It’s pretty tough to sell me on anything that involves killing – or even gratuitous violence. Despite the huge amount of sex, swearing, violence and murder in Banshee, I love it anyway; it really pushes those things as far as they can go before I turn away. I’m not a prude – if these things are done well, I’m happy; I just don’t care for all the action movies and TV shows that feature meaningless deaths of dozens of characters.
That said, this season really felt like filler, save for the finale. There were a few moments were it started to pick up a bit, but any plots involved were quickly wrapped up, like the writer of the next episode didn’t want to deal with them so just made them disappear. It wasn’t the worst season of a TV show I’ve seen recently, but it was a far cry from the extremely good first season.
Well, that was… interesting. Sort of.
Janet King is a sequel/spin-off to the 2011 series Crownies and features the same core cast, sans Todd Lasance. (It also adds Damian Walshe-Howling and Vince Colossimo to the cast.) I don’t know why this wasn’t just Crownies season two – while there is somewhat more of a focus on the character of Janet King here, it is only an eight-episode season and she got more than eight feature episodes in Crownies.
While the plot was kind of interesting, it did get boring fast. We were supposed to feel tense and suspenseful as the mystery unfolded, but I just didn’t care who the bad guy was and there wasn’t enough development of the other characters’ side stories to really keep me engaged. If there is a second season of this, there needs to be either a really, really good main plot or some better exploration of subplots.
If you liked Crownies you’re likely to enjoy this, although probably not quite as much.
What a laff and a haff.
This series follows what happens after a man finds a mobile phone near the scene of a car accident. It rings, he answers, and is suddenly swept up in a plot that gets thicker by the episode. Along the way he’s framed for murder, hunted by MI-6 and ends up taking down a very high-ranking politician. All while being hilarious.
I watched this primarily due to my love of Horrible Histories - this was created by and stars Mathew Baynton, a lead member of the ensemble on HH. He did an excellent job, but it was James Corben who had me laughing most. The show also features guest appearances by Dawn French and the woman from The Thick of It.
This was great fun and I encourage everyone to give it a go.
The bit I don’t get is: why do women have to expose their breasts to interact with the computers?
This film poses a lot of interesting questions about what constitutes life and who should own data/have access rights in the digital age. What it doesn’t do is really answer them, or even go into any real depth in the questioning. The setting is also so wholly alien that it feels like the questions are irrelevant. The film could easily have had a more 1995-ish setting and employed the same sci-fi tropes to ask the same questions to much greater effect. This film might feel more significant in 2025 than it does now, or would have had I watched it 20 years ago.
New Warriors Vol.5 #3
Writer: Chris Yost
Penciller: Marcus To
Publisher: Marvel Comics
This was yet another perfect issue. I still can’t stand the new Nova, but he adds a dynamic to the book that I do like – see Kaine getting so frustrated with him made me chuckle. I would have liked to see even the High Evolutionary’s highly evolved patience more sorely tested by him, too, but I can live without it. I’m liking the Inhuman guy, too…
Author: Sigmund Freud
Publisher: Penguin Classics
This book is unnecessarily dense. Freud briefly and clearly explains an idea, but then provides a myriad case studies. One or two per concept would be fine, showing a practical basis for his theories, but he frequently provides eighteen or twenty, and then concludes that this was probably unnecessary. Grah.
I’m not convinced that the theories put forward here are valid. Freud has drawn a causal link from correlative data – just because y happened after x doesn’t mean it happened because of x. I think that this is sometimes the case, but Freud asserts that this is always the case (or at least it is the case in every case he has been able to observe).
If nothing else, you learn a lot about the way Freud worked from this book which, as a student of psychoanalysis, is what I primarily needed to learn from it.
I had a letter, ‘Stood Up’, in the March 13th, 2014 edition of the Melbourne mX newspaper.
Watts, A 2014, ‘Stood Up’, mX, 13 March.