Game of Thrones by George R R Martin (Book and TV news)

If you have not yet read Game of Thrones and you are remotely interested in fantasy, history or reading, go read it now. I'll wait.

It won't take you that long. Not that the book isn't hundreds and hundreds of pages long, but you won't take notice as you devour the thing in all the spare time you have from the moment you pick it up. At least, that's what I did.

The thing that affected my heart the most about the book was that it so obviously takes inspiration from the War of the Roses, with characters based on Edward IV, Richard III, Elizabeth Woodville, Edward V, etc. Woodville's brothers are well represented, and it would not be off to even make comparisons to the Duke of Clarence or Buckingham. And yet, the events do not work out the same way. If you are familiar with the history, the story is not spoilt, for what you know is only a basis and everything can change by simply having one character make a slightly different choice, or by bloodlines not working out quite as they did historically.

And if history doesn't interest you, you will be reading through the eyes of a variety of incredibly compelling characters. Just try to dislike Tyrion, the queen's dwarf brother, who, while sometimes compared to a demon monkey, has more sense and a better drive than his family. And even those characters whom you are brought to hate, you will delight to hate, for they are either deliciously evil or so bloody useless you can only hope and pray and beg for their death.

With so many voices, it is also impossible not to find at least one with whom you identify.

Now, As I've said, the book is brilliant and a page turner, but if you are not a reader, but a TV watcher, do not fear. HBO has gained the rights for the Song of Ice and Fire (the book series to which Game of Thrones is the premiere) and will hopefully be putting the first season to air sometime in 2010.

Why is this news SO fantastic that I am beside myself with delight? Well, because Sean Bean (who I fell in love with when he portrayed Boromir) will be playing Eddard Stark. Eeeee!

In fact, the entire cast is SO great - Mark Addy (whom you ought to know from A Knight's Tale and the Full Monty, among others) will be King Robert; Lena Headey (the sexy queen from 300) will be the even more sexual Queen Cersei; and Harry Lloyd (Will Scarlett from the BBC's Robin Hood) and Jason Mamoa (Ronan from Stargate Atlantis) are also some names I am familiar with already. Not one of these actors has not already proven themselves to me, and the rest seem to be made from the same cloth!

So HBO will have a hard time screwing this up, and considering their work with True Blood, let's just say that I'm not worried, but, again, ridiculously excited.

How about you?

A Knight's Tale

I watched A Knight's Tale the other day. As you might have guessed, I was of course slightly pained to watch Heath Ledger alive and well on screen. It's not the same thing to watch an actor who died of old age, possibly even before I was born, alight the screen, but when I think about this man who was only a few years older than I; when I remember watching this movie while he was still alive and looked the same...it's a bit like seeing a ghost.

Regardless, though, of Heath Ledger's untimely death, A Knight's Tale is still the fabulous and terrible move that it ever was.

Shannyn Sossamon spends the film wearing the most atrociousness outfits. Her hair is always utterly bizarre, and the hat she is wearing in her first scene is the ugliest hat I have ever seen. It's hard to think of her as a beauty when she lacks style in almost every imaginable way. But William (Ledger) loves Jocelyn (Sossamon) for some unknown reason, so accept and move on.

Move on equally from the complaints about the bizarre mix of contemporary and medieval style, music, and everything else. It was done on purpose, and if you just accept it, it's actually a lot of fun.

But not as much fun as Wat (Alan Tudyk) and Chaucer (Paul Bettany). If these two don't reduce you into fits of ridiculous giggles, than you and I do not share a sense of humour. They are such great comic relief.

Finally, I must mention Rufus Sewell. So many people think of him first as a villain because of this movie, but I saw him first in Dangerous Beauty. Oh is he attractive, sexy, debonair, and all that other good stuff. And so what if he is the villain, it's really that he's not particularly forward thinking and refuses to be beaten by anyone.

What was your opinion of A Knight's Tale?

Living Dead in Dallas by Charlaine Harris

Look at me keeping my promise to update on other media as well as television. And this one has a television connection anyway, so really, it would be wrong of me not to mention my impressions.

Living Dead in Dallas is the second book of the Southern Vampire Chronicles, the book series about Sookie Stackhouse on which True Blood is based. And book 2 is what season 2 was based on.

There are, of course, some major differences between the books and the TV series, and these differences promise to continue to grow as the seasons go on. And so far, I definitely prefer the TV series, for reasons I am about to get into, but that does not mean the books aren't worth a gander...well maybe the first one isn't (it was some bizarre, over-campy, badly-written stuff), but in the second one, the writing improved drastically.

The books are told in the first person, with Sookie relating things exactly as she sees and experiences them. Which means that Tara, Sam, and Jason get only brief mentions as they cross Sookie's path while she helps Bill and Eric deal with vampire politics. And boy do I miss them. Reading the books feels like people are missing, mostly because they are. The other characters are present to fill out Sookie's world, but the world itself is not full. In the show, you follow the adventures of the people of Bon Temps, not just of one sexy, vampire-loving, telepathic waitress.

And yet it is fascinating to read the books and see where the ideas in the show came from. The maenad is such a small character in the book, she shows up where people are having a party and takes them all as tribute to herself before she goes on. Her connection to Sookie is much more important than to Tara, and she is not searching for hearts or a particular supernatural being, just violence, sex, and drunkenness.

Plus, there are things that we haven't got yet in the series, and may never get. Like the fact that Bill is actually Andy Bellefleur's great great (somewhere in there) grandfather. Or the idea of Eric wearing multicoloured Lycra tights. Or that Sookie can occasionally hear a thought from a vampire (I wonder if that will ever appear in the series). And in Dallas, it was shape shifters who helped Sookie escape from the Fellowship of the Sun, rather than Jason. But the seeds for most of the story are already in the books, taken and elaborated upon, with the writers asking themselves how they can involve the characters we know rather than simply focusing on exactly what Sookie's got going on.

My advice? Read the books and watch the series. The order will not matter that much to you, and the differences, while noticeable are acceptable in both cases. Just to demonstrate, in the book, Lafayette dies, but you don't really care too much cause you hardly knew him. In the series, he lives, which is awesome because he's SO great.

Have you read the books?

Trick r' Treat and Scream

I have been so busy watching TV that I haven't seen a lot of movies lately. And those I have seen, I haven't commented on. Same with the books and even the plays, though I've seen terribly few of those.

That is going to change. I will find time to post on the things I watch as frequently as I watch them, all in the hopes that these will convince you either to take a look or to avoid at all cost.

Last night was Hallowe'en, and after a fun day in costume at work, I came home to watch some scary movies. The selections? Trick r' Treat and Scream.

For those of you who have not heard of Trick r' Treat, despite the mass advertising it's been getting lately at being a little known gem on websites like EW, I cannot say for sure whether or not you are missing out.

It's not terribly frightening, so if that's why you are into scary movies you might want to pass, but it is very interesting. 5 different plot lines interconnect on Hallowe'en night in the country. The overall theme is that Hallowe'en is sacred and ought to be hallowed and not mocked. Disrespecting traditions is certain to get you killed, as is assaulting the wrong person. Oh, and it is never a good idea to make out with a masked stranger deep in an alley.

Anna Paquin and Tahmoh Penikett are the most recognizable faces, playing a sweet virgin looking for a man and a Hallowe'en loving boyfriend respectively (not her boyfriend). One gets what he/she wants, and the other does not.

It was the perfect movie to watch on Hallowe'en though, as kids for whom I had no candy repeatedly rang my doorbell or knocked loudly. I was quite afraid by the end of it that someone or something was going to come and demand revenge that I was not abiding by the traditions of my favourite holiday.

Scream, on the other hand, is a classic. If you have somehow managed to miss seeing this and you like scary movies even a little bit, then stop reading my post and go and watch it this minute. The brilliance that Kevin Williamson created, which is looking to have a fourth chapter sometime in the next year, deserves all its acclaim. It takes a master to craft a slasher flick in which the most unrealistic or stupid part is that a psycho killer would emerge in a small town.

This movie makes fun of slasher flicks and indeed the whole horror genre while remaining a very scary movie. Even though I knew exactly when the killer would jump out, I still hid behind my blanket. But even while cowering, I was still laughing.

Have you seen Trick r' Treat? Do you love Scream? What is your favourite scary movie? And what did you do last night for Hallowe'en?

Catching up on a night of movies and Stargate Atlantis

If this week and weekend are the norm, I am going to have great difficulty keeping up my television schedule as well as an effective blog.

You've read my reviews on the premieres of Melrose Place and Glee (so recently posted), plus a special post on my expectation of Stargate Universe. You have not yet received my thoughts on Supernatural, Vampire Diaries, Warehouse 13, Robin Hood, or Eureka, all of which have aired this week. Seems there will be a delay between air dates and the time I have to watch and post. But do not fear, we shall get there. And this way, there is a higher likelihood you will have watched the episode before reading my posts.

That said, I have watched several movies and programs which merit note and require discussion.

I watched Blazing Saddles, the Wedding Singer and Stardust on Thursday night and Friday morning. If you have not seen these, you are missing out. Blazing Saddles is a hilarious Mel Brooks parody of Westerns; the Wedding Singer is a delightful romcom; Stardust is the Princess Bride of this millenium (at least so far).

Then I watched a whole lot of Stargate Atlantis. How I love Stargate Atlantis. I should mention that I have yet to see seasons 4 and 5, but having watched several episodes this weekend, part of me wants to catch up before the commencement of Stargate Universe in October. I doubt this will happen since there are so many shows that get priority (those currently on the air), but Ghost Whisperer has been bumped. I'll get to it eventually, no fear, but priorities, people!

I saw SG:A, Season 3, ep 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.

I nearly laughed myself into histeria. I LOVE Rodney McKay (played by David Hewlett). He makes me laugh and laugh; everything he does just makes me happy.

4 - The beauty of this episode (in which Ronon avenges his time as a runner) is the portrait drawn of Ronon. He is an incredible fighter, which we already know, but the scene in which he positions guns throughout a warehouse and then kills a dozen or so Wraith, moving perfectly, predicting every move and position his enemy will take. His art is warfare. Even more moving are the flashback sequences in which we witness the destruction of Ronon's world and the death of his love. The film is graining, the colours dull and faded, the details a little fuzzy. The scenes run perfectly parallel with Ronon's story; once more on his home planet, the visions come back as he walks the street.

5 - I hate the replicators. I really really have the replicators. Why? Please tell me why the replicators had to reappear in Atlantis? Sigh. There were strong similarities between this episode and SG1 when that team left a time device on the replicator planet, betraying 5. On Atlantis, they took the replicator humanoid with them, but he was rebooted by his fellows and betrayed our heroes.

6 - We skipped it. Stupid replicators taking over Elizabeth's mind...Did not need to see it again, thanks.

7 - Shepard and a Wraith team up against Kolya. Apparently the enemy of my enemy is ALWAYS my friend, even if he's a wraith. Plus, if you are a super devoted Wraith follower, you may get to live forever! Isn't that exciting. Maybe I should do that.

8 - MCKAY!!! Doubled! McKay's sister helps him build a bridge to another galaxy, through which a second McKay comes when the bridge is hurting his universe. And we learn his first name is Meredith. The most hilarious part is when McKay and Jeannie are bickering and Carter stops them and they both say "sorry" and she giggles that their "sorry" is so Canadian when Amanda Tapping has lived in Canada since she was 3.

9 - The team halucinates and Shepard shoots Rodney and Ronon. He apologizes at the end. And Ronon laughs. Hehehe...

Atlantis is great. You love the characters - Shepard who is smart and competant, but actually not suave (despite McKay calling him Kirk and telling him to stay away from his sister); Thayla who may be part Wraith, but really looks hot with a gun; Ronon who is so protective of his people and is SO capable of protecting them; McKay. I love McKay.

Casablanca

Tonight, I saw Casablanca for the first time. Or, rather, I saw the actual movie for the first time. I had heard the lines quoted, seen Bunnies do the movie (angryalien.com), watched Dr. House dissuade a younger woman using Humphrey Bogart's famous lines, and experienced the Simpsons's imagined alternate ending, but tonight, tonight I actually heard Humphrey Bogart say those words to Ingrid Bergman, and that was something else. Michael Curtiz certainly knew what he was about.

Classic movies aren't for everyone. I find that the more I watch them, the more they become a part of me and the more I then appreciate them. I think that's the case for all dated works. They are confusing or not exactly relevant or something has happened in the passage of time that distances them from us. We do not see them or love them or understand them as easily as their intended audiences did. We cannot, since it has been over 60 years. A lot changes in 60 years. But a movie like Casablanca is eternal. We can watch it now and still be moved by it, still understand the subtle nuances. We may have to watch it a dozen times to notice details that may have been obvious when first seen in the theatre, or read about those details which are historically relevant but not known to us anymore today. Still, that we are willing to watch it again and again is the difference.

Good King Charles and DRAG

I was asked in my comments how many hours of television I watch in a week. This weekend, I've clearly watched none as I have not posted a single post, but by the end of the week, I'll have made up for it I'm sure.

As an example, to illustrate my television consumption, I started watching Battlestar Galactica this past January. I'd never seen an episode, but before the series ended at the end of March, I had caught up and was waiting like everyone else for the last few episode to air. That was in addition to watching all the other series airing each week.

Now that I've addressed that, let us move on to last night at the Shaw Festival.

I went to see In Good King Charles's Golden Days, by Shaw himself, and was thoroughly entertained. The acting was spot on, the set was magnificent (I most appreciated the light fixture in the third act which featured the planets, including Pluto), and everything was as one expects it ought to be from Shaw. My background being in theatre, I could go on about every merit or failure of the production, but this blog is about whether something is worth watching or not, so we'll keep to that.

It was worth watching. I particularly enjoyed the scenes heavy with historical irony. King Charles's younger brother James spend a good while telling his older brother how the British people ought to be ruled, while Charles shook his head sadly at the foolishness. When James did become king, he implemented those councils and lost his crown in under 5 years.

Also, the premise of so many interesting personages, including Nell Gwynn and George Fox, in the home of Isaac Newton was a delightful starting point. Certainly the play itself lacks a solid plot...or perhaps a solid beginning, middle and end, but it was entertaining throughout in despite of this.

After the performance, I went to see a different show. A DRAG night, performed by Shaw staff. I was jealous. I do not have those legs and I do not look that good in heels...in fact, I'd likely fall over. There is nothing quite like a good drag show, and this one was marvelous. The dancing, the lip sinking and the singing, the talent and the effort. Theatre that I want to be part of.

Last night's entertainment was live. Tonight's will be Casablanca. Still not TV, but movies are perhaps a little close. So a tout a l'heure.