Monday to Friday, I normally post book, film or TV reviews. Rest of the time, it's general mayhem. Expect frequent gushing about handsome actors (mainly Richard Armitage) and Jane Eyre. Also: this blog won't display correctly in IE, go fig.
Certified member of the Estrogen Brigade since 1996!
Film review: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005), directed by Garth Jennings
This film was on TV recently, and I caught a bit of it, which made me dig out the DVD. It made me realise that I probably haven't seen the whole film since we saw it at the cinema (armed with towels, a bag of peanuts that curiously cost 42p, and a very old palm type computer with a note taped to the back saying "DON'T PANIC").
And I can see why.
Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman) lives somewhere rural in England. One morning, the council wants to demolish his house to make way for a bypass, because "you've got to build bypasses". Fortunately (?), his friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def) shows up in the nick of time to tell him the world's about to end, so never mind about a stupid house.
And, true, a fleet of Vogon constructor ships appear - and Ford brings Arthur on board, hitching a ride. To think Ford is a researcher for the remarkable electronic book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (voiced by Stephen Fry), and isn't from Guildford after all.
Film review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011), directed by David Yates
The eighth and final instalment of the Harry Potter saga is currently (at the time of writing) enjoying #95 on the IMDb Top 250 list. Everywhere I've read, people are hailing it ... and it's not without good reason.
As we went to see a double showing of Deathly Hallows (Part 1 followed by Part 2 at midnight), we had the events from the previous film fresh in mind. As you might recall, Part 1 ended with a showdown at Malfoy Manor, during which Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch), Griphook the Gringotts goblin (Warwick Davis) and the wandmaker Mr. Ollivander (John Hurt) were saved. Sadly, we had to part with Dobby the house elf. What angered a lot of us fans at the time, was that they neglected to put up the headstone saying “Here lies Dobby, a free elf” over his grave. They rectified that here, thankfully. And then the wild ride begins.
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) have got work to do. They need to break into the wizarding bank Gringotts in search of horcruxes, and then it’s off to Hogwarts to meet Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and End It All, Once and For All.
I’ll try to not spoil things here the best I can, and instead make a separate post about all the things I want to talk about.
Film review: Galaxy Quest (1999), directed by Dean Parisot
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, there was a TV show called Galaxy Quest (almost, but not quite, entirely similar to Star Trek). It got cancelled. The crew of the NSEA Protector are still touring sci-fi fan conventions, having to put up with smart-arse kids asking too many questions about the plausibility of technology presented, and so on.
And then one day, a hung-over former starship captain Jason Nesmith (Tim Allen) gets taken to what he believes is a group of fans putting together an amateur film project. While the group of identically-clad people are indeed fans, they are in fact from a different planet altogether. The Thermians (including Enrico Colantoni as their leader, and Rainn Wilson) have picked up broadcasts of Galaxy Quest "historical documents" from Earth, and now they've come to get help from the legendary spaceship crew ...
Nesmith manages to get the rest of the team (Sigourney Weaver, Alan Rickman, Tony Shalhoub, Sam Rockwell and Daryl Mitchell) assembled, and they boldly go where no humans have gone before. Hilarity ensues.
Film review: Dark Harbor (1998), directed by Adam Coleman Howard
General Plot:
A couple is driving along a rainy road and they argue a little. When they drive past a man who collapses, they stop. The husband wants to call the police but the “young man” says no cops so they end up driving him to the town. A couple of things happen and this “young man” ends up staying with the couple.
End of General Plot
Okay, that’s all I can tell you without giving you spoilers, so from here on it could be spoilers. But I have to tell you that if you can’t figure out the entire plot after twenty minutes, then you suck, and if you’re not an Alan Rickman fan then I don’t even think you want to see the movie. So you decide if you care about spoilers or not, if not, then let's see what I can say about this one.
Why do I keep calling him “young man”? He is bound to have a name, right? Yes, you would think that the director or scriptwriter would come up with a name for all the three characters in this movie (yes, basically it’s just three people in the entire movie) but no, the young man has no name. So I will call him Jack. Just because. He does introduce himself in the movie I think … but I can’t for the life of me remember what he said, or I just imagine that introduction.
Anyway, Jack is homeless and he says he can’t write but he is a poet and he is dark, mysterious and I think he is supposed to be handsome in some way, but I just can’t really see it. The woman is very unhappy in her relationship with her husband (played by Alan Rickman, of course) and he seems … well, sometimes unhappy and sometimes just bored with her and sometimes happy, so I guess I don’t really know (well, I did kind of know, since I knew the ending ten minutes into the movie, but still). They save him and he ends up in the house on the island (of course it has to be an island, because otherwise it can’t be a storm so they can’t call anyone … yes, not kidding you, that is what happened) and they, well … hang out? They yell some, they talk some more, the husband leaves sometimes and then our young man tries to seduce the woman, it doesn’t really work and so on … It’s boring, people!
Booo-ring!
The director thinks that just with some “scary” music and a woman in a shower we are supposed to be scared, or a woman running through the forest in her nightgown (yes, not kidding you, it’s in there! The picture of the woman running on the cover of the movie is much scarier than when she actually does it in the movie), not to mention the so obviously pretended argument between the two men when the husband runs after the young man as if “he was going to kill him”. Unfortunately nothing scary happens. Even The Blair Witch Project is scarier than this movie - and I did not get scared by than one, sorry to those of you who did, but … the scene where Harry gets grabbed by Inferi in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince movie were scarier than that entire movie! So called scary music and so called scary environment does not a scary movie make. Sorry, Mr. Director, but you suck. No, you don’t get a free pass for making the movie in 1998 either, a good movie is timeless. (The warning with age limit 15 is just crazy!)
Of course, the acting of my lovely Alan Rickman is superb, but I never expected anything more or less from him, Jack (Norman Reedus) is pretty good to and the woman (Polly Walker) is okay I guess, but with a bad storyline, crappy script and an obvious ending, not even my Rickman can save this one.
So … why am I still going all “SQUEE!” after watching it? Yes I did! Because of the last minutes of it. Alan Rickman is on this boat (the wife is dead and we didn’t even get to see it happen!) and he undresses … EVERYTHING! Yes, you heard me! EVERYTHING! HE IS NAKED! (If you pause and watch you can even see his … well, you know … not that I did or anything … yet …) and he jumps into the sea, swims and walks butt naked up the stairs to the house. And we get to see it! Naked Alan Rickman from behind! Come on, that is well worth all the squee in the world! But not only that, oh no, when you think you might die of happiness, the young man arrives and they KISS! A real, on the mouth (well, you don’t get to see that much unfortunately, but it’s supposed to be anyway), kiss! I think I can die happy now … *crumbles to the floor in a pile of happy goo*
(Guess I don’t have to tell you the twist of this movie now, do I?)
This film review was brought to you by guest blogger Leffe, who is a devout Alan Rickman fan. She normally blogs (in Swedish only, sorry!) at her brand new blog Unileffum, about a wide variety of topics. She currently studies to be a teacher while also being a busy politician and my fellow GM at Rollspelet Svenska Hogwarts and my partner in crime when it comes to writing about "Merulafisk", so needless to say, she's a Richard Armitage fan too. :)
Would you like to be a guest blogger at The Squeee? Let me know through email (blog at traxy dot co dot uk)! For more information on guest blogging, please see the "About" page!
Film review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010), directed by David Yates
Instead of half-botching the book by trying to fit everything into one film, they've actually decided to let the final one be played out over a couple of films. Side effect: more money for Warner Bros., and more Potterverse for the fans, yay!
The trio have decided not to go back to Hogwarts, but in fact stand up and fight. Or at least try to find the remaining horcruxes that Dumbledore vaguely mentioned before he died. They get chased and spend a lot of time in a tent. They argue, split up, get attacked, get back together again and so on.
In this first half of the book, it's four deaths and a wedding, more or less. The downside is that I had just finished reading the book, so the things I wanted to be in the film weren't, and things were changed and bits were missing and all that. Some I can see the point of, such as that they didn't eavesdrop on Dean Thomas outside the tent, but others were a shame, like Kreacher turning out to be a really nice guy deep down and that all he needed was a bit of kindness. Or Lupin's angst. I was really looking forward to that last part! And nothing! For shame!
Because they haven't bothered to include certain things in the previous films, all of a sudden, Bill Weasley (Brendan Gleeson's son Domhnall!) drop out of nowhere and from nowhere, he's going to marry "hey isn't that the French girl from the fourth film, Fleur wossname?" (yes, yes it is). Their relationship was never introduced in the 6th film, so it's a bit of a surprise. And where's Charlie Weasley, anyway?
This is my slightly longer than anticipated comment on ‘Rise and Rise Again’ – 100 YEARS OF ROBIN HOOD: Part Two. Today the Google Alert summary on Richard Armitage actually yielded 100% articles about the actor, as opposed to the former US secretary of state ... and a US murder victim. I'm surprised - and delighted. As the comment turned out to be surprisingly long, well, I can post it here too. Because I can. *cough*
Det är Robin Hood jag vill ... jag vill haaa!
Leaving 2006 aside for a mo, I LOVE the Disney film. I know it almost by heart in Swedish (which, imho, has better voice acting than the original – shock horror). Prince of Thieves is fun in a “yeah Kevin Costner is soooo from Nottingham … not” and the best part is Alan Rickman’s sheriff.
Men in Tights is brilliant (“I am a Robin Hood who DOES have an English accent!”), and features Matthew Porretta as Will Scarlett – the actor who went on to play Robin in that godawful New Adventures series. He left after 20-odd episodes, I believe, which meant that ALL the impetus to watching that show disappeared. The acting for the most part was sub-standard, the scenography and costumes ridiculous, the script atrocious. The ONLY thing that made it watchable was Robin being super-gorgeous, and when he was replaced, well, bye-bye.
Beyond Sherwood Forest was a joke! A painfully bad joke. The Ridley Scott movie I haven’t seen, but hoping to do so now that it’s coming out on DVD.
Robin and his Hoodies
And so, 2006. Thought series one was pretty bad, so didn’t follow series two, just caught the odd episode here or there. Followed series three from the start, because Toby Stephens was set to be in it as Prince John (to my delight, his character much resembled the Disney counterpart!) – and fell in love with Gisborne from episode one! Previously, I had already noted the baddies were a lot more interesting than the goodies, but this just confirmed it.
The Robin character was too obnoxious to really enjoy (and I really WANTED to like him – but the way he treated Much just made him look like a schoolground bully) and on a subsequent re-watch of the whole thing, the only character that there seems to be some sort of depth to is Gisborne. Credit to the actor for making the character come alive, rather than just work with what was on the sheet, which (judging by the rest of the show) wasn’t a lot. That being said, I’ve no qualms whatsoever with Jonas Armstrong, I think he did a really good job. I just didn’t like the character he was playing. And when you, as an audience, is made to root for the bad guy simply because the hero is an arrogant, arrow-toting numbscull (and, which s3 confirmed, had been since he was a child), it just doesn’t work.
Robin lost the love of his life, end of s2, but in s3, he was busy hitting on Kate and the only one that seemed to grieve for Marian, and even REMEMBER her past episode one, was Gisborne. Who killed her! HOW does that work?! It doesn’t and I’m actually glad the show got cancelled. A Robin Hood without Robin Hood (and the Sheriff – Keith Allen was magnificent, bless) just isn’t Robin Hood. S3 was actually a lot stronger than the previous two, so while killing off Marian didn’t make ANY sense from a legend point of view, it made a lot of sense from a dramatic one, as it made the show a lot more interesting. “They killed off Marian – what else are they going to do?” So I have to admit I’ve got a love/hate thing going on with this show. Hate it because it could’ve been a lot better and they could’ve made Robin likable, like he normally is, in any other version ever. Love it because Sheriff Vasey was hilarious and Gisborne was really intriguing as a character.
"Gisborne, did she just manage to write a rather long post and
not once bring up how much she fancies the breeches off you?"
"First time for everything, sir, even for her."
"No mention of Nottingham either. We shall have to have A Word."
According to Expressen, who got the low-down from the Daily Express, a survey by Debenhams has revealed men are still seen as attractive until the age of 55. Seriously, they needed a survey to tell us that? I thought the evidence of hotness in guys over 50 was pretty obvious already:
Exhibit A: Mark Harmon (1951)
Exhibit B: Pierce Brosnan (1953)
Exhibit C: William Petersen (1953)
Exhibit D: Alan Rickman (1946)
Exhibit E: Sam Neill (1947)
I'm starting to stray into the 60s here, back to the 50s!
Exhibit F: Ken Olin (1954)
Exhibit G: Jeff Bridges (1949)
Woops, relapse, let's over-compensate:
Exhibit H: George Clooney (1961)
I could go on. A lot longer than this. Richard Madeley, Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons, Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, Martin Sheen - and sons (they're not 50 yet, are they?), Harvey Keitel, Rik Mayall, Bruce Willis, Bruce Boxleitner, Richard Dean Anderson, Michael Douglas, Mel Gibson, Timothy Dalton ... No really, I could go on!
In fact, a friend and I once tried putting together a list of over-50s who still have "it" (it's potentially amusing, if you can understand Swedish), because funnily enough, we're very similar when it comes to a lot of things - a "fetish for older men" included. Or at least that's what people have claimed that I have over the years. Scandalous slander, I say! Richard Armitage is only 11 years my senior, and he doesn't really count as an "older man" now, does he? And that's my number one obsession at the moment, next to Jane Eyre, of course. And Toby Stephens is only early 40s.
This was something I posted as a comment on Avalon's Blog a few weeks ago, on the subject of why we love Guy of Gisborne of BBC's Robin Hood. Well, here's my reasoning behind loving the Man in Black:
In a show where he was just meant to be a one-dimensional baddie, he turned out to be the hero. The transition from stereotypical goon, the sheriff's evil sidekick who leaves babies in the woods to die to lovestruck puppy - and later on very wounded puppy, and then fierce puppy - and angst-ridden emo to Man with a Tragic Past and then redeems himself... That range of emotion is very compelling to watch. A show where you don't root for the supposed hero (because the hero is a stuck-up brat) but for the guy you're supposed to hate - it's a bit confusing, but an interesting change to normal proceedings.
A lot of the appeal of Gisborne is RA, though, that can't be forgotten. If someone else had played him, I doubt the show would've had the fanbase it now does, because it's RA who lifts a mediocre character from a mediocre script and makes him three-dimensional and human. He's made Gisborne into someone who isn't just a cardboard cutout, but a man you can't help but sympathise with.
Even though RH as a series definitely wasn't the best, at least the humanity Gisborne turned out to have made the show stand out. Alan Rickman may have done a brilliant job as the sheriff, but the character was still just a fairly generic baddie. BBC Gizzy is ambitious and dangerous, but at the same time, passionately in love and capable of great deeds, if given the chance. The man was flawed, deeply flawed, but given his background, we can glimpse where he's coming from and forgive him.
Might say more about us fans than the Giz himself that we're quite happy to forgive he murdered his love interest in cold blood, but still. He's not just a standard baddie, but rather a Lost Soul... and those tend to be irresistible.
Good evening, everyone - I'd especially like to welcome any newcomers who have found the blog through the Richard Armitage FanstRAvaganza. Thanks for following! :)
Today is St. Patrick's Day, the Republic of Ireland's national day, celebrated amongst the Irish, Irish descendents, or just friends and fans of the Emerald Isle everywhere in the world. I'm in the "friends and fans" category. I'm currently doing a course in Celtic Studies, I'm a big fan of traditional Irish folk music, and the time period I'm most interested in in Irish history is approximately 1825-1925 or so. That period covers emigration, potato famine, the Easter Rising and the Civil War.
However, this is not a political or historical or religious blog, so celebrating will be in the shape of film. Two Irish films I particularly like are Neil Jordan's Michael Collins (1996) and Ken Loach's The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006). Same time period, similar topic.
Film review: Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006), directed by Tom Tykwer
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer is an intensely creepy film! It starts in a rather gory way, with Jean-Baptiste Grenouille being born to a fishmonger in 18th century France, who throws him on the discard pile, where she normally throws her stillborn babies. Except this time, the baby isn't dead ...
As she's left him there to die, she gets caught and hung, and the baby taken to an orphanage. There, he nearly gets smothered by the other kids, but is rescued by the lady who owns the place. Some years pass, the child doesn't speak, but he smells a lot... as in, his olfactory senses are very precise and impressive... although he probably does smell a lot as well, considering how dirty they all are.
Some further years later, he's learned to speak and is sold to a tanner, i.e. people who turn animal skins into leather, and another few years in that rank environment, he (now played by Ben Whishaw) gets to help delivering the leather around town, and finds a girl. This is a smell new to him, intoxicating... and not to actually spoil things too much, he ends up working for a has-been of a perfume maker (Dustin Hoffman), who sees his fortunes turned around by this young man who claims to have the best nose in the world. There, he wants to know how to capture smells, every smell, and keep them, but the perfume maker's method of extraction doesn't quite work for what he has in mind...
Been busy with stuff recently... and at the same time, not more than usual. Oh well.
On the Squeee front...
Couldn't help myself, so I've started on North & South by Elizabeth Gaskell... Think I'm on chapter six so far, and from sneaking a peak, I think it's in the next chapter (i.e. 7) where she first encounters dear Thornton.
I've watched Jane Eyre '73 and been ogling some spin-off books on Amazon (waiting to get a voucher to buy them). Also been reading some... I think I've read past the shoelace scene. It's somewhere around when Blanche et al are at Thornfield anyway.
Saw the Heroes and then the Heroines episodes of the documentary Reader, I Married Him yesterday, and for the first time, found myself disagreeing with Daisy Goodwin. Something she was saying about Rochester "marrying a mad woman for her money" had me exclaiming, "Oi! He was tricked into that marriage! He didn't know she was mad, and he didn't marry her for the money, his relations made the match for her money, not him!" Soo... anyway... *cough* It was followed up by Seriously Dirty Dancing with the wonderful Dawn Porter. Incidentally, Dirty Dancing was shown on Fiver last night, but I didn't see it. I do have a bit of a craving now, though. Maybe I'll get out the DVD to cheer me up, because another program on telly last night managed to get me down. Sigh.
And he's an actor too! It's a Welsh guy called Ronan Vibert, whom I just spotted in Tristan + Isolde. He does look tremendously like a mixture of those two handsome fellows. :)
This is a general hommage to my favourite baddies from films and TV! :D The deliciously malicious people who you might love to hate, or hate to love... or just outright fancy. Whatever floats your boat. Most, if not all, of my favourite baddies are either Magnificent Bastards or Smug Snakes according to the TV Tropes Wiki. The two personality types being quite similar. What would Freud say?
If I could make out in which order I prefer them, I would list them like that, but since I can't, I'll just go with an A-Z. So to speak. The links are to YouTube clips for the most part.
