Luke Cage - Review

Dull, boring, illogical. Avoid.

The latest Netflix/Marvel collaboration, featuring the super-strong, bullet-proof 'Hero for Hire' Luke Cage, isn't up to the quality of either Daredevil seasons, or Jessica Jones. In fact, it's poor. No, worse than that, it's dull, shambling, messy, inconsistent, and just plain bad.

A dull, shambling, mess - see what I did there?

The Luke Cage character had already been introduced in last year's excellent Jessica Jones. This show takes place after that one, and Luke
has moved on from Hell's Kitchen to Harlem. Holding down two jobs (as a sweeper in friendly, wise, old-man, Pops' barber shop; and as kitchen dish-washer in the Harlem Night's nightclub, owned by "don't-call-me-Cottonmouth" Cottonmouth ... a local hood, with the veneer of respectability).

The story (such as it is) covers familiar ground. Cottonmouth, the nightclub owner, and arms dealer to the local gangs, is cousin to ambitious amoral councillor Mariah Callard. An early arms deal goes south, and the fall-out causes the death of 'Pops' and Luke emerges from anonymity to take on the bad guys. The bad guys eventually including Luke's half-brother, the villain behind the piece, Diamondback, who faces Luke in the season's climactic fight sequence.

The first two episodes are even, if a little ponderous and cliched. The night-club owner - yes, he's also a baddie; the ambitious politician, who will sell her soul for personal power; the bent cop; the female cop who's out to expose Cottonmouth, and inevitably hops into bed with Luke. So samey, and a little tired, but nothing dreadfully annoying. Just not that good. The music (the theme music is the best part of the show) is a highlight and used to punctuate or orchestrate the action early on, and these parts are okay.

However, the issues with this season are many.

Firstly, the dialogue is achingly poor. When people aren't talking in cliches, they're speaking as a single voice. The writer(s) too often appear to be offering us a monologue spoken by various characters. There's no surprise or counter-play between characters of the same 'side'. The characters, outside of the line of this single plot, have no history. If Misty has been in Harlem all her life (she has -  her initials in the basketball court; she knows Pops) then what's she doing undercover? Why do none of the local youths know or recognise her? Why is she 'proving' herself as though she's new to the area? She's not ... just new from the script's point of view.

Secondly, although this isn't a 'police procedural' what we see of police procedure needs to look a little bit accurate. But none of it. There are many examples: Scarfe's notebook is key to potentially exposing Cottonmouth, yet rather than being checked into the evidence room, it's left lying around on Misty's desk; no 'crime scene' set-up at Harlem Nights post-murder (later on the same day as a body is found there, the club is open, the very room being used, with no sign of police tape); Misty refers to Claire Temple as "Claire" in front of her boss ... as though this person they've only just met, is already a friend; sometimes lawyers are present at interview, other times, not; people are arrested and released with little or no reason, ...

There's an issue with timing mid-season. The murder at the nightclub, the immediate police investigation, interviews, arrests and releasing of suspects, all appears to take place while Luke and Claire are stumbling around Harlem trying to find a safe hideout. These two sequences can't happen with the same time span, yet they are shown this way.

The episode where Claire tries to treat Luke with the doctor from Seagate, has to be one of the most excruciatingly poor I've seen ever. The doctor who 'created' Luke seems to know less than Claire. Claire, for no reason whatsoever, says they must turn the temperature of the acid up as high as it will go - no, "let's try a little bit and see what happens" - just 'to the max' so it can be shouted. The electric shock to revive Luke blows all of the electrics; next scene, everything is working again. There's no indication of how they are looking at the shrapnel inside Luke; the shrapnel is only three, large pieces; they don't remove *any* from the shoulder wound. Just about everything in this episode is garbage.

More aggravating, is that characters know things they shouldn't. Things we (as the viewer) know, but things they can't; the sort of things a writer, script editor, or producer, should have spotted. Were they all comatose? So many instances of this - when Luke and Misty are hiding beneath the kitchen (don't get me started on "search every inch of this place" - apart from that obvious grate in the floor), Misty says that Diamondback will want to pin this "hostage situation" on him. But she doesn't know there is a hostage situation up above. Her last view was from behind the bar, being shot at, until Luke carried her out - before any hostages were taken. Later, in the same episode Claire warns Luke "what if he has one of those special bullets" - moments after we've seen Diamondback say he only has one Judas bullet left. Surely Claire would have said "what about those special bullets?" or "what if he has any of those bullets?"; her only mentioning one bullet is because the writer knows there's only one left. But Claire shouldn't know. After Diamondback punches the politician in the chest to kill him, and leaves the body outside, the ESU guy immediately says that he's dead from having his chest caved in. He says this without any examination, at the scene, when he couldn't know cause of death that quickly.

There's just too many people, doing too many preposterous things just because they need to, for the sake of the story. There's a laughable moment when Claire shows up at the final showdown. She's standing behind the police line at the front of the crowd. Misty says to her, "come here, you've got to stay back" gesturing as she speaks for Claire to come through the police line and stand next to her. From then on, Claire's always out in the open ahead of the cops. No-one pulls her back? It's incredibly clunky dialogue to get her to do the opposite of what is said.

But in the same minute the ESU commander tells his troops, "as soon as you have a clear shot - take it". Of course, they never do. It's ridiculous.

And earlier on, Misty's broken phone is no good for calling her boss. She doesn't bother trying to text. That would ruin things. 

The show starts off okay, if dull, and ends up being one of those series that you need two or three goes to get through each tiresome, poorly scripted, badly thought-out, repetitive, episode.

The biggest hole is Diamondback's motive, and actions. If he was content that he'd ruined Luke's life by getting him jailed, then why didn't he just tip the police off to Luke's real identity? In fact, howcum Luke - former marine, cop, and prisoner - wasn't recognised by anyone else when he was shown on TV? When his 'Wanted' poster was plastered around Harlem? No former cops? No former colleagues? No friends? Did Diamondback only know it was Carl later on? I have to guess 'yes' as if he'd been tracking him from Seagate, he could have just contacted the police then, not wait years. Although it's suggested that Willis has been behind it all, so that contradicts him not knowing. The whole motive is inconsistent with how he acts. Just shoot the guy again, after he's shot once and on the ground. Jeez.

Luke's motivation is just as sketchy. He'd only known Pops for 5 months, but his death was enough to get him to go public. Yet Reva's death - nah, I'll stay hidden.

I can handle things not being entirely logical to make a comic-book world 'work' (how doesn't Diamondback pop his shoulder whenever he uses those gloves; how does super-strength help you halt a moving vehicle; why doesn't anyone shoot or punch Diamondback in the mouth?) but when this is matched with dreadful dialogue, illogical actions, incomprehensible character knowledge, and shoddy continuity, it makes for an unwatchable show.

Luke Cage was awful. I've no idea why professional reviewers are giving it good write-ups; they can't have watched it.

EU Referendum - how to decide

EU Referendum - How Fed Up of It are You?

It seems like it's been going on forever, but finally the end is in sight. At last. How on Earth do you decide which was to vote?

Here's how not to do it...

Ignore the threats and promises

Nobody knows whether the economy will be better or worse off. This is a fact - no country has ever left the EU before, so nobody knows what might happen to the leaving country, or to the remaining EU members. You can't look to any example in history to help you decide. It's unknown.

What you can't say is that "well, look what happened to the Euro-countries -lucky we didn't join". That makes no sense. That implies there's one 'copy' of the world where we did join Euro; and the one where we didn't (this one); and we can look at both copies and say which one is better. We're not David Tennant; we can't fly off into different time-streams and compare them. There's no way of telling which decision in history would have had benefit or not. It's like the old puzzle of saying, would the world be better off had you killed Hitler as a child ... no-one can say what the impact of that might have been.

It's all guesswork.

Unelected Elite

"I don't want to be governed by an unelected, unaccountable elite". Well, we get to elect 600 odd people to represent us, once every five years. Outside of that 600 odd, most are appointed, without election. If you think the governor of the Bank of England, the civil service, the head of MI5, and so on, have no impact on your life, you're wrong. We don't elect these people. We elect a very small proportion of the people who govern us. But they are, in general, appointed by those we have elected. And it's no different in the EU. Our MPs, our MEPs select those who represent us. It's no different to many other posts. We can no more "throw" these people out, than we can our own MPs - we get one chance every 5 years. If you don't like the current government, then you didn't elect them in 2010, and didn't even have the chance to get rid of them up until 2015, and even then you didn't get your way. We can't throw our own government out. The EU case is no different.

This is no argument.

Ruled from Brussels

Being rules from far away? Well, that's true for everyone. We don't rule ourselves; there's a group of elected people, many miles from us, who determine the laws of the land; how we live. That's just a fact of representative democracy. Whether they are 100 miles away, or 300 miles away, it makes no difference.

People spend a lot of time complaining about how corrupt and self-serving our politicians are, and then look to giving them more power and control. Voting out will give David Cameron more power (at least until he's replaced by another self-serving idiot). I'm not sure this is wise.

£350m a week, lost

This £350 million - whatever happens, what won't happen is this:

- David Cameron knocks on your door and offers you some of it
- It goes to the NHS
- It goes to pensions
- We see any of it

£350 million is a pittance - about 1 or 2 percent of weekly government expenditure. The much larger sum is already assigned by the UK government. If they wanted to prioritise and put more money into health, education, defence, ... they could. It's nothing to do with having no money, because it's being given to the EU. This is no money, whether the figure is accurate or not.

Control our Borders

In 1973 the world population was under 4 billion. It's now approaching twice that number. The world is different to how it was then. Outside of the EU, the pressures on other countries would not disappear. The human crisis within the Middle East, in Syria, would not vanish. We can't turn back the clock and re-emerge into 1960's Britain. The world is how it is. This notion of reverting Britain to a 'Great Britain era' is as laughable as the "Make America Great Again" tagline. "I don't like some aspects of the country today; let's go back to a time when I did." Just when was that? You can't turn back the clock. Spend less time wishing for yesterday, and concentrate on making tomorrow better.

Migrants from outside the EU make up over half of the total ... we already have the ability to control that number, but do not. Why would this be different outside of the EU? We're not controlling the numbers from outside of the EU today, why do we think we'd control it tomorrow?

And this supposes that immigration is a bad thing.

Too much red tape

See my first point. Who's to say there wouldn't be more red tape if not in the EU? It can't be conceded, unchallenged, that the EU produces more red tape than the UK. We just don't know. Sometimes an EU decision has originated in the UK - a UK idea which is then adopted more widely. 

The inference that red tape will be reduced cannot be substantiated.

Take Back Control

"We've lost control of our country; our sovereignty" This is a silly notion. How much control do you have today? Is David Cameron often knocking on your door, ringing you up, to see what he should do? The fact of representative democracy is that we get one chance every 5 years to chose a representative. That's it. You and I have not control now. We'll have no more outside of the EU.

We're ruled by a remote elite who have little understanding of our lives. Leaving the EU will not change this.

How I'll Decide

My decision will be around two things.

1. BREXIT

It's a horrible word. Yuck.

2. Murdoch Decides.

Rupert Murdoch, the Australian exile who lives in New York, has dictated the winner of every UK general election since 1979. I think it's wrong that he wields so much influence, so much power. Whatever he dictates, I'll vote against. Just to show that the British people can have some say in their own future. I know ... ironic. 

Daredevil Season 2 - Practically Spoiler-Free Review

Daredevil Season 2 Review

Lacking the freshness and precision of the first season, still enjoyable, but left wanting better from future stories.

Daredevil season 1 was an excellent, grim, well-scripted, bleak, introduction to the world of Daredevil and his supporting characters. The Netflix/Marvel production inititiated the adult-themed, gritty series of shows, to which Jessica Jones has been added, and left viewers keen for more.

This second season, although good (and very good at times) didn't continue the level of excellence, and had more than a few issues, both with the script, and the overall plot.

Without going into too much detail, it seemed like a couple of stories mashed ineffectively into one season, with not enough time, or clarity given to either.

Punisher

The season starts with the introduction of the Punisher, played by Jon Bernthal (not your best friend from AMC's 'The Walking Dead'). Bernthal's Punisher sets the right tone for the character - unstable, confused, yet strangely focussed on the task in hand. The early episodes introduce the character well, and lend weight to the threat he poses, and how his methods conflict with Daredevil's eventually leading to their conflict.

Finally, the death skull

However, having set the character up, he is then shuffled off to the side too quickly - the trial resolution happens off-screen, and for the remainder of the season (save for an impressive mid-season fight sequence, and memorable meet-up with another Daredevil character) he's on the periphery, or left to wheeze the same lines he's already given. There's more back story here that we could have had, but it's being left for later, one assumes. I'd like the story to be given more treatment, personally.

Elektra

The second major, new character we meet is Elektra, played by Elodie Yung. Yung physically looks the part, and her accent is also very good - Elektra should have a mixed-European accent of no specific country, to indicate her lack of being tied to one place, and hint at her troubled childhood. Physically, this is all very good. However, her fighting skills (much like Daredevil's in Season 1) are a bit all over the place. She ought to be the Hand's greatest assassin, trained by both Stick and the Hand, as a lethal killing instrument. Here, at least initially, she's inferior to Stick and Daredevil, requiring saving on several occasions. Maybe this is an 'early' Elektra, and the ending suggests such, but she is still an assassin, a Stick protégé, and should have that level of capability. There are also a number of confusing motives that seem to draw her to be more 'plot device', then genuine 'agent' ... there could have been an arc to put her in the lead of this war, yet she now seems side-lined as a someone swept along by it.

Elektra *sighs*

Excited as I was to see Elektra in Daredevil, I'm more than a bit disappointed in how she's treated. A complex character, hard to show, but it's not really attempted here. A shame given how capable Yung is, and how right she looks for the part.

***SPOILER***
I'm just confused by the way The Hand treat her. If she is 'the' Black Sky, then what about last season's one? If it's all a little 'Buffy' and we can have potentials/actuals, why the focus on her alone? Then given their interest in her, and apparent subjugation, why do they fight against her? And why care if she is/might be killed, as death is no problem?

Also, when Stick is captured, this appears to be achieved by "killing the lights". When two of the three participants are blind, I'm not sure what this achieved, other than a shortcut to get Stick in peril. Unless it's what he planned, how did the three or four Hand guys over-power him, when neither Stick nor Daredevil were disadvantaged, and the bad guys were?

Karen Page

In season 1, Karen's story led the plot, and essentially drove the events forward. Although we can see why she's interested in redeeming Castle, she's more often than not consigned to teary-eyed, sobbing of choked lines like "Matt, I just can't ..." à la Jack from Lost. She was introduced as more capable than this, and it seems a waste of Woll's talents, although she at least seems capable of following through on a lead.

Out of all the characters, only Foggy seemed to get a good deal in the second season - a new, and better paid (well, paid) job, and the chance of playing a part in Jessica Jones's story. 

Overall, early promise, but not followed through, and either too much story for one season with the new characters, or not enough, had they trimmed the cast list.

Still, it's not The Flash or Supergirl.

Doctor Who Series 9 Grumbles

Rather than a full review of the latest series of Doctor Who, I just need to get a few grumbles out there. I like Capaldi in the the role, I just would like him to be given better material to work with. The plots are ill-defined, inconsistent, and shallow. Like many of the more recent Doctor Who series, they tend to centre around the Doctor, rather than be stories in themselves, that happen to feature him; they only exist because he does. This isn't conducive to strong plot-lines.

Anyway, here are some grumbles...

Episode 11 - Heaven Sent
Starting well, with an interesting premise, there were too many things that didn't add up:

• if 'something' was resetting the environment every time, why didn't they erase "I'm in 12" and 'bird', etc
• if it was only resetting things on the surface (filling in holes, but not erasing writing within them) then why wasn't it renewing Clara's picture?
• why wasn't it restoring the "harder than diamond" wall?
• maybe it only reset the higher floors of the towers ... this might explain why there were skulls (no stools though) in the water - but who was restoring the fuel for the fire which dried the Doctor's clothes? It can't have been the environment, as it would have removed the Doctor's clothes. Maybe it was the Doctor himself? From where though?

In any case, this meant the first Doctor was wandering around naked.

And then, he's a Time Lord. If he dies he regenerates. So why didn't he regenerate when killed? Why weren't there billions of Doctors wondering around at the the end?

Yes - I know it's hard to make a consistent time-loop story. So keep away from them if you can't do it. Creating problems, and not solving them correctly is poor (see 'Sherlock - Series 3').

My major issue, though, is the idea of being able to simply regenerate a Time Lord from stored data in a matter transporter. If this is all it takes, then any race that has teleported a Time Lord can get Time Lords for themselves. Why haven't the Daleks, the Cybermen, whoever, utilised this? Bred their own controlled version, enslaved to their wishes? A Time Lord ought to be more than the simple collection of atoms of their bodies. If you're changing such a big premise, you're changing it forever. Yet I suspect this idea will be dropped, and never mentioned again. In fact, if this is all it takes, why bother with regeneration at all? And doesn't any race with matter transporters now have this regeneration technology? Infinite daleks now - no need to build them.

Episode 12 - Hell Bent
"They'll kill you, you know" - ominous music. Or, they'll lay down their arms, disobey orders, and help you. Faux danger. Poor.

The Hybrid. If 'only one story in the Matrix' had mentioned the threat of the Hybrid I'd have been okay with it. But "all of them" did. So the Time Lords have always known about this threat? So why attack the Doctor now? Why not question him on any previous occasion? By saying 'all the stories' you open yourself up to this issue, so why do it? It's like you didn't think it through, or thought your viewers weren't that bright? The story ends, as far as I can tell, with the Time Lords still no more enlightened on the The Hybrid - the Doctor and Clara escape as they are still puzzling over the issue. So they'll still be chasing the Doctor about it next series then. Or not.

Killing a Time Lord. "We're on Gallifrey; it's no more than man-flu". Well, if the death of a Time Lord is such a casual affair, why the big drama when the Doctor regenerates? What if the The General had a wife and family? Friends? Are they casually dismissed - "here's your new dad/mum now kids" What if he was on his final regeneration?  It's done so casually, because it's not a real character - it's just a plot device, with no purpose beyond that. 

Sonic screwdrivers aren't built. They make themselves, and appear when needed. Just in time for Christmas it seems. Sunglasses harder to sell to children I'd bet.


Since midway through Tennant's run, too often there's been too much 'hokey' rubbish. Where are the real stories? Where's the consistency? Didn't Clara (dalek-Clara) erase all Doctor knowledge from the Dalek database?  Didn't this take? Did they restore from a cloud-backup? 

In the very first episode of the series, the Daleks were hunting the Doctor, but unable to find him. And yet, one of the Vikings was actually a dalek in disguise, so they had found him all along, and the only reason we had the Missy/Clara storyline was to get them there. Just ... why?

Beyond anything else it's the scandalous under-use of Clara's character which irks. Admittedly she's been central to this series, but still primarily as a damsel-in-distress, not as the peer she was suggested to be, at her excellent introduction.


Where's Tom Baker when you need him. I know it's a Saturday evening family show; but that isn't an excuse. Do better.

Jessica Jones - Review

*almost spoiler-free*

Dark, grim, up-close and personal, Jessica Jones is not without fault, but delivers a strong message.

Every desk should have one

Following the same lines as this year's very well-received Daredevil Jessica Jones is set in the same borough of New York, and follows a similar anti-superhero line, which will eventually link up to give rise to The Defenders.

The opening episode shows our eponymous hero in a bad place. Suffering from the fall-out of previous ordeals, she's a functioning alcoholic private investigator, living under the radar, not revealing her powers. These powers (super-strength, and some enhanced healing) are used casually, but only occasionally. She's sullen, unfriendly, and practically alone in her seedy, gumshoe, world. The 'pilot' episode is a confusing mish-mash of hints and asides, which wouldn't naturally lead one to further watching, apart from some clarification in the final third. What is clear, however, is that Jessica is deeply damaged by abuse she's previously suffered. She jumps at shadows; seeks to flee as soon as her previous abuser is mentioned; and cannot face life without a bottle of whiskey. It's an unattractive proposition - life as Jessica isn't something you'd court. She keeps people at arms' length, and stumbles from day to day in an unfeeling haze, keeping herself away from personal relationships.

As the episodes progress, we learn more of her back-story. The source of her abuse; how she came to be where she is; who else matters to her; and most importantly, the weight of guilt she harbours. The story of this first season is essentially one of her and how she is forced into dealing with her former abuser, the mind-controller, Kilgrave. There's mention of both the mental and physical abuse she's suffered, and Kilgrave's influence seeps like a cancer into the lives of all around her, making her feel guilty for the pain and suffering she's not responsible for. Many of the exchanges between her and Kilgrave focus around this central issue - him feeding her guilt for actions she performs whilst under his control; or blaming her for the abuse he unleashes on others due to his fixation on her. The ideas of victim guilt, retribution, anger, revenge are at the heart of the show; these are difficult themes to address, and the show is quite explicit in dealing with them - specifically in their fall-out, and the victim impact.

Overall, I'd say it's less successful than Daredevil. The story is simple enough, but some of the plotting is overly contrived, and the practicalities aren't always consistent (Jessica's lack of invulnerability is at odds with several of the fight sequences; sometimes she's cut with a knife; at others times she can be punched through a wall without being knocked out). It's smaller, and more personal than Daredevil. The focus remains on the single story, there's little filler, and Kilgrave's attention lies purely on further abuse of Jessica, rather than on anything else.

This isn't a particularly easy watch. There's physical violence, but the mental and emotional toll is greater. It's this which lingers, and leaves the biggest scars on all concerned. Don't get me wrong; this is good, possibly very good, but not particularly pleasant. Anyone viewing the show should be made aware of the strong themes of abuse presented within.

Mike Colter as Luke Cage is physically imposing, and covers the lesser role (in this show) with a steady calmness. The early Luke Cage perhaps better than the later one. Again, they seem to be somewhat inconsistent in the representation of his powers, and I hope this is tidied up if/when the Luke Cage show arrives.

David Tennant as Kilgrave works well on his fairly formulaic bad guy; he works best as the psychotic mind-controller; less well as the abused child who's out for revenge against his parents. There are hints at his own inner turmoil which might have been nice to explore, and the scenes with his parents are well portrayed.

Ferne Cotton in a wig

Krysten Ritter is excellent in the title role. She brings many physical elements to the portrayal, as well as delivering on the harsh, emotional, content. When she says she's a "piece of shit" you believe she thinks it. It's a dark reflection of a nicer, warmer Jessica Jones that's been stripped away by Kilgrave. Although hardly any different in appearance to her part in Breaking Bad, she's completely unrecognisable. Her performance is possibly better than the story she's in. As the biggest asset on the show, it's a good choice to fit her in as many scenes as possible. She displays Jessica's obvious self-loathing at the start, but brings enough character depth, so that you're rooting for her, and for her eventual redemption.

---

Addendum
I'll admit that to start with I couldn't get past how much Ritter both looked and acted like Eliza Dushku in Dollhouse; nor how the opening notes of the theme tune remind me of Dexter; nor how the plot smacks a little of Heroes Season 2. I had lots of echoes(!) to deal with, before it final started to strike its own chords. If you are similarly affected, don't let these things put you off - it finds its own voice.

Daredevil - Review

A departure from the standard superhero TV series, bringing the bleak comic book character to life.

He's not as cool as this

I'm not much for streaming TV services, but I quite enjoyed 'Bosch' from Amazon, so thought I'd take a good look at Netflix's 'Daredevil' series. Those familiar with with the Marvel character (ignoring *that* movie) will know that this is Marvel's closest parallel to DC's Batman; a hero who deals with the day-to-day, small-life, everyday crimeworld, rather than the global or interstellar problems the likes of the Avengers handle. 

Daredevil is a blind defence attorney, Matt Murdock, who fights crime during the twilight hours as a customed superhero, operating in the grim Hell's Kitchen neighbourhood of New York, fighting the seemingly all-powerful Kingpin of crime, Wilson Fisk. Let's be clear - Daredevil is a grim read; often facing seemingly insumountable odds, and rarely 'winning' his battles against an array of powerful nemeses. His alter-ego seeping into his personal life, badly affecting those closest to him. Even in the early 80s, love-interest Karen Page had turned to prostitution to pay for her drug addiction (yes, it's not big on laughs). He's a complex character conflicted by strong moral and religious views, in a dark, criminal controlled world, which often makes you wonder why he bothers trying to save it.

Murdock & Page

And to Marvel's, and Netflix's, credit this is the hero we get in the series. The 'superhero' element is light, and we're given a programme more akin to latter-day police dramas. A city oppressed by dark undercurrents; corruption; bad cops; powerful companies; and a bleak future for Joe Public. The series starts quickly, only unfolding Daredevil's back story slowly, and follows a narrative that sees college friends Foggy Nelson and Matt Murdock starting up their defence firm by taking on the case of Karen Page, who has become their secretary by the end of the first episode. It's not until episode three that we even see Daredevil's arch-enemy, Fisk, or even hear his name.

The first four episode are outstanding. Gritty, brutal fight sequences, full of bone-crunching brutality. This isn't a series that would occupy a prime-time Saturday evening slot ... you'd seek it out past the water-shed, after the kids are safely tucked away. Some of the earlier set-ups are clearly there to demonstrate Daredevil's more prosaic skills over other superheroes; this isn't a flashy, powerful, demi-god - this is the guy who just about holds his own.

Episodes five and six drop the pace a little, and are weaker episodes, but the next episode introduces 'Stick' played by Scott Glenn, and gives us the first true glimpse into Daredevil's origin. Stick, and his agenda, are crucial to the larger story arc which we don't see much of in this series, but again we're given a correct 'Stick' - an unsympathetic, harsh, tutor, determined to create weapons, not heroes. Beyond this, the story continues at a fair pace, and all elements are beautifully in place by the climax of the series. There's much still to be told, but we know who we're dealing with by the end of the 13 episodes.

"Stick. Mighty Stick"

The cast are very good. Charlie Cox in the title role is excellent. There's a lot to be asked - his accent is believable, his mannerisms stilted, or flowing depending on who he's being, and he conveys the inner conflict with subtlety. Deborah Ann Woll as Karen Page is perfect for the role. Someone with inner strength, determined to stand up for herself, and whose affections are torn between Nelson and Murdock. Then Vincent D'Onofrio as Fisk is rightfully terrifying. A man on the edge of violence, liable to strike out at any moment, but also cold, detached, and even sympathetic.

Don't mess with Kingpin

There are some niggles. The Daredevil of early episodes seems less capable than the one we exit with; by necessity most of the action takes place at night, and the visuals can be hard to make out at times; Elden Henson as Foggy, although looking the part, wavers at times early on; there's a tad too much empathy being evoked for Fisk; and Vanessa seems fairly indifferent to Fisk's livelihood, even though it's clear she knows what's going on around her.

Other reviews have likened the series to the Frank Miller (Sin City, Batman) seminal run on Daredevil, which created the characters of Bullseye and Elektra. I think it's closer in look and feel to the later 80s period written by Ann Nocenti (and beautifully drawn by John Romita Jr), when Daredevil was closer to the heart of Hell's Kitchen, and engaged in trying to make it a better place to live. To help it drag itself out of the hell it had become. In either case, it's pleasing that Marvel haven't eschewed the fundamentals of the character by trying to create a more "family-friendly" Man Without Fear. This is the real Daredevil, and I'm grateful for it.

Definitely worth a watch, even if you don't much go for superhero series.

Below the Line Challenge

There's an online 'challenge' website all about living "below the line" - basically its purpose it to raise awareness (and money) for the people of the world who are forced to live on financial resources that are considered less than a living wage. It's been endorsed by a number of celebtrities, and on social media, and I think it first came to my attention after the appearance of Jack Monroe on the BBC one morning.

I've tried out a number of her recipes, and bought her book; but I also fancied seeing how hard the actual challenge would be.

The challenge itself is to live for five days on £5. There are additional rules (for example, that's £1 a day for five days; not spend £5 on Monday and enable that food to last for a week; not buying a lettuce for 30p, then saying you'll only have 6 leaves, so that's 2p - what you buy you have to pay for out of the fiver).

So as I wasn't going to ask for sponsorship, or sign up to the site, I thought I'd relax the rules a little, but stay within the ethos of the challenge - if I would, on "week 2" have used the rest of the food (i.e. it would be viable to use, and practical) then I could take a percentage of that. An obvious example is a bag of rice - a 1Kg bag costs 40p, so I could use half of that in the week, and take only 20p from my budget. This seems a reasonable compromise to me, and something I could do were I genuinely living on that level of income.

The focus of my ideas came from simple food, made with basic ingredients. I decided to go for goods I could get from the local Tesco superstore, and at their 'everyday' level it's remarkable how cheap some items are.

Here is the budget I put together, and the meal plan for the week:

I had already started making my own bread, so calculated I could make a half-tin loaf, and some rolls for less than it would cost to buy (and the flour, salt, and yeast could work on the budget, and be used in later weeks); and although the mince would take up a lot of the budget, it could give me my main meal for the full five days. At the time the milk price wars were happening, so I could buy 4 pints of milk, freeze 2 pints, and use 2 pints in the week ... a week without tea is beyond contemplation. This would give me porridge (with milk!) for breakfast, and with the beans and tomatoes some breakfast options.

When I was a child, the *only* thing I ate for lunch was banana sandwiches, so I knew I'd be okay with that for five days.

On 'Day One' I found out that my yeast had gone off, so my bread didn't rise. Luckily I went to the local shop and they had some 'use by' today rolls for 20p which meant I had bread for those days, and I then made some more bread (with fresh yeast) for the remainder of the week. This was one of those unlucky breaks, but if that were really my budget I'd have to make do with un-risen bread (which is yucky).

I was lucky in that there was no 'everyday' herbs when I ordered the food, so I received 'normal'(!) herbs for the same price - although not sure of the variance in dried herbs.

The chilli I made was simple, and nice. Without any real chillis available, or anything with heat to add, I put in the 10g of spices I could utilise. It was still fairly bland, but not the worst chilli I've eaten, and by day 2 it had improved. The chips (Tesco 3-way cook chips) were nice enough. I'd eked out the 2 eggs I was permitted, to use part of one as a binding agent for the burger I made on the Thursday evening. Again with a few herbs, and 1/4 of the onion I'd not used in either the bolognaise or chilli, it was a decent burger (which I've made a few times since). Only by Day 5 was it really down to 'anything that was left'. Hence this was the sight that greeted me on Friday evening:

Yummy!

In addition to the 'cheats' above I also didn't count the small amounts of salt and pepper I added to some foods. But I avoided alcohol or pub trips in the five days, as this was meant to be a full budget for those days.

What I did realise was that cutting things up smaller seemed to make them go further (finally chopped onions were the order of the day), and food was rarely put in the bin ... every scrap was eaten.

Life on £1/day was hard (I was hungry), and not very healthy (bananas were the only fruit, and vitamins restricted to that tin of beans, and tin of tomatoes). I went to bed most days with my stomach rumbling, and in a week lost 3lb - imagine that for week after week. 

Maybe something you'd like to try some time; not something I think you'd like to live with. But we have the choice of course. Many don't.

Penny Dreadful - A Review

'Penny Dreadful' is a silly, sordid, mess of a Victorian monster mash-up ... and I love it!

*** no spoilers ***

This Showtime/Sky co-production aired earlier in the year on Sky Atlantic. Even though I was a Sky subscriber at the time, I eschewed Sky Atlantic as it seemed another of Sky's tawdry attempts to isolate re-sellers by placing premier shows on their new channel. I ain't playin' yo stinkin' games Mr Murdoch. Also it seemed all too much blood and gore for my liking ... or maybe it was just the wrong time. In any case, I've only just decided to tuck into the first series, and was very much surprised - pleasantly at that.

The show's first season (it looks like there will be a second) is 8 episodes, each around an hour's viewing time. The setting is Victorian London ... the London of Holmes, Jack the Ripper, and swirling fog, despair, and debauchery. A theme familiar to viewers of the departed 'Ripper Street'. 

"Are you flossing regularly?"

Into this world we are introduced to a collection of familiar, yet mysterious, characters; literary figures of the times - an adventurer, a medium, a surgeon of dubious practices, a seemingly immortal young man, and their various associated characters. Named after the sordid, sensationalist novellas (costing only a penny of course) of the time, 'Penny Dreadful' mashes up these characters' familiar stories into an exuberant, Gothic, visual feast which although not likely to gain any mainstream awards, delivers well in style, excitement, and traditional horror themes.

Technically the show is excellent. The set designs lavish and bold; the camera-work precise without being overly flamboyant. At times the sound was slightly muddy, but this is a minor grumble. This is a show that looks good ... the opening credits give you a good idea of what visually is to come:

The cast is largely well-known and do good work with a script that overall succeeds at handling the outlandish storyline within the confines of the times. Timothy Dalton heads the 'heroes' (such a term though is ill-fitting for any character as they are all essentially dark-hearted people, struggling - often literally - with internal demons) as Sir Malcolm Murray, the African adventurer, who cares more for his fame than his family; a broken, arrogant, egotist who is the focus of the group. He brings to his employment a young doctor (who has his own agenda, and demons) played by Harry Treadaway; an American sharp-shooting showman, Josh Hartnett; a friend of his daughter, the spiritualist Vanessa Ives, played by Eva Green; and Mallory's own "man-servant" from his African expeditions, Sembene, played by Danny Sapani.

Additional regular characters are played by Billie Piper (a dying consumptive), Rory Kinnear, and Reeve Carney as Dorian Gray. The latter is worth singling out, as the role of a fey 'pretty-boy' can be hard to play with any veracity, yet Carney brings unexpected depth and nuance to the role.

Without doubt though, this is Eva Green's show. She excels as the enigmatic Miss Ives, letting slip only hints of the torment she has imprisoned within. It's a compelling, magnetic, and alluring performance, offering many opportunities to toy with the other characters and viewer. It's not completely without flaw, but the camera draws you to her in every scene, and she fizzes with restrained emotion. The memorable scenes come from her.

There are also lovely cameo performances from Alun Armstrong and David Warner; any show with David Warner can't be all bad.

I'm not sure where the show can go; whether is will eventually limp to obscurity or suffer an early, unfinished, demise, but when I compare this to, say, 'The Strain' it's far superior in all elements.

"I hate flocked wallpaper. How many times do I have to tell you?"

I've deliberately tried to avoid much precision in plot details. However this is a mash-up story, with plot-lines less interwoven and more running parallel for each main character. Sometimes bumping into one another, but the eccentricity and enthusiasm of the story is part of the joy. It's like one of those old Univeral 'House of Dracula'/'House of Frankenstein' movies from the 40s but more so. Everything thrown into a pot of extraordinary characters, and left to bubble over. It is blood and gore, and sordid excess, and fleshy bits, but it also plays it wonderfully straight and genuinely. Marvellous.

Scottish Independence Referendum

"I believe in a Scotland free from Westminster interference."

"I believe in Scotland becoming a democratic, self-governing country..."

"I believe that Scotland is good enough to be an independent nation, trading and building harmonious relations with the rest of the world"

What has the Scottish Independence referendum got to do with the rest of Britain? Well, a lot as 'Scotland' is currently a country that is a part of my nation, so I am affected by its future.

But it's not my place to say how the Scottish people should vote - that's their choice, but I do think they need to be weighing the right factors when making this decision, and appreciate its importance.

Is it important? Hell, yes.

Referendums come along very infrequently in the UK (maybe they'll be every other week in 'free-Scotland' ... who knows) and it's not as though there will be another one on this matter next year, or a year later. Or even 5 years. Or 15. This decision will be a commitment for the next 50 years. So decisions should be based on that sort of time-scale, not purely on what's happening now, and for you. The consideration needs to be about what the UK and Scotland will look like in 10 years time; under different governments, and in different political, social, and economic climates. This isn't about "today"; it's about many tomorrows.

Nor should it be seen as a typical political choice. Here, the SNP have been canny in trying to make it look like a choice between Westminster and Holyrood (it is) but dressed it as 'Tories' or 'SNP' (which it's not). It's not, because this current Tory government ends next year (even if they are returned, it won't be this government) and the SNP won't be the same SNP in 2025 as it is in 2014. This is a long-term decision, so don't base it on what is happening today in either place. It's not about that.

Promises, promises.

To steal a line or two from young Mr McAvoy ... don't base your decision on whether you think you'll be better or worse off after independence. Politicians always promise the Earth and deliver dirt - pre-election promises soon forgotten post-acceptance. Will you be better off with an independent Scotland? No-one really knows. There's speculation, threats, predictions, forecasts, and hot-air. But don't think independent Scotland will suddenly become a land of milk and honey. Life just isn't like that. If the complaint is that "if we're 'Better Together' then why aren't we?", then if it's better to be ruled by the SNP, why isn't it better now? With devolved powers, how much has life changed for you?

Promises are made and broken. This is political life. That won't change whether you're in Britain or out of it. So don't let "I'll be better off voting this way" sway you. We're always being told "you'll be better off if you vote for me" - it's rarely true; frequently false. Don't let promises influence your vote.

Make your Decision

If you can't trust politicians(!) then what can you do?  Vote for what you believe in. If you truly believe that staying within a united Britain is the way forward, then vote 'No'; if you think a separate Scotland is for you, then vote 'Yes'. Do it for those reasons; do it for your own reasons; do what you think is right for your nation.

From my own point of view, Great Britain is a nation made better by its parts; by their separate identities, joined in a union. This is a nation that has been together through hard times, great triumphs, divisive issues, and amazing human achievement, for over four hundred years England and Scotland have been united. That's the level of decision we are now looking at.

And those opening quotes? Well, they're not from me. I took them from here (with very small amendments) - if these words sound familiar, then we can apply them as much for this referendum as we can for the idea of a United Kingdom out of Europe ... it's the same argument (although that union is backed by only 40 years of history).

We are all governed by a group of people distant from us; ideologically, geographically; politically; ... but if we want to split Scotland from Great Britain for *those* reasons, then the Scottish Islanders can say just the same about Holyrood. Let's give them the independence they want too. And then the Highlanders ... what does the City of Edinburgh know about those people? In fact Glasgow would be better on its own too? Maybe your district? Your street? You? Let's make as many divisions as we can. I've heard every man is an island.

Or something like that.

A Post not about Depression

Depression is suddenly in the news again, following the tragic death of Robin Williams. Here, I'll not be talking about depression.

It's not something I talk about. For reasons I'll not state. That's how it is for me.

A lot of reaction to the death has focussed on the health issues he had, centred around addiction and depression, and there has been a lot in social media about depression and what is, and isn't, the right way to support sufferers.

I'd just like to say that we need to consider this illness along the same lines as cancer is now viewed. We don't think of cancer as being one illness, with one treatment, but rather as an umbrella term for a range of illnesses. This is why we don't talk about a "wonder-drug" to cure cancer, but drugs that are effective against certain forms of cancer. No single, silver bullet.

Depression is a term used to cover a range of illnesses. Treatment that works perfectly well for one person, will not work for another. Causes in one patient will be different to the causes in another. Even sufferers will not be able to say whether their treatment will work in another ... having it doesn't make you an expert on anyone else's. Each illness is separate, and unique to the sufferer.

It's insidious and clever, and knows how to counter the tools you develop to fight it off. It's like playing chess against an opponent that can read your mind.

Do not preach your solutions to others. They might work, they might not, but it carries no more validity than "cheer up", and no less. The treatment is unique to the condition. 

All you can do is offer support, and the form of that support will be set by the patient, and your relationship to them. There's no blueprint to follow, like there's no blueprint for friendship. No prescriptive advice - you know how to treat your friends without needing the words of strangers.

For Pebz!

Here is a vine:



See?

Whitby Pubs

One of the things I used to do, but kept to myself, was to indicate the best pubs in places that I've visited. So as you're all really really interested in my opinion on this crucial aspect of modern-day life, I thought I'd share.

Firstly, let's clarify what makes a good pub - the beer.

Okay, having gone through that list let's cover the aspects that might discourage a recommendation:

• loud music
• neon signage
• lots of huge TV screens
• young people
• even younger people (i.e. children)
• chrome fittings
• shabby furnishings
• poor service
• a lack of beer

There are quite a number of pubs in Whitby, some of which I don't think I'd re-visit. A few along the harbour-side (whale-bone side) are okay, but are either too "family-friendly" (Pier Inn), or are too difficult to get into without having to step over a drunk (The Jolly Sailors). Or the Buck Inn - which ticks a number of items in the list above.  So, avoid those in general. There are many; we can be picky.

Stepping across the swing bridge, towards the Abbey, immediately on your right is the Dolphin. This have recently been refurbished and has been much improved. It offers a decent selection of beers; and a good collection of food. Slightly better than what I'd call simple 'pub grub' and well worth one or two visits. Service was fine, if not stunning. The views out towards the bridge and west bank are also a bonus. Busy in high season.

The Dolphin

Further into the cobbled streets of Whitby there are two pubs at the end of the main road, close to the 199 steps: the Board Inn and the Duke of York.

The Duke of York is very popular due to the views across the harbour from a number of the tables. Again, this has had a couple of minor alterations in recent years to expand capacity, and there's a fairly obvious nautical theme. Furnishings are pleasant, staff friendly and efficient. The meals are fine, and the beer is good. If you can get in, then one of the nicer pubs in Whitby, and not resting on its laurels.

(there are no decent pictures of the Duke of York ... certainly the interior shown on their website is pre-alterations)

Next door (and don't accidentally exit the Duke of York for a swift tab, then return to the wrong venue) is the Board Inn. Slightly ignored in favour of its neighbour this is a decent, simple, local pub. Cheap pub grub and nicely kept beer, usually with a few different Theakston's on. You won't go in here and feel disappointed, if it's not exactly a 'wow'.

The Board Inn (on right is Duke of York ... it's that close!)

One other pub of note is The Shambles - up the steps near to the cobbled square 50m from the Board Inn. A nice selection of fairly well-kept beer, and okay food but mainly of note for seating offering views across the harbour. Good if a little soulless - not quite a pub, as you'll understand if you go. There are at least another five pubs on this side of the harbour, all within 10 minutes' walk ... plenty of choice!


Returning to the whale-bone side of the town there are a few more pubs worth a mention.

The Wetherspoons in Whitby (The Angel Hotel) is on the corner, just passed where the leisure boats are booked. Although nothing special (beer isn't great, and I'd avoid the food) it's enormous inside, and has one of the fewer outside seating areas which is a sun trap. You can sit and have a pleasant coffee with great views across to the Abbey up on the hill. Coffee and a bacon cob though, is about as far as you ought to sensibly go in terms of food and drink.

Going past the Wetherspoons, continuing towards the train station, you'll find the Station Inn. This has always been one of the better pubs in Whitby, and still is. Good selection of beers, pork pies to eat, and a couple of lovely big fires if you're visiting in the colder months. Busy at times (especially on quiz nights) but if you have the time to spare, a place for a lazy afternoon to slip by.

Station Inn

And finally, on the corner as you going up past the church you'll find the Little Angel. One of only a few pubs in Whitby to show sport on TV, but not in an obtrusive way. The beer is good, and although there's not really a food selection beyond a few sandwiches at lunchtime, it's where to go if you need a fix of sport. Bar staff friendly, and it's an easy, casual atmosphere.

The Little Angel

So that's my set of recommendations for pubs in Whitby. A set of at least half a dozen to busy yourself with. Enjoy!

Remember: beer - it'll never let you down.

Sherlock 3.02 - Review

Last night's Sherlock was so utterly disappointing that I feel I need to put down what was so wrong just to get over it.

I have no problems with a show based loosely upon Conan Doyle's great detective, but this show, from the outset, has chosen to show *the* Holmes, re-set to today's world, albeit with the obvious difference that the fictional detective was never created (one assumes ... or people in this world are strangely taciturn on the matter).

So, within this set-up, Sherlock needs to be the modern-day Sherlock Holmes, and for the most part the earlier series stuck to that remit. We had updated, yet still recognisable, Holmes stories, with a believable detective and comrade. This however, isn't what we've seen recently. We now have some inconsistent, dimwitted everyday man, with baffling legal connections, and confusing mind slips.

The 'plot' such as it was, took too long to be introduced, flitted around, then climaxed in disappointment. There was no wit, no flair, and no enjoyment. The issue here is that the BBC seem so pleased with the commercial success that they've lost control of Moffat's creation. Or they've forced out an extra series when the storylines weren't ready, just to fill the schedule and keep the pounds rolling in. It's no coincidence that many series start to suffer when writer/director start to take on producing roles - when there's no balancing voice stepping back and saying "hey, are you sure this is good enough?" I find it hard to believe that a producer would have let this rubbish be created had the commercial aspect not been already guaranteed by previous success.

Some of the more crass parts of the storyline (if we'll gloss over the excruciating early minutes that were clearly filler to hit the 90 minute mark)

The Murderer. Operating from some sense of righteous vengeance after the death of army personnel, seeks to kill the commanding officer who is held accountable. Yet, as part of his plan he "rehearses" the murder on an innocent guard? If he's out for revenge, how can his sense of justice let him murder an innocent, just to ensure his own safety? This makes no sense. Was the guard culpable as well?  Did we find this out, and I snoozed through it (possibly)

The Guard's (attempted) Murder. On finding the soldier bleeding to death in the shower, the soldier heads for the commanding officer declaring the soldier dead? He doesn't seek medical attention from the army's own doctor? Call an ambulance? No - he acts in a completely unbelievable manner, and with remarkable timing runs in to Watson, who is present at the exact moment of the guard's death. And then Watson calls Sherlock 'nurse' - yes, at the moment you're trying to save someone's life, it's important to make a little side joke about your relative positions at this moment. Quite apart from Sherlock's now apparent lack of knowledge about the human body, even though it's been demonstrated on several occasions that Sherlock has detailed knowledge of human anatomy

Obvious Clues. Leaving aside the fact the Sherlock then drops this murder puzzle for no apparent reason ("too tough; can't solve it" ... which is odd given that he was recounting this tale at the wedding, from a blog post Watson had written - we saw the web page - but apparently none of the guests are big fans of Watson's blog as evidently none had heard of either of the cases Holmes related) so leaving that aside, then the two items (Watson's middle name; that Watson would be attending a wedding) which reveal the killer connection were very, very obvious. To me at the time of watching; yet not to Sherlock when they happened? Conan Doyle made Holmes a brilliant detective - beyond what any man could hope to achieve. Yet suddenly this detective is missing such obvious clues? When did he become a dunderhead? It's established in flashback that Sherlock has searched for weeks/months for Watson's middle-name, so he'd be especially attuned to hearing that very middle name from someone else, and yet he completely misses it. Huh?

Photographer. The whole section of un-masking the photographer as the killer was illogical. Why bother looking through the man's photographs? They had no bearing on anything, other than to add (undramatic) pause. Surely we'd all figured out it was the photographer by that time? And why did it need to be the photographer? Because "no-one notices them, and they can slip in a needle to the wedding in their photography case"? But, the intended victim had brought a handgun with him ... surely that's more of a weapon than the murderer had? And a sword maybe?  This wasn't a high security event. Nobody was strip-searched at the door, or had their suitcases examined. The murderer could just have easily have walked in off the street; been already at the hotel; been a waiter; any number of less elaborate pretexts would have been sufficient. Sherlock's whole speech about the advantages leant by being a photographer were spurious. Anyone present had the means and opportunity. Just poison him next time you dolt, ring reception and ask for the room number, catch him on the way to or from the wedding, ... endless other options.

The Murder method. Well, it was kind of silly. Wouldn't such a small puncture wound heal in a few hours? Would blood gush out of such a small hole? Wouldn't you know you'd been stabbed?

Pass Key. Seriously, if someone is in a hotel room in mortal danger, ask reception to open the door. It saves having to kick it in, or negotiate with a potential suicide.

Stag night. Watson has no friends but Sherlock. And fortunately London bars are pretty lax on letting you walk into their bars with large glass beakers. Yes - you can do that in any bar in London. Walk in and walk out with glass. No problem.

And a few others (there are many more) ...

• pointless opening scenes to show that Lestrade trusts Sherlock too much. Sledge-hammer plot point. No nuance.
• Sherlock not understanding he was being asked to be best man. An obvious and unfunny joke, at odds with the actual character.
• Sherlock prepping wedding guests to be nice. Holmes wouldn't have an interest in such frippery; it was inconsistent with both previous Sherlock episodes, and with the Holmes character.
• Sherlock being sentimental to the point of nausea; no-one saying "hang on a sec pal, this is about the happy couple, not you" (the tedious wedding speech where Mary wasn't even mentioned, other than as an adjunct to Watson)

Almost the only moments of merit came from Freeman's Watson, who seemed to be acting in an altogether different, and better, television programme. Maybe in that other programme, Mary would exist for some reason other than as an excuse to set a story at a wedding. If you're going to introduce a new character, actually give her something to do. Seriously underused. 

Someone needs to take Moffat et al aside and say, "come on chaps, we know you're very successful right now, but you have to try a little harder. Cumberbatch swishing a coat might thrill the same people who scream at One Direction, but you ought to be aiming a little higher than that."  This is Holmes dammit ... if you want to make just any old programme, then choose a different central character.