It's Whedon brilliant!

I've now bought and devoured SFX magazine's Joss Whedon special where they review every single episode of television he's produced. And may I say what a great job SFX have done with this double issue ode to the man many geeks call god. It's utterly comprehensive and full of new interviews and mucho other cool stuff. If you are at all a fan of the man then I highly recommend you rush out and purchase it asap.

However, after an online conversation with a fellow Whedonite, as well as not agreeing with the SFX opinion on some of the Buffy eps, I've decided to undertake my own little episode guide/review for all seven years of slayage. Okay, so maybe it's just an excuse to break out the DVD's and rewatch them again right from the start, but what can I say? I'm a sucker for the Slayer. And after I'm done with the Bufmeister I may then carry on to Angel and Firefly if the excitement still has me. And if I haven't found anything more meaningful to do with my time.

Anyway, back to Buff. Here's the format for the guide:

- Episode number and title
- Writer
- Director
- What's the sitch? (basic plot outline)
- What's the sitch beneath the sitch? (episode metaphor)
- Who's giving us the wiggins this week? (episode villain(s))
- Why it rocks (what's really good about the episode)
- Why it sucks (what's not so good about the episode)
- It's Buftastic (single best moment of the episode)
- Dialogue to die for (best line in the episode)
- And another thing (any other points of note)
- How many stakes? (an overall episode rating out of five)

I'll post individual episodes as and when I rewatch them and amongst the rest of the usual rubbish I put on here.

So lets get cracking.

The time: early 1997. The place: the seemingly quiet and unassuming town of Sunnydale, California.

However looks can be deceiving. For Sunnydale lies smack bang on top of a hellmouth, a mystical convergence attracting all sorts of dark and dangerous forces to it, forces that threaten the world and could even bring about an apocalypse or two. But luckily for us a very special teenage girl is about to arrive in town. And although she doesn't want to, she'll be forced to battle the forces of darkness and keep a lid on all things hellmouthy while trying to have some kind of a normal life.

So grab yourself an extra pointy stake and prepare for a major case of the wiggins cuz things are gonna get freaky.

If this is the Afterlife then count me out

Resident Evil: Afterlife

I’m not a fan of this franchise. At all. I quite like the first Resident Evil movie if for no other reason than Milla was cute in it and that laser slicing and dicing scene was sweet. Apart from that it was not so much. The second one, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, was terrible on every front. The third, Resident Evil: Extinction, was not too bad but I can’t remember much about it…zombie crows maybe? And Ali Larter. Yum!

When film number four came out last month in the now obligatory 3D I really didn’t wanna pay good money to see it. I’d seen the trailers and thought it looked rubbish – highly derivative and ripping off The Matrix ten years too late. I had the strong feeling it would indeed be just as rubbish as it looked. But giving writer/director Paul W.S. Anderson (Event Horizon, Resident Evil, Alien vs. Predator, Death Race) the benefit of the doubt I sat down on Sunday and gave it a watch, hoping for the best (for free I hasten to add and not in 3D).

Guess what?

It was actually worse than I thought.

God I was bored.

Anderson has basically made a film with no story. And no characters. And no excitement. And no tension. And despite some nice photography, no style at all. Anderson thinks that style means aping The Matrix whenever he can. But in his mind that just means the endless use of slomo for jumping, shooting, dodging, hitting, rather than creating and filming skilfully crafted action sequences with real visual impact and coherent structure. But then coherent structure is almost entirely missing from this film, the bulk of which takes place in a grimy abandoned prison where Milla arrives and must help the stranded people inside escape and get to a ship in the harbour. And that's pretty much it. And when they do eventually get to said ship, Milla finds this bad guy from the movie's beginning (who she thought was toast) waiting to trap her. Now, I had no idea who this bloke was when I saw him at the start…only that he was doing the worst Agent Smith impression ever. Utterly cringeworthy. So when he comes back at the end I'm still baffled. However by then I'd long since given up caring about any of it and was reading a magazine. Out of the corner of my eye I saw shitty Smith dude and Milla have an equally shitty matrixesque fight while some other stuff happened to the lunk from Prison Break and cute Ali Larter. And then (thankfully) it ends...BUT with an obvious set-up for yet another RE film. Please God make them stop!

There is no story here folks, nothing. Land a plane in a prison, meet some very dull, one dimensional characters, get on a ship, have a fight, The End. None of the monsters are remotely interesting - except the big bloke in the shower with the axe, and that was ripped off from the vastly superior Silent Hill movie.

Now look, I don’t mind formula schlock.

Hell, I love me some quality formula schlock.

But this ain’t quality.

The script is basic back of a postage stamp stuff with no thought to originality, character or dramatic tension. Stuff just happens. For example the whole subplot about Wentworth Miller stuck in the Hannibal Lecter cell is not developed and goes nowhere. I thought they might pull a twist on us and try to introduce a cool badass anti-hero character such as Carpenter would do. But, no, he is exactly who he says he is - a charmless lunk. Milla, bless her, not the best of actresses, still looks the part, though age is slowly creeping up on her as it is to us all. Still, she can still kick ass and fire guns pretty good. Ali Larter is okay, reprising her role from the last RE, but everyone else is either awful or makes no impact at all.

I can’t stress how much I hated this. I was sooo bored by it. Unforgivable for any film. I couldn’t care less what happened to any of the so-called characters and I just wanted it all to end so I could watch something else instead, something remotely interesting. Paint drying for instance. Maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe it would have come across better in 3D at the cinema. I dunno, but I doubt it. A turd in 3D is still a turd...only closer to your face.

In the past I’ve been an apologist for the much hated (in geek circles) Paul W.S. Anderson. I like the first AVP movie. I love Event Horizon. But what with the rubbish Death Race and now this...Yikes! (0/5)

He's gonna Hex you up

Jonah Hex

Based on the DC comics character and comic of the same name, Jonah Hex is a big budget, supernatural, sci fi, revenge western that was meddled with by the studio, trimmed down to just over seventy minutes, and then dropped in to the 2010 summer movie season…only to land with a leaden thud before quickly disappearing in to obscurity. The critics derided it and audiences avoided it.

Gotta say...I thought it was pretty good fun, some perfectly enjoyable hokum.

Sure, the script was unoriginal but it flowed well enough and mostly made sense. Mostly. Josh Brolin was pretty good, all gruff and growly as the damaged and vengeance seeking Jonah while Megan Fox was hot and spunky as Lilah, the hooker with a soft spot for him (though her role serves no real purpose other than eye candy to be rescued). Michael Fassbender was a suitably nasty-but-charming henchman and John Malkovich, who came in for a lot of stick for being over the top with plenty of scene chewery was also perfectly fine in what was in reality a fairly standard Malkovich bad guy role. The action was standard fare with the usual build up to a big show down and explosions at the finale but it was watchable with some reasonably good FX. And any film with a horse armed with dual gatling guns you gotta give props to.

Jonah Hex’s biggest problem is that it is light weight and utterly unoriginal drawing on all sorts of movies and comic books while adding nothing much of its own. Still, it’s brisk and reasonably entertaining and was far, far better than the intensely dull tedium of Resident Evil: Afterlife, the film I watched immediately prior. In contrast, the experience of watching Jonah Hex was like watching Toy Story 3. Bliss. (3/5)

Is this bad? It's a Dead Cert it is.

Dead Cert

Dead Cert is a truly dire British gangster/vampire mashup movie with the germ of a fun idea: modern London gangsters (as popularised by Guy Ritchie and Mathew Vaughan) meet vicious vampire bloodletting. Layer Cake meets From Dusk ‘till Dawn if you will.

Dead Cert tells of a gangland turf war in which reformed gangster Craig Fairbrass loses his beloved and newly opened lap dancing club to some dodgy eastern Europeans led by The Bill’s Billy Murray (!) in a bet over a bare knuckle boxing match that ends up killing Fairbrass’ man in the ring Apollo Creed style. Thinking he’s been cheated and feeling bitter about the death of his boxer (who was also his wife’s brother) Fairbrass recruits his old gang mates and heads back to the club to take out the Euro trash and reclaim his life. Only problem is said Euro trash is really a gang of ancient vampires keen to return to London and their long lost power base. Cue one hell of a bloody (awful) showdown in the club.

Dead Cert is a goofy and daft idea for a movie, but also a potentially fun idea. I say potentially cuz the idea is utterly squandered here. Let me list the main problems:

1. The script is awful with poor characters, naff dialogue and plotting that makes little sense (it is never explained exactly why the vamps want the club).
2. The acting is dull and wooden even from old pros like Dexter Fletcher.
3. The direction is flat and amateurish with no talent for shot composition, no sense of pace or flow to the story and no excitement or tension whatsoever.
4. The vamps are hilariously bad and about as scary as the Count from Sesame Street.
5. Billy Murray is in it.
6. Billy Murray produced it.
7. There is no humour at all…at least no intentional humour.
8. Craig Fairbrass is in it.

Arguably the most telling thing that this is utter rubbish is when you have the seasoned, always entertaining and frankly bonkers actor Steven Berkoff in what is essentially the Van Helsing role…and he’s as crap as everyone else. And when Berkoff is crap you know you’re in trouble.

It’s pretty obvious that the only way Dead Cert got made was due to favours from friends. I mean how else would you get the likes of Dexter Fletcher, Steven Berkoff, Jason Flemyng and Danny Dyer (in a blink and you’ll miss him cameo) in this rubbish? Okay, so maybe Danny Dyer. I can think of only one thing that I really truly enjoyed in Dead Cert and that was the presence of some very attractive young ladies in various roles - especially the gorgeous Lucinda Rhodes-Flaherty. But that’s just a very base male response that I’m not proud of and that has nothing to do with the quality or lack thereof of the film. But there it is anyway.

Bottom line: Dead Cert is dead awful. Avoid. (0/5)

It's Dark Days as Stella strikes back...kinda.

30 Days of Night: Dark Days

30 Days of Night: Dark Days is the sequel to David Slade’s excellent 2007 adaptation of the popular IDW graphic novel 30 Days of Night by Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith. 30 Days of Night told the tale of a band of feral vampires who attack the isolated Alaskan town of Barrow after the sun sets for a month. The original graphic novel was a big hit in 2002 spawning sequels and offshoots that are still ongoing. Dark Days was the first sequel published and told of how vengeance craving Barrow survivor Stella Olemaun heads to LA and writes about what really happened to her town, using her book and its related publicity as an attempt to expose the truth about vampires amongst us.

In 2007 Sam Raimi’s Ghost House Pictures produced the movie version of 30 Days of Night starring Josh Hartnett and Melissa George and directed by David (Hard Candy) Slade. Though in my opinion fangtastic, it was given a middling critical and commercial reception upon release. But despite not being a big commercial hit, the powers that be have decided there is still on screen cash to be made from Niles’ nasty blood hunters…as long as it doesn’t cost them very much to produce.

So welcome to the movie sequel: 30 Days of Night: Dark Days.

And guess what?

It hasn’t cost them very much to produce.

This is a direct to DVD sequel shot in Canada (where else) with almost no budget and a recast female lead. Out goes the always good, always cute Melissa George as vengeful Stella to be replaced by Kiele (A Perfect Getaway, Lost) Sanchez. And to be fair, Sanchez is fine, even if it is a strictly one note performance - all scowly and sullen and not saying much at all. But that’s okay cuz in this story Stella is a severely damaged character hell bent on doing lots of damage of her own to the vamps of the world.

Now, I haven’t read Dark Days for a while, so I went back and quickly skimmed through it after watching this film. What I discovered is that the film’s story is a fair bit different. It’s simpler, less character based, more of a straight forward, slightly dull, overly familiar vampire hunt/stop-their-next-evil-plan type story. It’s very basic A to B to C plotting broken up by a couple of okay fights, a few nicely gory deaths and a bit of morose bathroom sex before ending with a girl on girl smack down as Queen Vamp Lillith (Mia Kirshner wasted in a nothing role) meets Stella for what is a (literal) bloodbath finale. Elements from the book are present in the film if pretty thinly sketched: FBI Agent and vampire wannabe Norris who gets his undead wish and causes Stella plenty of grief; the vampire Queen Lillith; the ‘good’ vampire Dane who Stella allies with. But these elements are used differently and less effectively in the movie with Dane being possibly the biggest disappointment. He is potentially the most interesting new character and yet he is rapidly sidelined and is only in two or three scenes. Instead, what we get is more focus on the small group of human vampire hunters who work with Dane and who recruit Stella. Problem is they are a pretty bland, useless, forgettable bunch. But in the end, as we would expect, it all comes down to Stella. It is our mightily pissed off heroine who must stand alone and defeat the nefarious Lillith’s evil plan, a plan which involves yet another vampiric maritime trip up north.

30 Days of Night: Dark Days is an okayish direct to DVD effort. It's better than most of its low budget ilk but is not a patch on David Slade’s excellent original. It's solidly directed and does manage to look pretty good despite its obvious low budget. I liked the photography with its gritty washed out days and sodium yellow lit nights. And the film also has a solid central performance from Ms Sanchez and some rather nice blood and gore to excite our interest. But what lets Dark Days down is the obvious cheapness of the whole affair, its pacing problems (it gets rather slow in parts) and the overly familiar and predictable storytelling. What is also rather annoying is that Steve Niles co-wrote this movie with director Ben Ketai. Niles could and should have done a better job of adapting his own work as this flat, formula script couldn't have taken him more than a few hours to bash out. C’mon, Steve, try harder next time. (2/5)

Fangers, Digby and Casper: True Blood vs. Being Human

(True Blood's Jessica getting frisky...not in a good way.)


I've just finished watching the finale of True Blood series 3. And it was great, a lot of fun, just like the season overall and a marginal improvement on season 2.

But though this season had its fair share of inspired and messed up 'HOLY C**P!' moments (head twisting sex springs to mind) I didn't find myself particularly involved in what was going on. Part of the problem for me has been the werewolves. The furry critters made their début on the show this year. And that's cool. I love werewolves. They are by far my favourite mythical monster. Unfortunately the werewolves in True Blood ended up being a bit crap. They were mostly shallow and dimwitted trailer trash thugs. And as for the vampires... Well, Bill proved himself yet again to be a right arse. Luckily Eric is still pretty cool and I do still love Jessica. Other than that I don't much like the vamps in this show, though I did appreciate seeing more of their supernatural side this year. I loved it when their invitation to a home gets revoked and they then get invisibly dragged in reverse back outside. The series ended with several plot threads and a couple of cliffhangers ready for series 4.

Don't get me wrong, True Blood is still a highly watchable and enjoyable series full of great actors, high production values and messed up creativity. It even manages the odd good scare. Perhaps it's the format of fast paced plotting, loads of characters, gratuitous sex and gore that is starting to wear a tinsy bit thin with me. I kinda need something more for long term viewing. A bit more depth and a bit more weight maybe?

Speaking of vamps and werewolves I've also been re-watching series 1 of the BBC's Being Human. It is easy to forget just how awesome this show is. True Blood is a lot of fun but for my money we Brits here in Bristol (though now Cardiff for series 3...Boo!) have the superior show. It may not have the budget or gloss of True Blood but the writing to my mind is sharper, more focussed, more considered and a lot more meaningful. It is also primarily a character driven show whereas True Blood is mostly plot and incident driven, possibly suffering somewhat from too many characters and disparate story threads. For instance, in True Blood I like Lafayette but I wasn't remotely interested in his story this year nor really in the story of Sam and his family. In contrast, the beauty of Being Human is that the focus of the show is always on the three main characters: Annie the ghost, Mitchell the vampire and George the werewolf, and on their simple desire and struggle to have a quiet ordinary life. Being Human takes the trials and tribulations of real everyday life and gives them a supernatural twist. But it remains always utterly relatable. The point of the show is in its title. It acts as a mirror and an ode to what being human on a day to day level means. It's pretty much what Joss did with Buffy and why that show still works and resonates so well. Oh yeah, it also doesn't hurt that Being Human's main bad guy Herrick is simply one of THE best vampire villains ever. Jason Watkins rules! Plus the werewolves in Being Human are waaay better than the ones in True Blood.

In the end True Blood and Being Human are very different shows doing different things with the supernatural. And I appreciate them both. Though, for me, Being Human is the superior entity as it manages to do so much more with a lot less. Plus its local to me so I'm bias.