"It's Life Jim, But Not As We Know It..."

Since the dawn of my self-awareness, I have often wondered, what if many of the scientific assumptions we based our knowledge of the universe on were wrong? The furthest we have gone into space is a little bit outside our own solar system (and that was by a probe, not a manned craft), so many of the facts that we have gathered about other planets have come from viewing telescope pictures of them and making calculations based on those. They could be right, yes, but as the old maxim goes: "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them."

For instance, take Mars, an apparently lifeless planet. The reason I say apparently lifeless is that telescopes cannot see underground. This is relevant because there could be life underground. Our own planet hosts moles and other such life underground, so why can't others? People may argue that the lack of water on Mars makes it incapable of supporting life, but intelligent life need not be like us. In saying 'life needs certain elements to live', scientists are using life found here on Earth as the template. Just as humans have adapted to their surrounding by evolution, so could other life forms. I am informed that they've sampled the soil on Mars, but you can go outside and do that right now, it's literally just grabbing a handful of dirt. You cannot extrapolate 'no life' from a handful of dirt.

The knee-jerk reaction of most people to a new idea is scepticism. This is the origin of the phrase 'seeing is believing' and I believe that we have to embrace the new, good ideas if we are to progress to the stars. This is why I admire Star Trek, it inspired a generation of nerds to dream of life on other worlds, an exciting life. The spirit of the future is a drive to know more, a thirst for exploration, and I love that idea. It gives people something to aim for, and hope for the future.

And what about other areas of the universe? We don't know what lies beyond black holes, we claim that going faster than the speed of light is an impossibility, yet just because we haven't done these things doesn't mean they can't be done. Because of this, generally the only way to conclude something by my system is to go there and test it out for yourself. So the astronauts of tomorrow will be brave men and women who take unheard of risks, such as the aforementioned black hole thing. Yes, there is obviously an element of danger involved, but who knows what we might discover?

This is why I don't like to impose my beliefs or lack thereof on other people, since I don't know any more than they do. None of us do. We are essentially making guesses about the universe that have yet to be disproved. Now, I'm not a scientist, so I welcome any criticism or comments that you may care to make.

Time Is Conspiring Against Him. Hell Of A Persecution Complex...

Anyone who hasn't seen Doctor Who or who gets offended when I criticise it, skip this blog.

Harry Potter on crack. That was what I thought when I saw the opening scenes of the new Doctor Who special, The End Of Time. First impressions - biometric imprints taken from lips long after The Master died, Potions Of Life, A KANGAROO MASTER - what the hell were they smoking?! I was half expecting Lucy Saxon to yell 'Expelliarmus' to kill her former husband, but no, we got some sort of DEATH POTION. This turned The Master gleefully insane, which was fascinating to watch. John Simm plays this role gloriously well (some might say a little too well), while you can really see the emotion in David Tennant's eyes as he nears the end of his time as The Doctor.

The acting in this episode is bloody brilliant, you will see nothing to beat it this year. The actors throw themselves into their roles with great energy and emotion. Timothy Dalton was actually spitting as he was speaking his lines (the few he had) and as previously mentioned, John Simm was positively feral, more like wolf than man. Admittedly a flying wolf, but you have to allow some writing license. Bernard Cribbins was also a good companion for Tennant's Doctor, as they are both nearing death (in Bernard Cribbins' case, probably quite literally).

This episode did have some good moments as well as bad, one of which is the expression on the Doctor's face when he works out what the Master's plan is (and I loved the Master race pun). There were actually a few 'oh crap' moments in this episode, each of which was beautifully well done.

The thing I love about this episode is the idea that time itself is conspiring against him. Not just the Master, time. Like the title of this review says, that would be one hell of a persecution complex. It is set up in such a way that you know he is a doomed man but that he's trying to fight it as best as he can. That's the most that any of us can do when faced with our own deaths, really. Although I don't think that time itself tries to kill us.

Oh, and the usual cliché of the Doctor walking away from some flames in slow motion is slightly changed in this episode. It's changed because he's still doing the 'slow mo flame walk' but The Master hits him in the chest with a lightning bolt. Idiot.

I didn't enjoy this episode as much as I have some others, because it all seemed closer to Harry Potter than Doctor Who, what with all the life-force hurling and kangaroo jumping and such, and this episode is better if you skip the first ten minutes and just know that the Master comes back. That said, it was still pretty good and quite engaging. Bottom line, this was one of the better specials produced this year. By all means, try to check it out while you can on the iPlayer.

Merry Blogmas, And To All A Good Blog...

With Christmas just around the corner, I felt now more than ever would be a fitting time to write up a little Christmas blog. So I'm going to give all of you a little present in the form of a hopefully entertaining Christmas post. No Christmas would be quite complete without the same round of repeats of Only Fools And Horses holiday specials and the same old clip shows that you see every single year. You will also see a lot of compilation shows of Chrimbo number ones and things like that.

Rather oddly, I can't really find many movies on at this time of year worth watching. The only one of remote interest to me is Blade Runner, which is not in the least bit Christmassy (still good though). You thought there would be A Christmas Carol and Its A Wonderful Life, etc. Instead, we get the aforementioned Blade Runner and The Hound Of The Baskervilles!

Tonight we get a Christmas edition of the excellent show QI. Haven't seen it yet, but it looks promising; I may end up reviewing it tomorrow as another present to my readers. Over on E4+1x5 as I write this is a Christmas episode of F.R.I.E.N.D.S, which is funny and vaguely in keeping with the Christmas spirit, that's always nice to see. I love Christmas, if only because it's one of the few days that I can eat a big damn plate of food and not get reprimanded for it.

Tomorrow there is a Christmas special of Doctor Who, which looks like it will be good. Obviously, I am looking forward to eating this over a cracking Christmas dinner with my family.

People complain about Christmas being a capitalist holiday that is only used for making money for the big department stores, but that's part of the appeal. Spending money on things that you normally don't have the money to buy or wouldn't buy is a good thing to do. If you don't have the best of incomes, it's one of the best times to be extravagant.

Christmas is traditionally celebrated as a time of peace, goodwill and 3 ghosts that appear for some reason. So I see no reason to not let that continue. If there's one good contribution Jesus made to the world (and there is), it's the holiday that was named in his honour.

So I'll leave you on this note. Life is too short to not share the love you have every once in a while. Enjoy the time that you spend with your family this year. Merry Christmas, and love to all my readers.

Do Androids Dream Of Owning This Movie? They Should...

This is a film that has been praised to hell and back since its release more than 25 years ago. When my dad picked up the dvd, I thought I would give it a try...

Blade Runner is one of Ridley Scott's most famous works (I am unacquainted with his other ones, such as Alien and Gladiator), which people have cited as starting the cyberpunk genre. This may be true, but the fact remains that the film, to the average moviegoer (which I consider), is confusing as hell. There are some philosopical meanings and ideas behind it, but I can see why this film didn't do too well at the box office when it came out. I spent half of the film thinking that the main Replicant creator was played by old Leonard Nimoy (as in Star Trek: The Next Generation or the New Trek) so I was distracted while I was waiting for the credits to prove me right (they didn't).

This is a film revolving around the detective Rick Deckard, who is tasked with finding four rogue android Replicants that have come to meet their designer and commit some light murder along the way. It has a reasonably well known speech from the end by a Replicant that people who haven't seen the film have heard before.

Harrison Ford enjoyed another turn in this film as a troubled leading man on a quest to do something or other. Thinking about it, that streak didn't really stop until the mid-90's or so. Rutger Hauer makes an interesting antagonist as the leader of the doomed Replicants. This film has a large amount of action in it, so any action fans will be pleased by that while those who like their films to make them think will not be left wanting.

Some aspects of the film are left unclear, such as if Deckard (Ford) is a Replicant or not (my opinion is that he is not), or what precisely a Blade Runner is. I know it's supposed to be Deckard's job, but he doesn't seem to be running any blades in the film. It sounds like it should be a film set in Mexico about knife smugglers.

In my personal opinion, it's not as good as Indiana Jones or Star Wars, but it's better than The Fugitive, so if you want a bit of Ford action without too much time on a trilogy, go with this one. It has a gritty used future feel to it, which is good to watch and was quite ground breaking at the time (if you discount Star Wars). It's basically Film Noir from the 80's. This wasn't really a film that I was enthusiastic about while watching, but it has a lot of questions and ideas designed to make you think, held together with well done action sequences and effects work.

Thinking about it, the only problem that I had with this film was that when I was watching it, a lot of the philosophical questions went over my head and the action mostly held my attention, but that might not be the case with you. I recommend this film as the good film it is, so find it and watch it.

If anyone wants to check this out, you can pick up the dvd from any good store (go for the Final Cut, if possible) or you can see it on the BBC iPlayer for the next two days or so.

Family Guy Strikes Back...

Some of you may have read my recent Blue Harvest review, in which I proclaimed my unholy love for that spoof of Star Wars by the creators of Family Guy. So naturally, as it's the same subject matter, this film strikes you immediately as more of the same. Which isn't a bad thing, they've kept the quality of the jokes and humour at roughly the same level. There are real-laugh out loud moments, some good points about the source material and some interesting bits.

This one is based on The Empire Strikes Back, just as Blue Harvest was based on A New Hope. Disappointingly, they use the power outage in the exact same way as they did in the first one. It's pretty faithful to the source material, although some would consider it to be too close to the source material to keep it as funny.

Something Something Something Dark Side (for that is its name) is an okay piece to look at. It's funny and all, but none of it is hilarious as the last one was in several places. I guess that's because the humour is focused less on the source material and more on observations on life that have been written into the Star Wars universe. Whereas most of the humour from Blue Harvest came from pointing out absurdities within the original film.

One complaint I have about this one is that it very much went for the whole 'quoting the film verbatim' thing. Blue Harvest stayed away from thieving half the dialogue from the film, but I suppose in a way it's necessary to move the story along. Except that's why you have writers. The original film wasn't really written very much with humour in mind, although there were some funny moments, and I'm not going to say 'much like this one' because that would be low and not really true.

Overall, I liked this one. It wasn't as good as it could be, but certainly worth a watch. It didn't make me laugh as hard as Blue Harvest did, but they set themselves such a fine bar to jump with Blue Harvest that they sort of collided with it on the way up. Definitely a day-one purchase in my book.

(Doctor) Who Watches This Show Anyway?

As one of my blogging buddies pointed out last night, why would you have a Doctor Who special of a comedically inclined music quiz? I'll tell you why, because it was damn funny. Doctor Who Never Mind The Buzzcocks (may not be its actual name) was a surprisingly funny edition of this show that I can normally take or leave.

David Tennant makes a excellent host, quite frankly, a much better one than he has any right to be. Catherine Tate is phenomenally stupid as one of the guests in this show, but it's of the laughing at rather than with kind of humour. Bernard Cribbins is funny as a somewhat crazy old bastard, interjecting with witty remarks and humour based on what is said to him. They obviously can't stray too far from the formula, so you do have the concessions to the world of music, such as a guest appearance by Jamie Cullum and somebody I am informed is called Jo Whiley. Being friends with a fangirl of Jamie Cullum, I naturally want to avoid him at all costs.

The elements of Doctor Who are well incorporated, with Catherine Tate revealing just how little of Doctor Who she is aware of. There is a somewhat welcome appearance from the TARDIS and a Dalek, among others, and some of the questions are Doctor Who related, although it would've been a nice touch to get one of the previous Doctors in for the Identity Parade round. I must admit, watching a full orchestra performing a certain beloved 80's song was one of the oddest things I have ever seen in my life.

Part of me doesn't really agree with the concept of having a Doctor Who christmas special of Never Mind The Buzzcocks, but that part is drowned out by the louder part that said this was fucking fantastic. It whet my appetite for more Who and kept my minimal Buzzcocks dislikin' part of me down for the day.

The only 'problem': I expected (and thought I was right) John Barrowman to be in this one. The reason I say problem is that he's been in it before and he's been in everything else, so it's no big loss.

Oh, actually, two problems. No Barrowman and no Tom Baker. He should've been in it! He is a true crazy old bastard and I'm sure people would've found him hysterical, as he's shown himself to be quite comedic on occasion. I'm not saying he should've been the host, but maybe one of the guests and he would've worked wonders.

Overall, I found this episode to be funnier than normal Buzzcocks, so if you're a fan of Doctor Who or Never Mind The Buzzcocks, then I as a general non-fan would urge you to check this out, as it is well worth the half hour of your time.

"Come On Watson, The New Movie Is Afoot!"

As I write this, the new Sherlock Holmes movie is coming out in less than two weeks. On my birthday, in fact. If I can drag my woman to it, I plan to have a review of it up here the day afterwards. But for now, I must find myself content with offering a preview to anyone who wants to read it.

This movie (from what I can gather of the thrice-viewed trailer) appears to be a rougher, more action prone Holmes for the new generation. Both Holmes and Watson are played by handsome men (Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law respectively) in this Guy Ritchie directed movie. Considering Guy Ritchie directed the excellent gangster movie Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, that's no bad thing.

As with any adaptation of loved characters or franchises for a modern audience, I'm sure many people will be saying 'he doesn't do this in the books', or to put it another way 'MUR MUR MUR'. It's a new story for the new age, so there are naturally bound to be any number of elements that clash with Doyle's characterisations.

Mercifully, they appear to have concocted a fresh story for this movie, rather than resorting to adapting one of the many stories that have already been covered. The new story involves the same characters, a new villain and some choice names from the original stories (but a surprising lack of Moriaty as the film's villain, considering he is seen as the main villain of the series), such as Irene Adler and Mary Morstan as Watson's love interest.

Those of you who know me well (and that's all of you) will know that I have decided not to trust trailers, so I have decided to watch this film without really knowing a lot about it. To that end, the only research I have done for it is reading the Wikipedia article for the purposes of this preview. I wouldn't have watched the trailer at all but I didn't have any choice about it and fortunately I cannot remember much of it anyway.

As a keen Sherlockian myself, I loved the original stories and have tried the Sherlock Scan on many people without success. so I await this film and the results with great interest. To tide me over, I have a big compilation book of Doyle's stories by my side. Now off to read them...

"It's A Sign!"

I was lucky enough to be able to attend a Robert Rankin signing recently with one of my best friends, Sam. For those of you that are lucky enough to know me, you will know that Robert Rankin is one of my favourite authors of all time (I even wrote a blog post about it). There are a few things you should know about signings. Unless he or she is really obscure, the author will have fans by the bucketload. Therefore, you will be expecting to wait. Now, luckily, I was waiting for about two minutes yesterday, because he's not that well-known. However, if you have plans to go and see someone like J.K Rowling or someone as famous as her, then I'd suggest turning up an hour or more before the event or not going at all. Because the likelihood is that someone will be waiting. And that someone is you. For more than three hours.

If you go to the signing of an author who is relatively obscure (like I did) then you are one of the lucky ones. These will be the authors who are more enthusiastic about the large number of books you bring to be signed and the ones who are more keen to have a chat and spend a bit of time with each fan. I had a bit of chat and a laugh with him yesterday and found out why the cover was different than what he originally had planned, although he still made the finished version. I even got a free mince pie out of it, that's something you don't get with your massive book signings.

But it's not all about the author, of course. Often a signing turns into an outing, due to their inevitable location many a mile from you. It's at those times that the experience is worth it, as I went with a friend who was very tolerant of my nerdgasming, and we had a good day together that ended with him sleeping round mine. So it's a good way to spend a Saturday if you get the chance. Some books for your own collection or eBay, have a nice lunch or snacks and browse the shops and then home. Good day, well spent.

I've Got The X-Factor. But I Shouldn't...

As I listen to the latest discussions about the potential winner of this year's X Factor or I'm A Celebrity, I think, 'who gives a shit, honestly?' People look back to about ten years ago and say 'whatever happened to stuff like Beyblades or Pogs when we were kids?' I'll tell you what happened. Our tastes merely mutated from Kidulthood to Adulthood, so the latest sensation sweeping the nation is Jedward as opposed to Pokémon. Which, while still popular, is no longer 'craze' status.

The sad thing is, when you're watching Big Brother, X-Factor and I'm A Celebrity, the participants are often less famous than you, so you are watching a bunch of nobodies go about their lives, so much so that I swear farting is probably a highlight of the day. I'm surprised that the BBC has embraced the reality show genre, as the 2007 Royal Charter says its mission was to 'inform, educate and entertain'. Big Brother was hardly educational, wouldn't you agree?

While the tabloid publicised antics of Jade Goody and others were a marvellous spectacle for those who really didn't give a shit (obviously I would be one of those) I found the sudden elevation from nobody to somebody very jarring. If I ever get into show business, I want it to be because I have done something, not because I featured on some show before fucking off back into obscurity. Unfortunately, there are certain individuals who don't seem to understand the 'fucking off' bit. Among them, that highly disturbing pair of twins known as Jedward.

The first I saw of them was a YouTube video of their performance of them performing that Britney Spears song. I can't remember which one, but it had the bit about the Titanic lady in it. I didn't like that song anyway, but they mutilated it! The whole point of that video was that it was about two lovers, not a borderline incestuous relationship. They used that sequence where the old lady from Titanic is mentioned in their choreographed routine and it just grated to see it coming from two twins.

We should stop making reality television. It isn't funny, it's barely entertaining (the best bits of X-Factor are the nutjobs who can't sing) and it sure as hell isn't thought provoking. Normally I would dismiss it as me being old-fashioned again, but looking at it I find it very hard to see any good in it. People could make the argument that it puts talented people in the public eye, but to do what? To churn out one or two efforts and then go back to obscurity. Rarely do we see anyone whose fame has lasted long because of this.

I, for one, am sick of it. Sick of all the Facebook status updates bemoaning the latest eviction or kick out and gossiping, sick of seeing the front pages of the tabloids focusing on these obscure fuckers who got up on some stage and sang and I am especially sick of seeing and hearing all the adverts for their post-competition singles EVERY SINGLE YEAR*.

Which brings me on to another thing. Invariably, the winner of X-Factor will have a Christmas single, and the cattle of the British public will go out and buy it by the truckload. And a truck is exactly where the soullessly produced singles should go - a truck that is driving towards a landfill.



*I am also sick of the slow loading speed of Wordpress.

"Damn, Now I Need A New Unblowupable Mind..."

Short, thought-provoking and intelligent. No, I'm not describing an Oompa-Loompa, but Scott Adam's book, God's Debris. Those of you who are aware of the humorous comic strip Dilbert may not know that a few years back, the creator went in a wildly different direction with two thought experiments wrapped in books. This is the first. I shall discuss the second at the end of the blog.

The central premise of this book is that the protagonist meets an old man who knows everything about Life, The Universe, And Everything. The charm of the book is that you come away (if it worked - the writer wrote hypnosis into the book) marvelling at the sense it makes and how it all fits together. I first read it as an eBook when Adams offered it free online, and I was absolutely blown away. Naturally, I went on to order it from my local bookstore.

I should explain, I read this book twice. The first time, I misinterpreted the message of the book slightly and thought that it was sending out a straight-up atheist message that there was no God. As a result it depressed me in a big way. Then, when I came back to it, I saw it in a whole new light and I felt enlightened all over again. I took some tips from the book and it really helped me as a person and in dealing with people. In fact, I'd say it probably kick-started my whole happiness phase. Take the fact that I can't really remember much of anything before that as you will.

There is so much going for this book: it's smart, it has a really nice cover (a nebula background over space, with the names discreetly printed over it) and it is short, meaning that you can just dip in and out and probably have enough time to absorb one whole chapter. At 128 pages, it is pretty damn short, but you come away feeling like you got value for money (especially if you get the free eBook from the link at the bottom of this blog).

This was followed by a sequel a few years later, The Religion War. This one can't be downloaded as a free eBook, unfortunately, so you can't try it out before you read. The thought experiment is now wrapped up in a more coherent plot, with the protagonist getting more of a developed role in this book. I enjoyed this book too, but not as much as God's Debris, as that numbers among one of my top ten favourites. Scott Adams clearly hadn't heard of the concept of subtlety when he wrote this book. God's Debris vaguely hid the ideas that it contains, whereas The Religion War asks you the religious questions point blank at the end of the book. So it is still good, but not as good as the first one. Which is the case with most sequels, really.

If you like having your mind blown, then I highly recommend you take the hour or two out of your day and give this cracking book a read.

Free eBook: http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

No, Mister Bond, I Expect You To Blog...

James Bond practically invented the action genre. Fast cars, fast women, gadgets and witty heroes who always save the day from world domination are all hallmarks of the Bond franchise, which is now at 22 films and counting. After 20 films, the makers of the franchise decided it needed a bit of a reboot. So they brought in a new pretty boy (Daniel Craig) to play Bond, went back to the beginnings of the character and downplayed the kooky gadgets introduced in each film. They also dialled down the 'disposable woman' factor from the previous films. The only Bond girl they had in Casino Royale was one of the loves of Bond's life, and a character whose legacy carries over into the next film. The thing I don't like about the reboots as they are really just 'Bond for the Noughties'. But we had that. It was called Die Another Day!

It is a good idea to show Bond's beginnings, but did they have to get 9/11 involved? I know it was a tragedy and all, but that is precisely why it shouldn't be involved in a Bond film. The films involve fantastical plots to dominate the world, not terrorism attacks, people go to films to escape that sort of thing. Fair enough, that would be what MI6 deals with nowadays, but it's not what you see a Bond film for. I don't like the 'gritty realism' feel that they've gone for. It feels like they've tried too hard to embrace what they feel modern audiences like to see. I don't want to see man-tits in a Bond movie, because I am not attracted to man-tits (like most of the viewers, most probably), for I am not of that orientation. And in the end, Bond films are very much MAN FILMS (the capitals were entirely necessary), so the only possible reason they could've put those in there was to give the film mass appeal. It doesn't need to appeal to women, it has enough men and teenagers that will line up in droves to watch a new Bond film.

In many ways, what Bond always came across as was a representation of the producer's ideas of a perfect man. Smart, sophisticated, but not afraid to get down and dirty when he needs to. He is also what most men aspire to be, as he drives fast cars, uses the top gadgets and can easily charm his way into any woman's heart/pants (delete as applicable).

The way I see it, the best Bond films are the ones that can remain timeless throughout the years. These tend to be the ones that aren't really linked to current events. Goldeneye was a pleasantly enjoyable film (although not one of my favourite films ever) because it didn't really focus on the 'big issues in our climate today'. Eventually, when 9/11 is nothing more than a bitter memory, that film will seem tired and dated. Which brings me to the second reboot film, Quantum Of Solace. It serves as a direct sequel to the first, with plot threads carried on from the first. It deals with Bond's attempts to move past his personal quest for vengeance (didn't they do this in Licence To Kill? He even escaped in much the same way from the MI6 personnel), while associating with, but ultimately never screwing, another Bond Girl who is also on a quest for vengeance. There was one slightly improbable bit that turned me off the film (namely, Bond punching a bike to flip it over. I didn't know he was Hancock!), but it holds up as an okay piece of film making. It wasn't a film that compelled me to see it again, and I'd be happy if I never saw it again as long as I lived.

All in all, the new films feel too much like a shift in tone to a style that makes it hard for me to fully enjoy them. I don't like them, but you might. If you like man-tits and terrorism (never thought I'd say that), then check out these films.

This Countdown Won't Stop At 007...

I was reading through my old blog posts yesterday when I noticed that in one of my first blogs I said I would soon be doing a run-down of my top favourite movies. It won’t be in any particular order, because I can’t ever sort these out into any particular order. Same with books.

Number one, Star Wars. For sheer impact and imagination, this is probably one of the best movies of all time. It’s certainly deserving of being in this top ten. This ends up in a whole lot of top tens because it is a damn good movie. They got the whole ‘used future’ effect down really well. They include a lot of homages to classic movies while creating a fantastic and compelling story at the same time. Well worth the price of admission or dvd.

Number two, The Man From Earth. I won’t say much about this movie, as I have already reviewed it (it can be found late October on my blog calendar). Suffice to say it is a truly intriguing and well written movie about an immortal who has lived an extremely long life. Other than that, he is very similar in characterisation to you or me. It truly is a beautifully written and compelling film, I urge you all to see it somehow.

Number three, Back To The Future. For as the old adage goes (if indeed there is such an adage), the first one is the best. It is at heart a love story, but not in the way you might expect. Yes, everyone’s favourite time traveller has a girlfriend but their relationship is the one with the least screen time. The thing I love about this story is that it is just about a guy who is trying to get back to his own time, not actively out to change things, and what he does change he changes back or makes it better. This has probably one of the best examples of a happy ending for almost all parties involved, and yet it doesn’t feel cheesy in the way that happy endings normally do.

Number four, Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade. Again, have already reviewed this movie, my review of same can be found in the early days of November. I like this movie because it perfected the Indiana Jones formula and reached the perfect high of the franchise. It had great music, great stunts and great writing, as well as good acting – all helped by a plot steeped in well-known mythology.

Number five is one of my most highly loved comedic films: Hot Fuzz. This film parodied action films while showing an affectionate love for them at the same time. It included references to the director’s previous work, Shaun Of The Dead (another great film) while riffing on the situations that could occur and the way that crime is treated in the countryside. While parodying action films, it has stunts and action up there with the best of them, while in one way being better than them: it doesn’t deal in clichés. It mocks them but never unintentionally uses them. It also has some brilliantly gory moments, with two characters having particularly nasty things happen to them.

Number six is Highlander. The film that sparked off my love of the immortality concept. It is an action filled love story with guys hacking each other’s heads off with swords, as death by decapitation is the only way they can die. It is a well written and well directed movie, even if the special effects aren’t very good compared to standards of today. In one scene, you can even see the strings holding Christopher Lambert up. Normally that’s a phrase I level at Thunderbirds or Captain Scarlet. Mind you, it’s not as bad as the sequel. Pretty much nothing is as bad as the sequel. Never seen it? Be grateful.

Number seven is Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Boldly going where four films have gone before, it takes you on a jaw-droppingly beautiful trip through the center of the universe, with a heartening conclusion, that –

Nah, I’m just fucking with you. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. This film got the Star Trek formula done, and done well. It was actually funny, had a positive message behind it (although not one I care about, I don’t want to ban films from putting messages across) and it had the easy interaction that comes with actors who’ve known each other for 20 years. To me, this is what I love to see. A nice group interaction of people who have known each other for a long time and have bonded well over that time.

Number eight is Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure. This is a hilarious trip through space and time and the movie that made Keanu Reeves’ career take off (although Bill never really made it to the big time). The thing I love about this film is that it’s not too dramatic, and it is a damn funny film. It includes subtle jokes (one joke took me years to get) while opting for obvious humour that still shines as good writing and execution.

Coming in at number nine is Forrest Gump, one of Tom Hanks’ best movies. This is a movie that I believe everyone should see. It is about one guy who pops up in loads of places in history without really trying. It’s a heartwarming story of a disabled man trying to find happiness with his one true love. I love this film because it beautifully illustrates the contrast between two close people who got separated by life and the paths they take. Hanks is really convincing here as the IQ-deprived Gump of the title, it is an inspiring performance to behold for any aspiring actor.

And now we come to this, the final curtain. Futurama: Bender’s Big Score is the first of the direct to tv movies, and just behind the fourth in sheer funniness. If you like Futurama, you will love this. It tied beautifully into established continuity while adding an extra layer behind the scenes of the early episodes. This had me laughing heavily from beginning to end, and I’m sure it’ll have you doing so too.

The Book's The Thing

Anyone who knows me will know that one of the great loves of my life is reading. I have never counted, but would guess that I have over two hundred books in my possession. At this moment (not as this sentence is being typed, obviously) I have an eBook open on my laptop (Charles Darwin) and about two or three books that I have in my reading list. I have autobiographies, humour books, books of collected columns and more. In my room, there are books taking up much space on my shelves that I have to do reorganisation every once in a while. I have books behind books, on top of books and hidden away in boxes. So as you may have gathered, books are kind of my 'thing'. I'm not sure how I grew to love reading so much (apparently I used to hate it when I was younger), but I'm glad I did.

What I love about reading is that no matter what book you're reading, if it's a good one you're involved in it. You can absorb knowledge and interesting little nuggets from factual books, while a beautifully crafted tale can make you marvel at the wonders of the human language. Say anything you want about Jules Verne, for example, but he knew how to write a thrilling adventure story. Around The World In 80 Days is a damn good read. You can read the plot summary on Wikipedia or somewhere and yet you'd still read it because you want to see how it turns out.

In the same vein, somebody once asked me that if I'd already read a book, why would I read it again? The truth is, I forget the books after a while, so I read them again to refresh my memory, laugh at the jokes again or relearn something that I've forgotten. All of the books on my to-read list are ones that I've already read, apart from the eBook.

My love of writing probably stems from the part of me that loves books, because I read a good one and I think that I would love to write something like that. So that's part of what this blog is for, to shape up my writing skills. It also means that I can gauge the reactions of others to my writing and see what needs to be changed and such. I read Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events and they hugely influenced me. I cared more about grammar and writing styles, I learnt what words meant, appreciated the humour that the author used. They kept up a good story while teaching you something at the same time. I like books like that, it feels that I'm getting more than just a good read.

Some books you will never get on with, no matter how much everyone raves about them or how famous they are (this is why I don't try and force my tastes on people). For some people, the works of Jules Verne and Arthur Conan Doyle might fall into this category, while for others they might not agree with The Da Vinci Code. Those examples are highly contrasting except for the same common element: they draw different people in, who then rave about them to like-minded (and sometimes not so like-minded) people.

One of the things that I will need when I am older is a study, lined with books and containing a nice comfortable reclining chair or hammock to lie on and read, while serene music plays in the background.

With that said, I'm off to read a good book. I highly recommend that you do the same.