Meanwhile, on Twitter...

• 01:04 Does the news that Jo Grant's returning to the Whoniverse mean that we're one step closer to getting an Ace revival? #
• 10:58 Oh, hey, Marvel Zombies just got awesome again. #
• 12:20 Apparently it's BritWeek 2010 in LA, to celebrate the UK's contribution to California. Playing butlers and villains in action movies. #
• 14:36 "Feel free to start worshipping me as a god immediately. So long as your worship takes the form of beer. Or there will be smiting." #
• 14:46 Hmm. So, no new Bond because it looks like MGM's about to go tits up: www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/apr/20/007-film-delayed-mgm-debt #
• 15:02 Proving that haytors existed before the internet, and in the most unlikely circles, the best author vs author putdowns: bit.ly/9w1Tr5 #

Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

Tony Stark may be a dick, but he really can dance

Musing on Buffy

So, I finished watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 3 on DVD last night and was trying to remember - was that the point where the show stopped being good? Oh, I can remember some nice parts from later series, but they seemed to get fewer and farther between. It's only now, looking back on a season I haven't watched in eight years or something, that I recall how entertaining the show was.

Oh, certainly not flawless and there's plenty in the show that's worse than I remember (OMG MELODRAMA. HAHA GAY JOKES), but from before Whedon started to become a predictable caricature of himself. It seemed to be a slow decline after that and somehow the show ended up someplace I didn't care for or about. What was it? The loss of the high school setting? The introduction of the boring supporting characters? The sidelining of Xander and the loss of some of the other memorable supporting cast? The fact that Whedon identified himself as a feminist but increasingly began to victimize his female characters?

Or was it always bad and I never noticed? I mean, I come back to it now and it does seem like Whedon consistently pairs physical strength in women with some form of emotional fucked-up-ness, almost as if they have to exist side by side. Or that there's something "wrong" with women who have casual sex. (I'm thinking Faith, here, particularly, who's up front with her sexuality and therefore "bad".) That's a trope that's as old as time, seemingly, but it seems at odds with Whedon's self proclaimed feminist credentials. The vampire Willow being all heightened sexuality and described as a tramp does make me cringe, still.

But there's still something likable about early Buffy which is definitely missing from later seasons. I'm hard pressed to put my finger on what, though. Maybe it's the villains. There's no doubt in my mind that Spike and Dru were bloody good fun. The Master was a good subversion of the arch-villain archetype. And the Mayor, well, gosh, he was just wonderful.

It just seems like this was the last season I genuinely enjoyed, rather than taking the "well, bits of it were good" view.

Am I wrong? Right? Just babbling? You decide.

Also, what the hell happened to Nicholas Brendon's career? I never see him anymore.

Review: Cemetery Junction

I decided, on a whim, to go to the cinema after work tonight. (Okay, it wasn't entirely a whim. I'd had to pay or car parking and decided to make the most of it.) I was contemplating going to see Kick Ass, despite myself, but for some bizarre reason there was only one showing today, in the middle of the day. So I would up going to see Ricky Gervais and Steve Merchant's Cemetery Junction instead.

I have to admit, it's not a movie I'd intended to see. I think The Office and Extras are wonderful, but it's become very clear that Ricky Gervais is a one trick pony as a performer and the sight of him on the film poster in white shirt and leather jacket, trying to look all John Travolta in Grease was enough to turn me off.

However, the poster's completely misleading. Gervais is in it, but in a minor role as the father of the central character and certainly nothing like the poster portrays him as. He's rather miscast and, as usual, plays himself and is a little too sharp and snappy to convincingly portray his part of an ignorant factory worker.

However, that aside, what's the movie about?

It's the Summer of 1973 in small town England and Freddie (the impossibly handsome Christian Cooke) is just starting his new job selling life insurance for self-made, cut-throat businessman Ralph Fiennes. He still hangs out with his lifetime friends - Bruce (the impossibly handsome Tom Hughes), who's the leather jacket wearing James Dean wannabe who's out every night, chasing women, getting into fights and generally rebelling without cause, and Snork, named after the Banana Splits character and every bit as farcical and idiotic.

At which point Freddie discovers his new boss' daughter is childhood sweetheart Julie (the impossibly beautiful Felicity Jones) and she opens his eyes to the small town existence, making him reevaluate his life and friendships and yaddah yaddah yaddah. In other words, pretty much every small town, coming of age story in the history of cinema. With everyone young and startlingly attractive.

And that's the main problem with the movie. It's nicely performed by an appealing cast, is rich in period atmosphere, has some occasional decent dialogue, but it's very pedestrian, very safe and very much a case of "been there, done that" in place of any of the discomfort or originality you'd expect from Merchant and Gervais. It's far too easy to predict from the first how the individual's stories will be resolved and the movie doesn't confound any expectations. And, in addition, is an almost laugh-free zone. The bits that are meant to be funny are rendered bland by poor comic timing as they're dragged down by the sedate pace of the rest of the movie or, in the case of satirizing and pricking attitudes of the day, such as Freddie's family's casual racism, it's done lazily and badly. An episode of Love Thy Neighbour has as much to say about racism in Britain in the 1970s as this movie. Gervais is no Alf Garnett.

And then there's the idea that the Reading suburb the trio of friends is stuck in is somewhere they'd be desperate to escape from, but instead of being all grimy factories and colourless offices, they appear to have chosen to film it in an attractive village setting, all thatched cottages and village greens.

The colourful and attractive setting only detracts from occasional moments of genuine pathos, such as the gut-wrenching look on an insurance salesman’s face as he retires after 42 years and is presented with a cheap cut-glass fruit bowl and a horribly inappropriate and dismissive speech from Ralph Fiennes's boss from hell. More such unexpected bitterness and a genuine feeling of these being places and people the central characters would be desperate to escape from would have strengthened the film, as opposed to dippy Snork’s Baldrick schtick. It's all a bit too nice and the darker characteristics of Julie's slimy fiance and father and genuinely gritty and oppressive surroundings and home lives for the central characters would have made the desire to escape have seemed understandable. As it is, the characters don't really seem to have as much to complain about as they seem to think they do.

All this said, there are moments to enjoy and the whole film is inoffensive and even enjoyable. The climax is genuinely warm and life-affirming and there's some striking cinematography and some impeccable production design work. The movie looks great, sounds great and is attractively and charismatically performed by its cast of relative unknowns. It's not a bad movie, by any means, but coming from the stable it's from, it all just seems to be rather toothless.