency.

Fortunately for Jamie, Department 19 can provide the tools he needs to find his mother, and to kill the vampires who want him dead. But unfortunately for everyone, something much older is stirring, something even Department 19 can't stand up against…

We came across this Young Adult book at Asda, and the Squeeze picked it up as it seemed intriguing. He read it, said it was very good, and then it was my turn. He wasn't wrong!

The book opens with a young Jamie Carpenter, who sees his father getting shot by what appears to be a SWAT team. Years later, when he's about 16 or 17, his mother is abducted and he finds himself with his father's old workmates. It's just that Jamie's dad never worked at a desk in a boring office ... that was just a cover. He was actually part of a military style organisation, Department 19, protecting us common folk from the creatures that inhabit the shadows and the night. Vampires, for instance.

At Department 19, Jamie gets trained to fight vampires, as it would appear one of the most badass of vampires after Dracula himself has kidnapped his mother. He has to struggle with prejudices from his new colleagues, as his father was infamous for having betrayed the organisation. What's to say his son won't go the same way? Especially when there's a very special vampire girl kept prisoner, and after all, he's a teenager ...

The surprising thing about this book, is that I think it says 13+ on the back. If it was a film, it would have been rated 18 for the amount of blood and gore involved. There's a lot. On the other hand, these are real vampires - the kind that have the common decency to burst into flame in sunlight - and there's bound to be blood.

Department 19 was founded by a group of people, amongst them Van Helsing, whom I had heard of based on films like, oh, Van Helsing. The rest of them had names that didn't really mean a lot, until now that I'm reading Dracula. The people from Dracula founded Department 19 and are the ancestors of the people running it today. (Intertextuality ftw!) If I had known that at the time of reading this, I probably would have had a different appreciation of it. As it were, I just appreciated it for being a decent vampire novel.

Even though it's technically for Young Adults, it doesn't feel like it. Sure, the main protagonist is a teenager, and has teenager issues, but don't let that fool you. Department 19 is a high tempo action novel, and the way new author Will Hill uses language, reading it is like watching a film; you can picture everything very clearly, and it's brilliant.

The sequel, Department 19: The Rising, is set to be released in March this year. Both the Squee and myself are waiting eagerly for that. Congratulations on a successful debute, Mr. Hill; you've got at least two fans in Nottingham. Speaking of which, kudos for the East Midlands, specifically the outskirts of Nottingham (wahey!) and the Derbyshire moors, being used as a settings as well. Nottinghamshire is not just for D.H. Lawrence, after all!

If you want a book that's difficult to put down, yet still easy to read and follow, and that's about vampires who actually suck people's blood and that need a good staking to die, I'd recommend it, even if it's quite man-heavy (the only real female parts in it are Jamie's missing mum and the vampire girl, and toward the end, a girl from Lindisfarne; the rest are male). On the other hand, it's a novel directed at teenage males, so it's not unexpected, and the girls get to hold their own as well.

5 out of 5 T-Bones, even though it was technically a bit too gory for my liking.

Your Highness (2011)

2012-01-20T09:23:00.000Z

Film review: Your Highness (2011), directed by David Gordon Green, written by Danny McBride & Ben Best

Some time early last year, I came across a trailer to a film that looked to be rather funny. "We should see that when it comes out," we said to ourselves, and then forgot all about it. In the summer, coming across the name, I thought "oh yeah, when's that coming out?" Err, a month or so ago, and it had already left the cinema screens. Maybe should've taken that as a hint, but alas, we went and rented it.

Your Highness is a fantasy quest comedy. There is a land ruled by King Tallious (Charles Dance). The king has two sons: the questing hero and all around awesome Fabious (James Franco) and his brother, Thadeous (Danny McBride), who prefers wine and wenches to dragonslaying.

When Fabious comes back from a quest with the fair maiden Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel), whom he's set to marry forthwith, it's not long before the evil sorceror Leezar (Justin Theroux) interrupts the proceedings by kidnapping her. Off on another quest it is! Maybe this time Thadeous can show his father that he's not just a big waste of space, but a hero after all. A man is not a man if he's not been on a proper quest, and the king needs his princes to be men if they are to succeed him on the throne. So off they go ...

Also starring: Natalie Portman as Isabel (a female who has taken up weapons to avenge the slaying of her family), Rasmus Hardiker as Courtney, Toby Jones as Julie, Damian Lewis as Boremont, and - to my surprise and delight - Simon Farnaby (Horrible Histories) as Manious the Bold, one of Boremont's henchmen. Farnaby's fellow horrible historian Ben Willbond also has a brief appearance as a ranger in a pub. Had there been another one, I would've exclaimed "BINGO!" for sure.

They visit a paedophile wizard seer (squicky), an exceedingly camp baby-man (silly), get butt-raped by a minotaur (yes, really - it's funny, you see), crack a gazillion masturbation jokes (groan) and try to stop Leezar from taking Belladonna's virginity (yawn?). If that's your level of humour, and/or you're stoned out of your mind, you'll love this film. If, on the other hand, you have standards and expected something a bit ... well, better ... it's going to suck donkeyballs. (I know that's normally not the sort of language I tend to use here, but it goes with the general theme of the film. You have been warned.)

I'm not sure what more to add. The costumes are nice, the scenery good, the actors look like they're enjoying themselves, but the comedy aspect is abysmal. It wrenched a few smiles from us on occasion, and I was thinking it's a girl's thing ... but I didn't hear any hearty guffaws, gentle giggle or just plain laughter from the Squeeze either. I'm sure if you're an immature teenage boy, the film is hilarious. To the rest of us, who enjoy a good comedy now and then, it's an hour and a half (give or take) of knob gags.

There is a lack of female roles in the film, because Belladonna sure doesn't get to say much, she's just there to be the damsel in distress, and the camp baby-man's harem doesn't count. There's Leezar's crone of a mother, and aside from that, basically just Isabel. She, on the other hand, packs a punch and won't be just The Hot Girl Who Tags Along - she gets to talk, be smart and be action girl. Good for her.

Crazy-haired Farnaby (yes, that's his real hair!), who I rejoiced when seeing, is another one who doesn't get to say much. When I saw it was him, I wondered how much space he'd be given, and it turned out to be "very little". More than the other goons, okay, but still not more than a handful of lines, even though he gets quite a lot of screen time ... in the background. When I then recognised Ben Willbond, it was a short-lived excitement. He has one line - of about three words (along the lines of "be seeing you") - and is on screen in two glances. It's about five seconds in total, at best, and each time, only just enough time to register it's him before the camera moves away again.

Anyway, in a film with so many well-known names and faces, I'm surprised it wasn't better. I like a good medieval fantasy film, don't mind quests, and I do like a comedy - but when the comedy comprises of the two princes giving a puppet a blowjob (with one of the princes having granted the same character sexual favours since childhood ...), wearing a minotaur penis around your neck as a trophy and saying four letter words ("fuck", mostly) a lot ... I don't think it's brilliant, and I don't think it's clever and I certainly don't think it's funny, just tasteless. Heck, I much preferred Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire, and that wasn't exactly a brilliant piece of fantasy comedy either.

No, it's only getting a 1.2 out of 5 apocalypses.

The Big Lebowski (1998)

2012-01-19T08:20:00.000Z

Film review: The Big Lebowski (1998), directed by Joel Coen and Etan Coen

The Dude abides ... at #133 on IMDb's Top 250 list, in a Coen Brothers story about a very laid back man known to everyone as "The Dude" (Jeff Bridges), real name Jeffrey Lebowski, whose rug gets stolen when he's mistaken for another Jeffrey "The Big" Lebowski (David Huddleston), a millionaire.

The Dude tries to get his beloved rug back (because "it really tied the room together") and gets drawn into a kidnapping plot. Bunny Lebowski (Tara Reid), Big Lebowski's considerably younger wife, has been kidnapped and maybe the Dude can help get her back.

Maybe he can, if he can fit it in between his White Russian drinks and bowling with pals: the unassuming Donny (Steve Buscemi) and tough guy Vietnam veteran Walter Sobchak (John Goodman); and bowling arch enemy Jesus (John Turturro) ... and if Big Lebowski's daughter Maude (Julianne Moore) will let him ...

Also stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as Big Lebowski's assistant Brandt, Sam Elliott as "the Stranger" (the enigmatic narrator), my fellow Swede Peter Stormare as Uli Kunkel or "Karl Hungus", and David Thewlis as Maude Lebowski's camp aide Knox Harrington.

It's a bizarre mix of characters - from porn directors to German electropop Nihilists, stoners and pederasts, and ultrafeminists. And the even stranger thing is that it really darn well works. It's bizarre and absurd, yes, but not in a way that makes you scratch your head and wonder why the hell you're wasting your time watching it. It's actually pretty funny, and it does have a plot.

Whether or not you agree with the laid-back attitude of the Dude doesn't really matter. (Although ... Jeff Bridges is a handsome man, it has to be said, even if he's in shorts, sandals and a big cardigan.) We're on for a peculiar ride of nonsense, and being amused by it. I like this film, I really do. It's full of screwball surprises, and a good dose of black humour, as well - the "ash scene" (if you've seen it, you know the one) is particularly brilliant.

The Big Lebowski is a cult film I can watch many times and not get tired of. 4 out of 5 Nihilists.

My Brilliant Career (1979)

2012-01-18T08:23:00.000Z

Film review: My Brilliant Career (1979), directed by Gillian Armstrong

Sybylla Melvyn (Judy Davis) is a ~~determined and headstrong young woman~~ Fiery Redhead in rural Australia. She wants to have A Career, but she's not quite sure yet as to what that would entail. All she knows is that she doesn't want to be stuck as some lowly farmer's wife ... like her mother (Julia Blake), who doesn't seem to have much of a life with a drunken farmer husband (Alan Hopgood, who would later go on to pen a few episodes of The Flying Doctors) and looking after a bunch of kids.

To her delight, her well-to-do grandmother (Aileen Britton) takes her in, and there she meets the polite but dull Englishman Frank Hawdon (Robert Grubb with silly whiskers) ... and a boy she used to know when she was younger: Harry Beecham (Sam Neill). Except Harry isn't a boy anymore - he's grown up to be a dashingly handsome man!

Romantic complications ensue - can Sybylla give up her dreams of becoming independent and have A Career (yes, it has to be capitalised), or has her priorities changed with her new circumstances - is securing love and a good life more important?

Also starring: Wendy Hughes as Aunt Helen, Peter Whitford as Uncle Julius, Patricia Kennedy as Aunt Gussie, and Max Cullen as Mr. McSwatt, the man to whom Sybylla's father ends up owing a lot of money.

My Brilliant Career is a costume drama, and it's got the right ingredients for it - Victorian setting, long skirts, romance, etc. - but that it's set in Australia and not Hampshire is something you don't get to see too often over here. Indeed, I had never heard of it and only got it because of Sam Neill. Which is as good an excuse to get it as any; Harry's a dish! That it's also got both Hopgood and Coopers Crossing royalty like car mechanic Hurtle (Cullen) and Dr. Standish (Grubb, without the whiskers and the toff accent) ... well, that's cream with a big cherry on top for any Flying Doctors fan.

Adorable, I say, my good man!

I remember first time I saw it, I couldn't stop giggling at the facial hair and ridiculous accent of Frank Hawdon. Not that the accent sounds wrong, it fits the character to a tee, it's just that it's so over-the-top English Gentleman, and then to think he'd roar into another rural town some eight years later (give or take) in a V8 and be Mr. Handsome Doctor ... well, it amused me greatly. (Almost as much as seeing Andrew McFarlane - Mr. Ridiculously Handsome Doctor - as a futuristic jewel thief in Time Trax. Hah!)

The star of the show, however, is Sybylla herself. Judy Davis is a great actress, and this is the first of (at least) three times she's starred alongside Sam Neill, but Sybylla is probably the character that I like the least out of those three. Her spirit and modern ideas are great, but she's just too much of a self-obsessed snob about ... well, most things. I like her wild, bushy hair, though. She really doesn't look like a "proper lady" - she looks much more comfortable sitting up a tree singing drunken folk songs.

How Sybylla's relationship with Harry inspires conflicted groans in me as well, because on the one hand, she's not willing to budge from her idea of independence - very commendable - but on the other, as a romance fan, I want to yell at her to stop being so pig-headed when Harry's near enough throwing himself at her, proclaiming his undying love and what have you. "JUST MARRY THE MAN!" I want to scream. "You can be happy with the love of your life AND have a career, you know!" But it would just fall on deaf ears, sadly.

Still, as a film, it's something nice to curl up in front of and watch on a rainy day or when you're feeling under the weather. Just grab yourself a cup of tea and enjoy it, provided you like period dramas, that is. If you don't, it might just feel a little too slow for you. On the plus side, you get to see Harry Beecham soaked to the skin after falling into a lake - sixteen years before Colin Firth took the world by storm by doing pretty much the same thing. Haww.

4 out of 5 freckles.

First Among Sequels by Jasper Fforde (2007)

2012-01-17T08:27:00.000Z

Book review: Thursday Next #5: First Among Sequels by Jasper Fforde (Hodder & Stoughton, 2008 [2007])

Thursday Next is back. And this time it's personal ...

Literary Detective Thursday Next is officially off the case. Once a key figure in the BookWorld police force, she is concentrating on her duties as a wife and mother. Or so her husband thinks ...

Unofficially, Thursday is working as hard as ever - and in this world of dangerously short attention spans, there's no rest for the literate.

Can Thursday stop Pride and Prejudice being turned into a vote-em-off reality book? Who killed Sherlock Holmes? And will Thursday get her teenage son out of bed in time for him to save the world?

The world has moved on since we last saw Thursday. We're now in 2002, and Friday is a lazy teenager. Problem being that he was supposed to have joined the ChronoGuard as a trainee a few years back - according to the Friday previously visiting from the future - but Friday just can't be bothered. At least Thursday and Landen's two daughters are okay, and the nefarious Aornis Hades is still locked up safely in a time loop. Or is she?

Outside the home, SpecOps has been disbanded, and Thursday is working with her former colleagues as carpet installers. At least they get around to installing carpets every now and again, when they're not busy dealing with the same sort of things they used to deal with as SpecOps agents. Thursday also manages to pop into the BookWorld every now and again and do her duties there.

One of said duties is to look after JurisFiction cadets. Someone who shouldn't really be an agent gets assigned to her, much to Thursday's chagrin: Thursday Next from The Great Samuel Pepys Fiasco, or Thursday 5 as she's also known, as The Great Samuel Pepys Fiasco is the fifth book in the series. Thursday 5 is a hippie who prefers talking to grammasites because killing them is really unkind. She's a dreadful milksop, but I love her as a character! She drives the original Thursday nuts, not even willing to fetch her a bacon sandwich. Then she gets yet another cadet assigned to her, an impossible case, who turns out to be quite a handful: Thursday Next 1-4.

In original Thursday's world, she sold the book rights to people who wrote her as a sort of female James Bond character - all about action and sex, basically - and she sure has a mind of her own. Because she's so far removed from the original, for the 5th book, Thursday wanted them to make the character more like her, but they went too far the other way instead - thus, Thursday 5.

Anyway. Together, the trio of Thursdays have to try and navigate the BookWorld to try to stop the brilliantly stupid idea of making Pride & Prejudice into a Big Brother style reality TV show. There's a stupidity surplus in the country, and what better way to try getting rid of it? Then there's the issue of time running out - quite literally - because the ChronoGuard and their playing with time is finally catching up with them.

I liked the fact that times have moved on, and we're in more familiar territory. 2002 was only ten years ago, and even I can remember bits about those days, unlike the mid-1980s, when I was too young. It's also good from the perspective that it drives the story forward, and there are new things to read about. Friday isn't a Lorem Ipsum-speaking toddler anymore, he's a stereotypical teenager.

Wondering if the author possibly got a bit fed up with the time travelling and the paradoxes it creates (that I bet some fans love to point out at any given opportunity) and that's what sparked the events of this novel. That, and a bitterness that readership numbers were falling ... which is a very real threat in the BookWorld!

One of my favourite parts of First Among Sequels is to see the excitement the possibility of Harry Potter showing up at a Council of Genres meeting - and that in the end, he couldn't make it because of copyright issues. Good giggle there.

In retrospect, perhaps it's not quite as amazing as some of the best novels in the series, but on the other hand, I remember really enjoying this one anyway. It's good, it's still insanely clever and I really love the series and Fforde as an author. Now that I've finally got the 6th book in the series (released in 2011) in my possession, I can't wait to read it. That's got to count for something, right? Even if some puns are a bit thin. 4.8 out of 5 guitar solos, because I loved it, but it took a little time to get into it properly.

Weirdest Richard Armitage dream EVER

2012-01-16T09:43:00.000Z

Richard, Richard, Richard ... Every time you enter my dreamscape, you leave confusion in your wake. Okay, last time it wasn't very confusing, just surprising. This, however, takes the proverbial biscuit. I'm not quite sure how it started, but I can definitely tell that watching Sherlock and planning for this year's FanstRAvaganza (stay tuned!) just before bed-time definitely took their toll ...

To start off with, Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage, in a hallway or something like that. I think Richard Armitage was inside the apartment (as was I and a group of other female fans) and Martin Freeman was out in the stairwell. They both expressed surprise at seeing one another here, in England, because both had been texting earlier in the day, when both had been in New York City or something like that. Just a quick "oh hello, fancy seeing you here, I thought you were abroad!" followed by "I thought the same about you!" and there's me thinking gosh, I hope they don't exhaust themselves with all this travelling malarky - America, Britain, then on to New Zealand tomorrow ...

Freeman headed off again, and Armitage was left in the mercy of a bunch of us admirers. Not entirely sure how the meeting had come about, but there we were. Think we might have been there to interview him, possibly. Can't remember whether we did or not, because next thing I can remember, he's looking at me, not liking my clothes. And when I say "not liking my clothes", I mean in a fashion police sense. They were, like, so out of fashion, apparently.

A little perturbed, I replied that the jeans were only bought back end of last year, thankyouverymuch, but I could sort of see the point with the top I was wearing, as it wasn't a favourite of mine either (it's primarily yellow with some grey stripes). But damn the man for being charming and flirty about it, while at the same time being a complete prick for acting fashion police in the first place!

In a "well okay then, Mr. Fancypants, if that's how you want to play it!" huff, I boldly stated that if he was so disturbed by my choice of clothing, maybe I should go change. Maybe I should, he replied, and off to a couple of wardrobes we went. One was okay to look in, I said, but mine was too messy so we really shouldn't look in there. He totally wanted to have a look anyway and offer his opinions on my fashion sense, of which I have very little. "Dude, how f***ing gay are you?!" were basically my thoughts by this time.

And then it got really bizarre.

If I remember this correctly, we got into a bathroom (!) together, so that I could change into some new clothes. Not that I can recall what on earth those clothes actually were, but as you'll soon see, I was kind of distracted by the heavy-handed symbolism we're about to encounter. None of which I really know what the deuce they're supposed to mean.

He was now chopping liver, on a cutting board placed on the bidet (we were in my parents' bathroom, for all intents and purposes, even though we hadn't been in neither their nor my house previously). This would be down to a couple of shows watched earlier in the evening: in Perfect ... Pies on Good Food, they cut up calves' kidneys for a steak and kidney pie, and in Hugh's Three Hungry Boys on Channel 4, they sliced lambs' liver. So I can see where the offal-chopping came from. Him bleeding from the forehead while doing this, not so much. Probably Sherlock 2.3 is to blame here, actually. Most likely. Another option would be to compare it with Jesus, and the thought of Richard Armitage as Christ just doesn't sit right. As much as I admire the guy, I don't consider him the son of God, let's face it.

I also found, disgruntled, blood in my underwear (blue - yes, for some reason, I did notice colours a lot), but tried not to show it. Because, to make matters weirder, I ended up taking all my clothes off. Before you gasp, yelping excitedly, "OH NO YOU DI-UHN'T!!" ... well, no, we didn't; let's get that straight. :P

Suddenly, I became aware that I was, in fact, starkers, and I'm not a fan of my body at the best of times, and here it was on full display in front of HIM. He would not want to see any of that! So I sort of bent forward, covering myself. Suddenly, I had a white towel over my head and shoulders, snapping up another one (a little too small for my liking) and shielding my body with it. Not that he was really looking anyway, but just in case.

And then, somehow, we ended up in the bloody bathtub! Together! "This is all very peculiar," I thought, trying not to ogle the man too much, or at all, because that would be way too embarassing. "How on earth do I explain this to the Squeeze?" (I believe, at this point, "The List" sprung to mind - and wondering if you could make one retroactively, because if we did have one, Richard Armitage would realistically have been on mine.)

A guess would be that then my brain probably went on a tangent about "well, if he did meet me, I'm pretty sure none of that would happen anyway, because I would think it entirely too weird, which makes The List a moot point, and I'm too self-conscious anyway, and definitely too shy to make such a move", and then suddenly, like dreamers do, I was no longer in the bathtub (although possibly in a bath robe) and the man had left. Without as much as a kiss, I might add, although we did get close once ... I think.

Now, the thought "we're naked in a bath together, and he's not seeming to making a move" had occurred to me, followed - of course - by "darn, that means he's gay after all", but even stronger was the thought of "I repulse him!" (Again: thank you, Sherlock. Also: I don't need my self-image any lower than it already is, and it's already low enough for me to think it warrants therapy, so cheers for that.) Well, even if he didn't like the look of me in the buff, I figured I might as well enjoy the experience, because it's never going to happen again. Savour it while it lasts.

But, even stranger, it felt like some sort of test. He had behaved most unexpectedly, and I was tested to see if I was trustworthy, and if I was, he could come back and we could be friends, or something. Would I go blab all about what happened, sell my story to the press claiming I had slept with him, or could he trust me to keep quiet? Haah ... kinda failed on that one by writing this, but on the other hand, the whole meeting was complete fiction anyway - just a dream, and who knows what bizarre concoctions our brains can come up with when trying to sift through the events of the previous day?

I remember feeling really embarrassed about having little memorabilia on display in a different room. Not loads, but there were a couple of little figurines or something. Very, very small ones, only about an inch tall, if that, but enough to shout " 'ere be fans" if he saw them. And why were a number of nameless, faceless other lady fans in the apartment (can't get over the apartment bit, I don't live in one and I didn't grow up in one)? And "I really need to tell those girls about this, but how do I go about it?" Not to mention being confused as hell over what was going on, throughout. Had he lost his mind? If it wasn't for obvious dramatic purposes, another question would be "Why me of all people?"

So, blood, water, colours, Richard Armitage the fashionista, and nakedness ... in a sort of asexual way. Nothing happened. He didn't make a move and didn't seem interested to make one either. I didn't make a move, because ... well, I wouldn't anyway, and I was too confused about what was happening to suggest it, or even be interested in it. You would have thought it to be an arousing dream, but strangely, it really wasn't. It was a "wet" dream, sure, but only because of the use of actual water (and blood, bizarrely). And I have no idea what's it's meant to symbolise, except that I know where I got a lot of the inspiration from the night before. But still, weirdest bloody dream I've had in a long time, especially involving someone famous.

Swedish Ways: Tjugondedag Knut

2012-01-13T12:03:00.000Z

Admittedly, I could have gone for the obvious one - Friday the 13th - but seeing as how there's about three of them this year, I thought I'd save it for the next one. Today, there are other things to talk about!

On Tjugondedag Knut (twentieth day Knut), it's been twenty days after Christmas, today's name is Knut, and the day means that Christmas is officially over, so it's time to take the festive decorations down and get on with the new year.

My parents' tree, Christmas 2010
(haven't transferred the photos of our tree
this year from my camera yet)

When I moved to Britain, I was surprised and a bit sad that as soon as New Year's had passed, people started to pack away the Christmas decorations. "Already?!" I was left thinking, and was kind of the odd one out for holding out until the 13th of January to take them down. Because that's the tradition.

Before Knut, it's Christmas. After Knut, it's done and dusted, time to move on. Some have probably already started taking their things down, but for those that remain, it's probably going to happen over the weekend if not today specifically.

Sometimes, you can celebrate the throwing out of the Christmas tree by having a julgransplundring (Christmas tree plundering, I kid you not). You'd take down the decorations and then basically loot any edible decorations from the tree, like candy canes and gingerbread, and so on, and eat them. Perhaps there would be a few turns dancing around the tree as well, before it's chucked outside in the cold again.

Perhaps less popular these days, I don't know. We only really did it once, for me, but that was a combined julgransplunding with a very belated (or very early, depending on how you look at it) birthday party. Most of the time, we'd just take down the decorations and put them back in their boxes and stow them away in the loft for next year.

Funny how you never seem to remember packing things away again, isn't it? You might recall decorating, but not the putting away ...

For this season's tree, which is the first living tree we have bought together, I took down all the glass baubles before going to Sweden, as the tree was starting to droop and didn't want my nice baubles to break in my absense, so all that's left to take down is the non-breakable stuff, and then cut off the branches (we've had a plastic before, as we never had the space for a real one in the old house, and last year, we didn't get a real one because we were going away over Christmas), de-needle them and cut to size and put aside for wandmaking. Waste not, want not, and I'm not going to just throw away a perfectly good Norway spruce. There might even be a walking staff or something in there, or failing that, kindling for the fireplace. Just need to find out where the tree used to grow, as I have no idea.

When do you take down your Christmas decorations and do you have any traditions regarding that?

The New World (2005)

2012-01-13T08:49:00.000Z

Film review: The New World (2005), written and directed by Terrence Malick

The description of this film read something along the lines of a European settler falling in love with a Native American woman in the 1700s, which sounded pretty good. I soon began recognising names, and sure enough, this is the story of Pocahontas ... live action style.

Along with a number of British soldiers, led by Christopher Plummer no less, sent to the New World to start a colony, John Smith (Colin Farrell) arrives. He's the one that gets to go to the Native American tribe, whose land they've realistically decided to settle on, and get to know them. It's technically more complicated than that, but I'm about to fall asleep writing this, so it'll have to do.

In the woodland camp, he meets a girl, played by Q'orianka Kilcher. I think the character's name is never actually mentioned, but looking the film up on IMDb, she's Pocahontas. (Albeit with a body of very admirable proportions, unlike the unrealistic Disney version. But on a side note: Hollywood, look at this young woman. This is what a healthy woman's body looks like. Isn't it way more beautiful than those stick insects you like to promote?)

Anyhoo. Smith and Pocahontas fall in love, and Smith quickly learns to admire her people. When the ships from England return after the harsh winter, conflicts arise - after all, the Brits did say they would head back home ... not stick around and bring even more people.

Also starring August Schellenberg as Chief (?) Powhatan, Wes Studi as Opechancanough, Raoul Trujillo as Tomocomo, Michael Greyeyes as Rupwew, Kalani Queypo as Parahunt; with Ben Chaplin as Robinson and David Thewlis as the nasty Wingfield.

The story then continues to tell the tale of a love that cannot possibly come to fruition. Which, eventually means we get introduced to Christian Bale, as a kind Next Best Thing, which is true in more ways than one. (The closest thing I've ever been to Colin Farrell is to see him in wax at Madame Tussaud's in London, but that alone made me do a double-take. Wowza!)

Based on a true story, The New World is a wonderful film, I really enjoyed it. The nature shots were wonderful, and even if Smith and Pocahontas didn't talk an awful lot, they still managed to communicate very well. As a film, it's quiet and tranquil, which sounds like it should be terribly boring, except it's not. I couldn't take my eyes off it.

I haven't seen the Disney film Pocahontas, nor (yet) its sci-fi re-make, and I'm only vaguely familiar with the story. I'm kind of thinking this is more in tune with what actually happened than the Disney version is, and just that gives it a few bonus points.

It's such a tragic story, while at the same time ... things seem to work out, after a fashion. Very interesting to watch, and heartbreaking too. But I like it, I really do, even if I may have muddled up the description. I did watch it before Christmas, and that was a while back now. ;) Still, it's a 4 out of 5 corsets from me.

Boogie Nights (1997)

2012-01-12T08:18:00.000Z

Film review: Boogie Nights (1997), written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Set in the porn industry of 1970s Hollywood, we follow young Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg), who has one great asset - a huge ... well, you know. He gets snapped up by director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) in a rather creepy way, but settles into his new role straight away and it's like young Eddie was born to be a porn star.

As Eddie, or Dirk Diggler as he chooses to be known, rises to fame, we meet his fellow actors (Julianne Moore, John C Reilly, Nicole Ari Parker, Don Cheadle, Heather Graham, et al) and the crew (disgruntled William H Macy and (once again) slightly creepy Philip Seymour Hoffman), and watch a nice young man let fame go to his head and then get hooked on drugs, and so on.

Also features Alfred Molina as a drugdealer and Luis Guzmán as a nightclub owner.

Boogie Nights is a quirky drama. It's not quite a comedy, even though it has plenty of lighthearted moments, and you might think it's full of smut, but - funnily enough - it isn't. There is some, because after all, that's what the film is about, but it's more an exception rather than the rule, as the story follows what goes on with the people who star in these films, as opposed to what's on the films themselves.

And it's not just fun and games to be a porn star. There is a lot of tragedy involved, and that's what makes Boogie Nights such a great watch. It's quite a long film, but it doesn't feel like it, because you get sucked in. Sure, Eddie/Dirk goes from a nice lad to an arrogant cokehead (to say he's "a bit of a dick" would be true, in more ways than one), but there are so many other characters you get to care about. Like the nice bloke who just wants to open his own hifi store, and the assistant director whose wife keeps on shagging everyone but him ... then there's the closeted gay, and the woman who is trying to win legal rights to see her own son, and the high school dropout who wants to go back and get an education.

It's a motley crew on screen, played by a fantastic cast, all doing a brilliant job portraying the other side of cinema, and how it deals with things like the introduction of VHS. With that brilliant 1970s soundtrack and retro vibes, this is a film I can watch several times - in fact, I already have - and still enjoy. 4.5 out of 5 bright orange sports cars.

Becoming Jane (2007)

2012-01-11T08:23:00.000Z

Film review: Becoming Jane (2007), directed by Julian Jarrold

In a film with a delightfully ambiguous title, we meet the Austen family. There is the father, Reverend Austen (James Cromwell), the mother (Julie Walters), the son Henry (Joe Anderson) and daughters Cassandra (Anna Maxwell Martin, North & South) and ... Jane (Anne Hathaway).

Bright young Jane Austen wants to be a writer, which is of course not the thing to do for young ladies in Georgian times. Her mother wants her to marry, and it doesn't matter to whom, as long as he can provide for her. Jane, on the other hand, is longing for love.

She's not without suitors - there's the stiff but polite Mr. Wisley (Laurence Fox, Lewis), the obnoxious Mr. Warren (Leo Bill - I didn't recognise the name but I definitely recognised the face), and ... handsome Irishman Tom Lefroy (James McAvoy), who is the only one to actually win her heart. There's no simple way to get to And Then They Lived Happily Ever After, though ...

Also stars Maggie Smith as Lady Gresham, Lucy Cohu as Eliza de Feuillide, and Ian Richardson as Judge Langlois.

This is, in all fairness, a biopic of Jane Austen. It's fascinating to see her family and her suitors and, if this film is anything to go by, you can really tell where she got the ideas for her novels from - Pride and Prejudice in particular. You can see where Mrs. Bennett came from, as well as Jane and Lizzie, Darcy, Willoughby and even Mr. Collins. Not to mention Lady Catherine, who is immaculately played by Maggie Smith. The name Gresham isn't that far from Grantham, but I think her Downton Abbey character has a ~~greater~~ sense of humour.

Not sure about Jane herself. While I've nothing against Hathaway with the acting, I'm just not sure about the character. She comes across as a slightly obnoxious person. Then again, she didn't have an easy time, especially not considering the times. What do you do when all you want to be is an author, but society dictates that's not something A Lady should be doing? Glad times have moved on since then.

Austen's life wasn't exactly full of riches, and even though she was published, her fame wasn't actually that great while she was alive - it's after her death she has risen to the fame we know her for today. Strange but true.

The film goes from her (relative) youth and her relationship with Lefroy ("I'm Irish, can't you tell from my accent?" <-- said in a very English accent) and then it jumps ahead to when she looks to be "really old" ... which she really wasn't - the poor woman died when she was just 41! So that feels quite strange, as you get the feeling time has moved on and now she's in her 60s or something.

Most of the characters were likeable, the Austen parents and Cassandra in particular, and I felt sorry for the stiff Mr. Wisley. I hope he found someone to thaw him up in the end, because it did feel as if he'd be worth it. If only the woman in question wasn't too intimidated by Lady Gresham, of course!

In a way, it feels strange to see Jane Austen's life on screen like this. It feels as if they've turned what's basically quite a sad story into a romantic drama to appeal to those who like her books. There's the clever and witty young woman who has several suitors but she loses her heart to the one person who can't have her, and so on, and of course there are the many hints at Pride and Prejudice. If it was truly a biopic, then surely, it would be less fluffy? It feels as if her life is trivialised, somehow. The tragic bits are there, but it's still a little ... well, fluffy. Made appetising for a modern audience - like the bit at the end where she seems to be oh so famous, which she wouldn't have been at the time.

Overall, it's a very good movie, though, and it's a nice start to getting around to watch a bunch of the adaptations I so far haven't seen and plan on trying to get through this year. :) 4 out of 5 letters.

Swedish Ways: Trettonhelgen

2012-01-10T19:27:00.001Z

This is only about a week overdue as the day in question was last Thursday! Trettondagsafton and Trettondagen (last Friday), indeed all of Trettonhelgen (Thursday to Sunday), is what's called Twelfth Night in English. I think it's from when the three kings came to visit Jesus in the stables in Bethlehem, but most Swedes would likely just shrug at that and say "yeah, whatever". We have several holidays based on religion, but as Sweden today is very secular, the days only mean "we don't have to go to work/school today because it's a red day in the calendar".

It's common for TV to show a musical farce during this weekend. It runs in the summer, at Fredriksdalsteatern, an open air theatre in Helsingborg in the south of Sweden, and is recorded for TV. When I was growing up, the star of these used to be Nils Poppe, but since he retired, comedienne Eva Rydberg has taken over. She's definitely living up to the expectations he left!

Other than that, it's really only a few days off from work. For those still in school, the Christmas break is generally not over until the week after this weekend - this week. Think it varies depending on where you are in the country though. Either way, a lot of school kids have the standard question of "what I did during my Christmas break" to look forward to ...

Wedding Daze (2006)

2012-01-10T08:39:00.000Z

Film review: Wedding Daze (2006), written and directed by Michael Ian Black

It's one of THOSE films. You know, the sort of film that has bold, red letters to tell you the title on the poster or DVD cover. Snore.

Romantic Anderson (Jason Biggs, that guy from the American Pie franchise) is head over heels in love with his girlfriend Vanessa (Audra Blaser). Best friend Ted (Michael Weston) strongly advises against it, but Anderson still goes ahead and proposes. Vanessa has a heart attack and dies on the spot.

Some time passes, and in a diner, Ted reckons it's time for Anderson to pick himself up and go back on the dating scene. Anderson responds by spontaneously proposing to the waitress, Katie (Isla Fisher), who ... spontaneously decides to accept.

So now, two perfect strangers have to get to know one another, introduce themselves to their respective parents (one of which is played by Joe Pantoliano, whom I really like), and decide whether or not getting married on a whim is a good thing or not.

If the description has been a little sketchy, it's because I honestly can't remember the details very well a few weeks after having seen the film. Memorable? Not so much.

The concept of asking a stranger to marry you on a whim and then living happily ever after is a cute idea for a film, and while the film is technically only about them getting engaged on a whim and then spending the rest of the film starting to get cute, then break up, only to be reunited again at the end and then getting around to what's possibly a happily ever after, it never quite seems to gel properly.

It's not bad, as such, but it's certainly not good either. It has some funny-ish bits to it, but for the most part, it's fairly unimaginative and bland, sadly. It relies on stereotype comedy a lot (Jews, gays, bohemian friends) and it doesn't feel particularly realistic. From the heart attack, to the over-the-top waiter trying to pick up Vanessa.

I wish I really liked this film, but it's just kinda meh. I expected a little bit more of it. 2 out of 5 toasters.

Låt den rätte komma in (2008)

2012-01-09T08:23:00.000Z

Film review: Låt den rätte komma in [Let the Right One In] (2008), directed by Tomas Alfredson, written by John Ajvide Lindqvist

Currently keeping up the 222nd spot on the IMDb Top 250 list, it's Swedish vampire flick Låt den rätte komma in, or Let the Right One In in English. I believe it had a Hollywood remake using that title as well.

Either way, it's set in the early 1980s some time, in one of the suburbs of Stockholm. Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) is a child of about 12 or so, who is bullied in school. One cold winter's eve, when he's in the playground on the estate where he lives, a strange girl of a similar age, Eli (Lina Leandersson) is there. They start talking, and over the course of the film, a friendship is forged between the two.

There's just one thing ... Eli, as it turns out, is a vampire. I don't think it was made clear how she was turned, but her father (?) Håkan (Per Ragnar) is keeping her with a supply of blood, by basically butchering people in the woods.

The film also features Ika Nord (from Ika i rutan, a very bizarre children's programme I grew up watching) as Virginia with Karin Bergquist and Henrik Dahl as Oskar's parents.

The important thing to note with this film, is that it's not about vampires going around killing innocent people and sucking their blood. Nor do they sparkle - thank goodness. It's about a friendship between two children, both with their own set of issues. One is bullied in school, the other one ... well, she can't go to school full stop, as daylight would burn her to a crisp.

I guess that's why the film really works. Sure, darkness is ever present (most of it seems to happen in the evening), and there are scenes of bullying that are difficult to watch, but there's not a lot of blood or gore - some, yes, you can't really get away from it in a film with vampires, but the feel is more raw, honest and real than most vampire films. Vampires in suburbia, just trying to get by.

It's a little bit odd, it's low key and quiet, but it's good, and it sucks you in. Very good performances all around, but particularly from Hedebrant and Leandersson. Who says you need to be an adult to be a good actor?

Låt den rätte komma in is in Swedish but subtitled in English, and I think if it's possible, you should watch it in original language rather than a dub, because if a film is dubbed, it tends to lose a lot of the feel that you get from the original language. (Cutsey Disney cartoons, for the most part, less so. I actually vastly prefer the Swedish dub of Robin Hood over the original English!) I just think you'd lose out if you watched it dubbed into a different language, that's all.

Good film. A bit slow at times, perhaps, but well made. 4 out of 5 ice skates.

Hunger (2008)

2012-01-06T08:53:00.000Z

Film review: Hunger (2008), directed by Steve McQueen

Hunger is about a man who starved himself to death in a prison in 1981. If we widen the frame a bit, it's a film about the true story of Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender), an IRA member who went on hunger strike in order for himself and his comrades in arms to be classed as political prisoners, and who died for that cause.

That's why I was very surprised when it took about half an hour before we're even introduced to a shaggy-looking Fassbender. Instead, we begin with following a prison guard (Stuart Graham) on his way to work - checking his car for bombs, and so on, and how a young IRA man, Davey Gillen (Brian Milligan) is admitted to prison and gets to share a stinking cell with another IRA man, Gerry Campbell (Liam McMahon), who decorates the cell walls with his own faeces as a protest, as the prisoners are on a no wash, no clothes protest, which is completely ignored by Thatcher and her chums in Westminster.

And then, half an hour in, the star of the piece, Fassbender.

Hunger is not an easy watch by any stretch of the imagination. If you're an empathic person, you will suffer - goodness knows I did. While some sequences can't be seen as anything but arty (the prison guard cleaning the corridor, or Davey and his bee by the window, for instance), it's still not a film I could turn away from.

The acting is incredible. There's a sequence where Sands talks to a priest (Liam Cunningham) about his intention to go on a hunger strike, and this lasts for a good ten minutes - same angle, no cuts. Just the two of them, talking at a table in prison. How many takes did that take to film before they nailed it? I wanted to get up off the sofa and applaud them both at the end of it. Truly extraordinary! - Okay, I just looked it up, it's actually 17 minutes long (!), and is the longest single shot in a mainstream film too, apparently.

Another great thing about it is that it doesn't really take sides, as such. The prison guards might be portrayed as brutal monsters, but on the other hand, we also see them as a husband, as a son visiting his elderly mother in a nursing home, and as a scared man who only acts out of fear. The prisoners are partly portrayed as nothing but grotesque animals (although animals don't normally decorate their homes with poo, to be fair), but also as men who are very passionate about their political cause, as well as that of being sons and lovers. You don't get a clear-cut sense of who are the real bad guys and who are the real good guys, because both sides are full of grey areas, and both sides are really brutal.

The actual hunger strike doesn't happen until very late in the film - I expected that to kind of the the plot of the film: Sands goes on hungerstrike in the beginning, and it ends with him dying. All of that happen in the last half hour or so, if that, and it's truly harrowing to see how a hunger strike destroys a man's body.

Jaysus Mick, you can't be accused of not taking your role seriously,
that's for bleedin' sure! Yes, he did really starve himself for this role.

Hunger was showered in various awards, and rightly so. It's an intense experience to watch it, and it's grim, brutal and will turn your stomach. The worst part of it is that it's true. In total, the strike took seven months, during which ten men died (Sands being the first) before it was called off and the British government agreed to most of the prisoners terms, yet still without granting them political status. We can only be thankful that things have moved on since then, and hope that the situation (which is still brewing, even if it's been very quiet since September 11) will reach a less violent conclusion.

While deeply uncomfortable to watch, it's a superb movie with world class acting, and it's a side of the Irish struggle I'm less familiar with than that of the original (1920s) IRA, but it's a good, not to mention scary, history lesson.

5 out of 5 gruesome cavity searches I'd rather forget. Hunger is not for the fainthearted or squeamish, and you will see more of Fassbender than you ever thought possible. Not in any sexy kind of way, mind. Those images are in no way arousing, and if they are ... I think you need help.

The Golden Compass (2007)

2012-01-05T08:25:00.000Z

Film review: The Golden Compass (2007), directed by Chris Weitz

The Golden Compass is one of the biggest missed opportunities of the Noughties, but I'll get to that later. Based on The Golden Compass (US title) or Northern Lights (UK title), the first book in the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, the film is set in a parallel world to ours, where people's souls are separate to their bodies in what's called "daemons" - animal companion spirits. Everyone has one, and I think it's a genius idea of Pullman's. For children, the animal keeps shifting, while it's in a fixed form as adults. This is down to something known as "dust".

In a parallel Oxford, Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards) and her daemon Pan[talaimon] (voiced by Freddie Highmore) lives at Jordan College and is best friends with servant child Roger (Ben Walker). Her uncle Asriel (bearded Daniel Craig) comes to visit, and he tells the assembled scholars of dust, and of a city in the sky, which seems to be a portal to another world. Could be please have funding to go to Svalbard and check it out? The all-powerful Magisterium (Simon McBurney - Brocklehurst in Jane Eyre '11 - and Derek Jacobi) aren't as thrilled about this, as it threatens their all-powerfulness.

Meanwhile, kids are being abducted by what they call "gobblers", and Roger goes missing, along with Gyptian (water gypsies, you might say) playmate Billy. Lyra hardly has time to reflect, as the beautiful Marisa Coulter (Nicole Kidman) comes to take her away, and promise that she'll take Lyra to Svalbard on an expedition. As uncle Asriel had turned down her request to join him, she's eager to please, but quickly realise that maybe Mrs. Coulter isn't as kind as she first made herself out to be.

Before leaving Jordan College, its Master (Jack Shepherd) gave Lyra what looks like a golden compass, saying it's an Alethiometer, and it will tell her the truth, and she must never show it to Mrs. Coulter. As it happens, Lyra ends up with the Gyptians (whose leader is played none other than Jim Carter - Downton Abbey's butler Mr. Carson!), and they can tell her how the Alethiometer works, and that it's the only one in existence - all the other ones were destroyed by the Magisterium ...

At Svalbard, Lyra makes some new friends: the armoured polar bear Iorek Byrnison (voiced by Ian McKellen), aeronaut stroke cowboy Lee Scoresby (Sam Elliott, and I believe my first reaction to seeing him in the role was an emphatic "YES!"), and Eva Green as the witch Serafina Pekkala. Sadly, the witches don't get a lot of air time, and while it's mentioned several times that Lyra is a part of their prophecies, it's never explained fully what those prophecies actually are.

Shoutouts: Kristin Scitt Thomas and Kathy Bates as the voices of a couple of daemons, Ian McShane as the voice of the polar bear king Ragnar, Christopher Lee as the First High Councilor of Jordan College (I think?).

The Squeeze had the trilogy, and suggested I read it, and I absolutely LOVED it. So why do I think the film The Golden Compass is a wasted opportunity? Is it not a good film? Oh, it's lovely. I love the characters, I love the animated daemons, I love the story, I love every bit of it. Sure it lacks a bit of detail, which you'll always get when it's an adaptation, but that's fair enough. No, the problem is that it whets our appetites for an epic trilogy of awesomeness AND THEY'RE NOT MAKING THE TWO SEQUELS!!! And why? Politics! Or rather, religion.

It was a miracle they even got to make this one, because there was such an outcry in the Christian communities of America that Hollywood don't dare adapting The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass. No, seriously. That's why they can't make the sequels, because no one's willing to put their heads on the chopping block and make a controversial trilogy.

If you've read the books, you'll know why. If you haven't, you should read the books because they're at least thirty shades of awesome. You see, the thing is that Pullman borrowed Christian themes (such as Adam and Eve), makes a heavy case pro-evolution, and the story even amounts to - and here's the clincher - "killing God". Which isn't strictly true anyway, because the thing they're rebelling against is a corrupt system that uses an ancient, once powerful being, but bastardising its message for their own power-hungry uses. So technically, it's more anti-Church than anti-God or anti-Christianism. Perhaps that's why I love it so much - Christianism and faith in God, fine, whatever floats your boat. Being corrupt and using religion as a way to control people and making them miserable, blaming their foibles on God, while puttin gyourself in power and telling people that they either agree with how you do things or their souls are bound for damnation ... sod off.

Anyhoo. So that's why they can't make the sequels. They could get away with the first book because it hardly uses those themes anyway, and what's there can be watered down so that the Magisterium is less like the Catholic Church and more like any old authoritarian government. Such a shame, because the trilogy is a wonderful piece of fantasy literature, full of powerful and sympathetic characters, and the storytelling is as mind-bogglingly imaginative as that of J.K. Rowling, which you only get a small glimpse of in the film, because, of course, it's an adaptation.

Kidman could have been born to play the beautiful and frightening ice queen Mrs. Coulter, Craig is great as Asriel - not that you get to see that much of him, and what he's really up to, of course - and Richards (last seen in series five of Skins) does a fantastic job of portraying Lyra. In fact, watching this, I realised how much I love Lyra as a character. Strong-willed, independent, loyal and brave, and all the while, wanting to rescue her friend Roger from the evil gobblers.

The ending of the film is not the ending of the first book. I can see why they've chosen to end it where they do in the film, because it works better dramatically to end it on a "and what adventures await us next?" note, rather than ... well, the way the book actually ends, which would work better on screen as the dramatic opening of the second film. A bit like what they did with The Lord of the Rings. They cut it where it made most sense for the films, as opposed to where they actually ended and begun in the books.

THEY CAN HAS KITTEH DAEMONS!

There's also a surprising lack of blood in the scene where Iorek and Ragnar fight, which seems a little silly. Yes, they've done it so that kids can watch it, but when two polar bears scratch each other so that you can see the lines in the fur, you expect those lines to at least be red. Not to mention ... well, you'll know it when you see it. The complete lack of blood is very unrealistic.

Now that it's been maybe five years since I read the books, I don't remember every little detail that the film left out, so while I wasn't overly impressed by it when it first came out (even though I probably squeed overexcitedly all the way to the cinema at the time), I really love it now, and I can't wait to re-read the books so I can re-visit Lyra and her wonderful world and get back to wondering which form my daemon would be. Did a test on the movie's website at the time, it gave me a spider. (Yeah, because that would work. On the other hand, if my daemon was a spider, I probably wouldn't have ended up being arachnophobic to begin with.) I'll just have to settle for pretending Daisy is my daemon instead. :)

5 out of 5 airships.

Vera Drake (2004)

2012-01-04T08:23:00.000Z

Film review: Vera Drake (2004), directed by Mike Leigh

Set in working class London in 1950, Vera Drake is about the hard working and kindhearted mother who acts as a part housekeeper to the well-to-do women, part social worker to sick and/or elderly women, and part illegal abortionist.

Vera (Imelda Staunton, as Dolores Umbridge's polar opposite) lives with her husband, car mechanic Stan (Phil Davis), and their two children: outgoing Sid (Daniel Mays), who works as a tailor, and shy daughter Ethel (Alex Kelly), who works in a lightbulb factory and who her parents fear might never find a husband. Until Vera decides to invite the equally shy young man, Reg (Eddie Marsan), in a neighbouring flat on the estate, who only eats bread and drippings for his tea every night, and charity worker Vera wants to give him a proper meal, so invites him to dinner.

Vera's sideline as an at-home abortionist, which her family is completely oblivious to, takes a wrong turn when one of the girls she helps gets violently ill after the treatment and ends up in hospital, and her mother (Lesley Sharp) has no other option but to admit to the abortion and tell the police everything she knows ...

We also follow a side plot of Susan (Sally Hawkins), the daughter of one of the ladies Vera cleans for. Susan basically gets date raped and goes through the legal channels to get an abortion - so we understand why less effluent women chose Vera's alternative. To do it legally, you need to have a doctor refer you to a psychiatrist, who then needs to evaluate your mental state (i.e. previous family history of mental illness, likelihood of a pregnancy leading the mother to committ suicide, and so on), and only then, and after paying 100 guineas, can she go to a clinic to have a legal abortion.

Shoutouts: Lesley Manville (Mrs. Hale in North & South) as Mrs. Wells, Vinette Robinson (Between the Sheets, Sherlock) as an anxious Jamaican girl, Chris O'Dowd as a customer of Sid's, Sam Troughton (Much in BBC's Robin Hood) as David), and Jim Broadbent as a judge.

It's important to note that while Lily (Ruth Sheen), the woman who essentially works as Vera's abortion pimp, takes two guineas as payment for the service, Vera never knows there is payment involved anywhere. Perhaps naive of her, especially since Lily seems quite well off, but that's how it is. She helps women out of the goodness of her heart, not for financial gain. Considering two guineas is about £48 in today's money, can imagine why the legal option was out of the question for a lot of women.

The sweet, growing relationship between the really socially awkward Ethel and Reg was delightful, in an uncomfortable sort of way. They were very sweet, but at the same time, awkward. But cute.

Vera is a lovely person, who wouldn't hurt a fly. While I don't want to go into the politics of abortions on this blog (not the place for it), I think today is a lot better for women, abortion being legal and available, at least in this country. It should never be used instead of a contraceptive: "nah, we just can't be bothered with contraceptives, but it doesn't matter, there's always abortions to be had", because I think that's a seriously wrong attitude. On the other hand, that kind of person sounds like they shouldn't breed anyway, so perhaps it's just as well. :]

Vera Drake is a quiet and calm film, all about the characters and relationships, but it never feels slow, even if it's slow-moving and fairly long to boot. It's a social history lesson, family drama and women's rights statement (women went to prison for helping others have abortions) all rolled up into one. A compelling watch with a stellar cast, and it was deservedly showered in awards when it came out. It might appeal more to women than men, but who cares?

4.5 out of 5 soapy syringes.