This review contains spoilers.

7.17 The Friendship Turbulence

In this week’s Big Bang Theory, Leonard manages to be genuinely supportive of Penny’s acting career, Amy tries to help Raj get a date and Sheldon ends up holding hands with Howard longer than he ever has with Amy thanks to some well-timed turbulence.

Leonard opens this episode once again frustrating Penny with his inability to understand her choices in a career that’s quite different from his own and a situation in which it’s impossible to see what is, ultimately, the best thing to do. He makes up for it, though, by coming to her rescue at the end of the episode with the sort of grand, financially-based romantic gesture rarely seen outside of Jane Austen novels.

Penny’s problem, as her car breaks down at the worst possible time, is at once both painfully relatable and the culmination of one of the show’s oldest running gags – her eternally lit-up ‘Check Engine’ light. It was strangely satisfying to hear Sheldon observe that it had finally gone off just as her car stuttered its way to the great big garage in the sky. Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting (she married tennis player Ryan Sweeting last December) is excellent in the scene in which she talks to Leonard in the hall about how her life is falling apart, constantly on the edge of tears but just about holding it together enough not to fall apart completely, and it’s nice to see Penny lean on Leonard in this way as well, despite their recent fight about her career. His solution may put her slightly awkwardly in his debt (something the show may follow up on in the future, though given that this is The Big Bang Theory we’re talking about, probably not) but it’s the only one that will keep her out of the Cheesecake Factory and a lovely gesture of support on his part.

We can only hope that these developments lead to more glimpses of Penny’s burgeoning acting career, a potential comedy goldmine that the show has bizarrely failed to capitalise on over the years. Perhaps the show-runners are afraid of looking too much like they’re trying to ape Friends and Joey’s occasional forays into terrible acting in dreadful plays, adverts and soap operas, but there’s an essential difference between Joey and Penny; Joey was a bad actor in bad productions, but it’s been established that although Penny can’t sing, she is a genuinely decent actress, albeit one who hasn’t had many decent roles. We’re still sad we were denied the chance to see her running around the Serial Apeist sequel with giant gorilla hands and feet yelling “Must keep gorilla hands from killing again!”

The show’s other sweet storyline this week followed Sheldon and Howard attempting to make a genuine connection as friends and get over their ten-year feud. It’s nice to see Bernadette stick up for her husband and to see Sheldon and Howard acknowledge that they’ve spent a lot of the last decade together and should probably try to repair what has always been the least close relationship of the group (unsurprisingly, considering Sheldon compared Howard to Hawkeye, the one from The Avengers not M*A*S*H, and Howard got Sheldon subscribed to Granny on Granny– we will never be able to erase that mental image). Of course, it takes a shared terror of turbulence to bring them together, but at least Howard is vindicated in having perhaps gone a little overboard in his attempt to connect with Sheldon thanks to losing track of what Bernadette was saying the night before.

This episode’s third plot sees Raj ask Amy for help with online dating, which considering Amy found Sheldon that way makes a lot of sense (although the fact that it was Howard and Raj pretending to be Sheldon that she found isn’t a great advert for this approach to meeting someone). As Amy tries her best to help him but fails in the face of Raj’s unique combination of shyness and creepiness, it becomes increasingly clear that Raj may have been better off when he couldn’t talk to women. Although too shy to email a woman himself, when he does pluck up the courage to talk to someone, he starts spouting cod-poetic nonsense in an extremely creepy way and won’t stop no matter how much Amy tries to explain why it isn’t working. Hopefully at some point, Raj will get tired, distracted or drunk enough to be himself around a woman and he might get somewhere, but until then he and Amy will just have to share their copy of Lies I Tell To Get Sex.

This episode continues this season’s effective policy of combining long-standing character combinations with newer ones, as Leonard and Penny’s story is matched up with less common Sheldon/Howard and Amy/Raj combinations. Combined with storylines that continue to move the characters forward one step at a time, this ensures that the show is still fresh and funny even well into its seventh year.

Read Juliette's review of the previous episode, The Table Polarization, here.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Un-zombie drama In The Flesh arrived on BBC Three last year fully-formed, having sprung Athena-like from the head of creator Dominic Mitchell. Similar to a carved miniature or a Swiss Army Knife, its containment - a complete story of grief, prejudice and acceptance folded neatly into three hour-long episodes - was part of the attraction.

Doubling the length and broadening the scope for series two then, was a dangerous prospect. A second run of In The Flesh risked being a bloated, diluted version of the first, a drama that had made its point, outstayed its welcome, and was hanging around only to weaken the good work of its predecessor.

Danger averted. The second run is nothing of the sort. In the most natural of ways, series two pegs its tent out over more ground than the first without diluting either identity or tone. Instead of blending it in to a broader, blander setting, the episode’s trips outside Roarton actually serve to sharpen the village’s claustrophobic insularity.

Episode one opens in the urban world, a place of brutalist tower blocks, graffitied concrete, and trams, before scurrying back to the imagined safety of the rural village, a place, as Ren and Rick discovered in series one, every bit as susceptible to violence and danger.

Roarton itself has grown, too. A high school, GP’s surgery, and B&B have been added to series one’s flashback-sparking supermarket, graveyard, parish church and British Legion pub. Still at the heart of it all though, is the Walker family home.

Nine months after the events of series one, the Walker family is trying but struggling to move on from its emotional trauma. Dad Steve is shown determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past in a running joke that continues In The Flesh’s gentle satire of therapeutic language. Siblings Jem and Kieren begin the second series as close as they were distant at the start of the first, but neither is exactly thriving.

Luke Newberry’s sensitive yet wry performance as Kieren, whose desire to escape Roarton - and himself - is stronger than ever, is every bit as convincing and appealing as it was in series one. Newberry does more with a wordless scene in the family bathroom than many of his peers could with a page of dialogue (due credit of course, to In The Flesh's talented VFX and make-up team).

There are old faces to greet: Nurse Wilson and son Philip, Kenneth Cranham’s Vicar Oddie, Ricky Tomlinson’s Ken Burton, and of course, Emily Bevan’s vivacious undead Amy, whose time in the commune has put her firmly on one half of series two’s battle lines.

Eyeing each other from opposite sides of those lines are two newcomers, recently elected MP Maxine Martin (Wunmi Mosaku), and WB Yeats-quoting Undead Prophet disciple Simon (Emmett Scanlan). Both are quickly bedded in to the series, each introduced with their own mysteries and, in the words of creator Dominic Mitchell, representing two sides of the same coin.

The second series has lost none of the first’s idiosyncratic Northern humour. The Legion’s landlady could have wandered in from (an admittedly trippy episode of) Last Of The Summer Wine, and the locals still chat in bathetic punch lines that leaven the series’ broadly drawn social themes. It’s still about exclusion, prejudice, fear, self-acceptance and so on, but belief - either in ideology or self - is the predominant theme of this second run according to writer Mitchell.

Particularly well observed in the opening episode is the people of Roarton’s very British struggle with using the correct terminology. Names for Kieren’s sort vary from euphemism to hate-speech, ‘Rotter’, ‘Rabid’, ‘Deader’, ‘Dead-Un’, ‘Zombie’, ‘PDS Sufferer’ and ‘Undead’ all carrying their own specific weights of pride and prejudice. It’s in these close observations that Mitchell’s satire and insight excels. He absorbs the political attitudes of the day and reflects them back to us under guise of supernatural fantasy. Only fantasy isn’t quite the word for In The Flesh; it’s supernatural realism.

To sum up and stay spoiler-free: if you loved series one but doubted whether or not In The Flesh had enough steam for a second outing, stop worrying. Come May, you’ll see for yourself how sensibly and sensitively its world has been expanded, without distorting series one’s compact charm.

Read our spoiler-filled reviews of series one, here, and come back soon for our series two set visit report and cast interviews.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

This review contains spoilers.

2.15 Dreamcatcher

Not often does anything that happens in Revolution surprise me, because it’s usually constructed with the complexity of TV aimed at small children. But the end of the last story threw the sort-of crazy twist that only science fiction - or maybe Dallas - can. Aaron’s attempt to end the rule of the nanites ended with him waking up in 2014, with the post-electronic era relegated to just a crazy dream.

Dreamcatcher started with that same altered reality, and then decided to ride the concept around, like a feral child on a motorbike he’d stolen. It pains me to say so, but for forty minutes or so, this was much more entertaining than the usual Revolution guff, by some considerable margin.

As I said last week, this was either a Bobby Ewing moment, or an illusion, and pretty soon the writers decided it was the latter, and went full-bore Matrix. The significance of 2014 historically was that it was the moment the bad nanites code was written. And, presented with familiar faces at the office, Aaron is given the opportunity to fix it. It’s not obvious to Aaron, initially, but this is exactly the same scenario he’s just refused to follow, though his subconscious sees the threat and inserts Crossbow-wielding Charlie into the illusion to spice things up. It works.

From this point onwards we’re on a wild ride, as Aaron hunts around his own brain to locate his team, consisting of Rachel, Miles and Bass, pursued by nano-agent, Dr. Horn. It was nice to see him back, and even Daniella Alonso briefly appeared as Nora.

After someone bizarre parts in which Aaron got to convince people who aren’t real and just figments of his imagination to work with him, we eventually came to the point where Aaron really understood what was happening and possibly how to fix it.

HIs solution, to jump off the roof of a building and virtually die might have worked, if the nanites weren’t actually running his brain. Instead, he was transported to another meeting with Doc Horn, just before he had his Neo revelation, and discovered that he has more control than he’d imagined. 

The next sequence was the bit that really annoyed me, because while his subconscious had been instrumental in pointing out the reality before, it entirely missed the very obvious trick this time around. Thinking he’s woken, he and Priscilla walk back to Willoughby, just in time for Rachel to get stuck by lightening, and for her to live he must fix the code. This whole sequence underlined the big problem with Aaron’s character from the outset, which is that he’s forced to be both smart and unrelentingly stupid at the same time. I know smart people can be forgetful or insensitive, but I don’t accept they can be clever and dumb in the way that it’s presented in Revolution.

Of course, I might be falling into a trap by assuming Aaron didn’t realise the situation, and that he’s written some more junk code that will eventually do for the nanites. But he’s never done anything that smart in this entire show, ever.

The final disappointment was that after forty minutes of 'Aaron visits The Matrix', the show went back to where it was before they ever went to Lubbock, as if it never really happened. For one horrible moment, I considered that this was a test run to see if people might accept that the whole series wasn’t a reality, in a rather desperate attempt to explain why almost nothing about it made sense. That fear was amplified by Aaron's comment in which  he explained the future to Priscilla, who replied, ‘You do realise from a physics standpoint that makes zero sense?’ Aaron says he’s 'aware’, which is odd because he’s never brought up the total implausibility of the premise before in this show. That’s either an acceptance that as good an idea as it seemed on paper, the writers realised during season one that it wasn’t ever going to be something they could explain as being real.

So while Dreamcatcher has very few implications for the ongoing story, it might be the starting point for an escape hatch the show can jump through as a conclusion. Who knows, but we’re into the final part of the season, and quite clearly those running it have decided to get a bit crazy. Whatever they do I can’t see this getting another season, so there isn’t much point in not allowing them to be creative.

The next story is called Exposition Boulevard, which presumably means we’ll get plenty of spoken details about events that were too expensive to shoot?

Read Billy's review of the previous episode, Fear And Loathing, here.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Terry Gilliam has a new film out. This is itself is reason for lots of us to celebrate. But what's this? Terry Gilliam has a new film out, and we're inviting you to join us at a special preview screening in London on Tuesday 11th March? That, our friends, is cause for Vimto all round.

So: who wants to see The Zero Theorem with us, three days before its official release? If you're interested, then read on.

First things first, though: please do not treat this as a competition. We want to give seats to people who genuinely want to see the film. Therefore, if you've requested seats to one of our previous screenings and not turned up, without letting us know, please don't request seats for this one. Sorry to sound so miserable about it.

If you want a seat, what we're going to ask in return is that you shout about the film afterwards, assuming that you like it. We'll give you full details before the screening starts.

Our screening will take place at 6 for 6.30pm on Tuesday 11th March, at a London venue just off Oxford Circus.

So: if you want tickets, here's what you have to do.
* Tweet @denofgeek with the hashtag #TheZeroTheorem, requesting one or two tickets. Please make sure you're following us so we can DM you if you're successful!

We will be in touch on Monday to allocate seats. Hope to see you there...

This review contains spoilers.

2.17 Ears To You

Combining the macabre and the bizarre is something Elementary does very well. Remember Holmes’ repeatedly thwarted attempts to trepan a human skull a few weeks ago? The de-eyeballed Oriental Studies professor last season? This year’s ballerina Julienne? Weird and gross are a speciality of Elementary’s cases, and the solution to this week’s really took the biscuit.

It wasn’t the severed human ears in a box that really got me - crime TV viewers have seen appendages aplenty sliced, iced and delivered by FedEx in our time - but the ones growing out of a woman’s back. That, even for a seasoned detective drama fan, was a first. (Why Sarah Cushing decided to grow two ears when surely one would do is anybody’s guess. Perhaps she’s a fan of even numbers.)

Plastic surgery and ear cultivation not being mainstays of Victorian fiction, those elements were the writers’ updates to an otherwise fairly tight adaptation of Conan Doyle’s The Adventure Of The Cardboard Box. Elementary rarely dips into the Doyle toy box these days, so the appearance of some ears, a Jim Browner and a Sarah Cushing  came as a fun surprise to Doyle readers. Next week’s episode, from the very safe hands of writer/producer Bob Goodman, is punning-ly entitled The Hound Of The Cancer Cells, so also appears, excitingly, to be borrowing from canon.

Ick-factor aside, Ears To You was a rollicking good instalment, even if it was another that placed Holmes’ character on the back burner, confining him to bomb disposal practice and the odd corpse fingernail scrape. Lestrade, still resident in the Brownstone after last week’s shenanigans and in something of a slump, was the focus this week and Sean Pertwee capably carried the episode.

Pertwee is another in a growing list of British guest actors that make Elementary more watchable with every appearance, a list including Rhys Ifans, Roger Rees, John Hannah, Natalie Dormer, and - why not? Let’s be charitable - Vinnie Jones. Pertwee built upon the preening egotist of last week’s episode to develop Lestrade’s crisis of confidence and make the character a smidge sympathetic. It can’t be easy comparing yourself to The Great Detective when deep down, you know you’re only The Competent Detective.

As established, Lestrade isn’t in possession of the greatest detective mind, hence his failure to recognise that Watson isn’t merely the latest in a long line of Holmes’ partners, but Holmes’ only true partner, and first real friend. Lestrade viewed Watson and Holmes’ partnership as soluble, crowing to her that one day she might come to match his own understanding of Holmes’ genius. Kindly, Watson said nothing to deflate the man’s ego, but we could all see he was talking rubbish. Watson lazily preparing a salad while Holmes defused a viable explosive showed the trust and respect they share. Of course Watson has faith in him. She knows him better than anyone.

Overall then, the episode gave us more cheap puns, one truly unsettling image, and a great deal of fun. To end on a frivolous note, I’m glad Romulus and Remus are off to a petting zoo. Poor Clyde must have been terrified.

Read Frances’ review of the previous episode, The One Percent Solution, here.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

This review contains spoilers.

9.15 #Thinman

If it had to be summarized in one word, Supernatural’s latest episode could be succinctly encompassed by the word “technical.” While entertaining, it’s one of those episodes where the gears and inner workings of the story are all too clear – and perhaps it’s engaging enough precisely because the turnings of those gears are mesmerizing. It’s an episode that brings back some good old season one characters, constructs a story that’s a perfect parallel for the Winchesters’ arc this season, and gently prods at the fourth wall for some decent laughs without blowing up that wall with dynamite – all in forty minutes.

“#Thinman” (yes, with the hashtag, which says something either about our century or how long Supernatural’s been on the air) sees the return of the Ghostfacers, who originally graced the screen in Supernatural’s first season. The beginning of this episode also goes back to the good old scary - there’s just something about a scene of being home alone, looking into the mirror, and realizing that there’s a creepy thing right behind you that’s horror done right. I haven’t found Supernatural that disconcerting for a while.

Naturally, a creepy locked-room mystery is something Dean Winchester immediately heads out to investigate – this time not even bothering to ask Sam if he wants to come along. Following on the heels of the previous episode (congratulations on your continuity, finally), Sam and Dean’s relationship still isn’t mended – a fact Dean doesn’t really know what to do with, or how to fix. It seems like Sam doesn’t quite know either, but that doesn’t prevent him from joining Dean in working the family business.

As they head off on the hunt, though, the Winchesters discover that someone beat them to the crime scene: the Ghostfacers. Last time the pair showed up on Supernatural, they were here for comic relief, in a stylized parody episode that yours truly was never particularly fond of (there’s something really off-putting about shaky camera work). But this return of the duo goes less for the parody and more for the candid (even though there’s some excellent jokes thrown in); they’re here as characters rather than satires, with all of the pathos that comes along with that. The seriousness of their appearance is also perhaps emphasized by the fun fact that they’ve survived longer than the Winchesters. No, seriously, they’ve been alive since season one on a show where everybody dies – including the main characters. They should get a medal, or something.

Plus, the Ghostfacers seem to also have moved up in competence; it turns out that they’ve been researching “Thinman” – this episode’s monster of the week – for a while, and have even written a book about it. They’ve also developed a certain camaraderie, bonding over their work while complaining together about past girlfriends; their partnership is almost as fun to watch as that of the Winchesters, and they make a perfect team – or so it seems.

However much the Ghostfacers have changed and grown up, though, Dean’s opinion of them hasn’t – and neither has his skepticism. After doing everything he can to get the two out of town and pulling some trademark Winchester exasperated looks, Dean moves on to being skeptical about the Ghostfacers’ book because, like a good hunter, he’s not a believer. This prompts a rather engaging debate between Sam and Dean about what myths are and aren’t real in the Internet’s day and age.

In this particular case, though, skepticism turns out to be the way to go, because Thinman really just is another internet meme. And, with this particular fact, the Ghostfacers start paralleling the Winchesters with such painful obviousness that the script almost feels like the final project for a Screenwriting 101 class.

Admittedly, a very good, top-marks-earning final project for a screenwriting class, but which doesn’t change the fact that this episode’s B-plot is the most obvious B-plot in the history of screenwriting ( for those uninitiated, most television episodes are written with two plots: the main story, experienced by the protagonists, and a background, B-plot, that reflects it in some way). The parallels are glaring: Ed lied to his partner and invented Thinman in order to manipulate Harry into staying with him, hunting monsters - in the same way that Dean manipulated Sam into living because he needed him. The inevitable result, of course, is Trust Issues, with capital letters and trademarked by the Winchesters.

Just before that big reveal, the Winchesters share a poignant scene of reminiscence, as Dean recalls the two of them being children, dressing up as superheroes and thinking they could fly – a story that, naturally, ends with Dean taking Sam to the ER, reminding us yet again the caretaker Dean’s always been to Sam. It’s a heartbreaking reminder of the depth of the boys’ connection, in the midst of this impasse in their relationship that’s all over the place.

It’s also clear that the boys see their own problems reflected in those of the Ghostfacers; Ed’s confession prompts Sam to pointedly tell him “Trust me – secrets ruin relationships,” and he really looks like he knows what he’s talking about. In the next second, the camera pans to Dean, again emphasizing the older Winchester seeing his own mistakes staring him in the face – and looking guilty as Hell about it all.

Poignantly interspersed with this scene of confession, Harry’s off in the woods, searching for a Thinman he thinks actually exists, and the shaky camera work, dark woods, and the fact that it’s Supernatural means that this simply can’t end well. In fact, it gets scarier as the revelation that Thinman isn’t real is followed by shots of Thinman being real, constructing a type of creepy born of the fact that you don’t know what’s going on.

Harry gets out alive, though, leading to what Dean would probably call a “chick flick moment” between him and Ed. The scene reads like a copied and pasted reiteration of the confrontation between Sam and Dean but two episodes ago – it really could be either Ed or Dean insisting that them being together is everything, that he “saved” his partner- and it really could be either Sam or Harry that accuses his partner of being “selfish.”

The scene ends with another trademark Winchester line: “I can’t trust you anymore,” Harry tells Ed, echoing Sam yet again. Still, for all the copying and pasting and amateur paralleling, the scene is full of pathos, and for the viewer as for Harry, the result is the same: “I just got punched right in the feels.” (a phrase that makes one wonder just how much time the Supernatural writers spend on the internet – and why they aren’t spending that time reading the Wiki).

Still, feels or no feels, there’s a hunt to finish and a monster to catch, and that’s what the Winchesters head off to do. Predictably, Thinman is a human wearing a mask, and the reveal of his real identity is more than clumsily done: it was more than obvious that the man behind the mask would be the poor waiter that got yelled at in the diner at the beginning of the episode; the incongruous, out-of-nowhere altercation with his manager in front of both pairs of paranormal hunters was like a flashing neon sign that, hey, here’s a character who’s unhappy with his life! And what do unhappy characters on paranormal/crime shows do when they’re unhappy? They kill people! Nevertheless, the choice to make the monster human rather than supernatural is a nice nod back to the first season’s The Benders and the brilliant point Dean made back then: “Demons I get. People are crazy.” It’s a reminder that Supernatural’s always been a show not just about monsters, but about people – and how people can turn into monsters, and monsters can be a little too much like people.

Plus, the revelation that the “monster” is actually a human in disguise, taking advantage of a meme, is a fitting one for an episode that already pokes at the fourth wall. Supernatural’s always been about myths, religions, and legends; it’s appropriated stories, gods, and ghosts from the world over – with the interesting twist that Sam and Dean research the oldest of tales and the most pervasive of myths on that most modern of technologies, the Internet (have you ever noticed how they have WiFi everywhere? Maybe Sam’s tall enough to be an antenna or something). This is an episode that emphasizes the human predilection for myth-making while showing how its methods change through time; Supernatural here blurs the lines between stories told around a campfire long ago and stories told around a virtual, modern-day campfire - while at the same time emphasizing the pervasiveness of those myths, no matter the medium.

The episode ends with yet another echo of the Winchesters’ relationship, as Ed and Harry discuss where they go from here – and it turns out that “it’s complicated.” At this point the parallel’s becoming redundant – with Harry reminding Ed that “you did this for you” in an almost exact echo of Sam’s lines, and emphasizing that people are dead (a rather obvious nod to Kevin’s death, which ensued from Dean’s choices). Once again, the camera work makes a poignant, if obvious, point, as it pans from Harry and Ed standing by their iconic car to Sam and Dean standing by theirs. And, as Harry walks away from Ed, asking for a ride, it’s more than reminiscent of the finale of Road Trip, as Dean walks away from Sam and Cas to atone for his mistakes.

Still, though the entire episode is a big huge parallel, it remains incredibly tight-lipped about where the Winchesters’ relationship is going. Harry seems to have decided that this is one of those things he can’t forgive – but, as Sam pointed out, that’s a decision each person must make for himself, and it’s unclear where Sam’s forgiveness lies. But, this episode is another reiteration that these problems are still at the forefront of the show, another reminder that they just might be going somewhere- and I’m just keeping my fingers crossed that they hurry up and get there so that we can move on to some more fun demon-killing and world-saving and Heaven-unlocking (which, by the way, begs the question of where Cas has disappeared to this time. Again).

Read Anastasia's review of the previous episode, Captives, here.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

With 300 Rise of an Empire about to be unleashed onto cinema screens, we were fortunate enough to be offered the chance to speak to the director, Noam Murro and writer, Kurt Johnstad, over the phone to LA and found them in fine form considering it was only 9.15 in the morning over there.

Noam Murro is relatively unknown in terms of feature films, but his handling of both the material and the large scale action in Rise of an Empire are as assured as his in depth answers. He proved to be self-deprecating and very funny, at times making me laugh so loudly that I worried I’d miss some of the answers. Kurt Johnstad was equally passionate about the world of 300, as you’d expect from the man that has written the screenplays for both films, alongside Zack Snyder and comic legend Frank Miller.

Combined they’ve created a film that expands the established universe in every way, with spectacular battle scenes and some of the most insanely over the top action in recent memory, whether it be the inappropriate use of dismembered heads, or a sexual power game rendered in IMAX scale 3D. So without further ado…

Firstly I wanted to say congratulations on the film, as a Classics geek I really liked it. Noam you were obviously new to the saga in taking over the directorial reigns, while Kurt you’d written the first – can you tell me a little bit about how your working relationship formed?

Noam Murro: I guess I’ve known Zack and Kurt just through the work really, over the years. I remember seeing 300 for the first time and seeing the preview for it in a theatre and I just didn’t know what to do – it was one of those things when you just look at it and you just go ‘I’ve never seen anything like it’ it just redefined everything.

And like any other thing, one day you get an envelope from CAA (Creative Artists Agency) and here’s a script for the next instalment of 300 and (I thought) there’s no chance that I’ll be able to do that and I read it and for me there was just an unbelievable second story to the building of 300 and it was just mind boggling how you can actually take a movie that ended with everybody dead! [laughs] and find a way into it.

Like anybody else on the internet I was like ‘how do you make a sequel to a movie where they’re all dead’ and it was one of those things where you zoom out and you really get – we were all joking do you call it a prequel, a sequel, or an equal and everyone said “Equal sounds good!” because it really is a fresh point of view on a second instalment on a continuum , because it takes place at the same time, but from a different perspective. And to me, from a thematic point of view, that’s an incredible, fresh idea as a conceptual point of view of how to attack it.

There are many other things in it that have to deal with the type of movie it is – it takes place on water – the idea that there’s a female character, or characters, in it that give you a whole new dimension and I think all of these things together were extremely fascinating to me and I thought ‘it’s just a genius move’ and really we started working on it. It’s like if you asked me the question why did my wife decide to marry me and I actually don’t have the answer to that, because she knows me too well and I think this is that same thing – I don’t know why they chose me, but I’m grateful! [laughs]

Noam, you mention the script was in place, but how far back did you both get involved on starting the film? I remember straight after the first 300’s success there was talk of making a sequel, but quite a lot of years have passed since then?

Kurt Johnstad: So basically after the success of the first one, the studio and everybody (especially) on the internet was just excited about what is the continuation of the brand and that experience that was the first movie and Zack basically stepped back and said “Look, the way to do this the right way is to go back to the source material, go back to Frank Miller and embrace Frank and say ‘Look what’s cool?’” because what Zack was very conscious of is not just rushing in to a sequel without it being grounded thematically, with a good story and without having Frank’s blessing, because if we were to do that, or if the studio just said “Hey let’s go make some money” the fanboys would just tear it apart.

What’s turned out is that we went back to Frank, he took some time and came back with a pretty cool story line and just the keel of the story, or the spine of the story and started drawing a graphic novel and we able to then cull the best parts of Frank’s imagery, his frames, his story and his creative mind and then Zack and I sat down and filled in from the centre of the movie and we kind of fleshed out everything for a screenplay. So that, I think, was a smart decision on Zack’s part and it gave us a little time just to let that mercurial process that is creativity and thinking up with Frank Miller and just having him behind the project – that’s been nothing but a good thing.

One of my favourite elements of the film is that being a big action movie fan, a lot of people don’t get that you have to have emotional investment behind character motivations, or there’s no power behind the spectacle – was that part of the reason you included more backstory for several of the characters?

KJ: Yeah I think that the luxury of making, if it’s a sequel, prequel, equal – you know Zack and I have called it a companion piece – that was that does is that it becomes episodic, so you get to explore deeper the characters if it’s Queen Gorgo, or if it’s Leonidas, or if it’s Xerxes and looking at the building of a God-king.

You get to see where these guys came from, what their motivations are, why they behave the way they do, what the stakes are from maybe a different point of view and that makes it – it actually, when you start watching the second movie, it makes the first one that much more compelling and interesting because you really start to see that it wasn’t just one battle at the hot gates, but it was multiple battles, multiple city states. I mean this campaign that had been going on had been waged for years and now we get to drop in and visit these highlighted battles and these dramatic pivot points in history.

And it’s great because it’s world building, so like you say there’s a broader awareness of everything that’s happening in and around events in the first film. Was it quite liberating getting to expand the 300 universe without having to adhere to the work by Frank Miller and to forge in your own direction?

NM: What was great about the first one, really, is that it felt operatic, in the sense that it really has the idea that you zoom in on something so specific and are able to create the poetry, or the operatic experience of what a Spartan battle is, is one (direction). And I think the idea here was – I don’t know if it’s liberating, but it gives you a bigger palette, or a bigger toolbox to be able to zoom out and have a weather system and geography and characters and a villain, a specific villain as I think no great movie – there’s no Bond without a great villain and I think that’s part of what’s so great about this, is that at the centre of the film - and that’s maybe the liberating part of it – it’s not just a geography and it’s not just the battle sequences and not just the sea, but also the idea that you have great villain at the centre of it. And that was the great thing about the writing of this is allowing for a female character that is at the centre of it and that to me was liberating emotionally and also gives you another point of view about that time, which is really something special.

Definitely and it’s also quite rare in contemporary cinema for Hollywood to make films based on classic material, which I’ve always found strange with the vast array of visual material in mythology and the original tales – why do you think that is?

NM: I don’t know, I think you’re right. I think that there is a wealth of material that the histories can offer, the bible can offer and it’s free of charge! [laughs] I don’t know why they don’t do that, you know they don’t have to pay anybody anything! But I think that over the years, after 300 came out and redefined the genre and really flipped it on its head, which is really the success of the movie in my mind, it to take the idea of populism in genre and flip it on its head and create something completely new and I think over the years between when 300 came out and this one came out, there were a lot of attempts that felt to me like an imitation of the original 300.

I think that was part of the challenge and this is really a kudos to everybody, including the studio and Legendary and everybody – they always, everybody from day one said “We are looking for a new 300, not just a copy” and I think that was the beauty of it from a thematic point of view, from a character point of view – how do you take that and make that into something that you haven’t quite seen before and correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not sure there was ever a sea battle movie at that scale that you could see and that to me is… pretty sexy! I mean the idea that you have with the ability of the genre, technology and 300 as a brand, to be able to take that idea operatically and put it on the water is unbelievable, because you’ve never seen it before and so I’m coming back to the same idea, which is there was a real intention on everybody’s part, from Zack and Kurt and then going through the studio system of making something new, not just another money grab.

I’m glad you mentioned the naval battles as they were great, both in terms of spectacle and strategy – how did they come together from a visual standpoint and also in terms of the strategic research?

KJ: Well, I spoke to a couple of Greek military historians, Frank had done a lot of research so we really followed Frank’s template first and through his outline and then I spoke to a professor at Stanford, a guy named Victor Davis Hansen who is really one of the foremost subject matter experts on Greek military history and we spoke and he gave me specific details to lace and weave in to the narrative the movie, but then also there are the fantastical elements of this movie and that’s just unique to the 300 brand.

I think there is a latitude there creatively as filmmakers and as a writer that I knew that I could push the boundaries of – this isn’t something that we’re making for the History Channel, or this isn’t something that’s a traditional sword and sandals movie that’s going to follow realism.

It’s hyper-realism, so that in itself gives you the latitude creatively just to go in to those dark recesses of what you want to tell and push the envelope, whether it’s dramatically, or thematically, or emotionally, or in action beats, or in the violence that’s portrayed – you get to show that and make it as big and cinematic and I think the thing we were very successful with is that movie stands on its own, completely. So you can see the movie and understand everything that’s going on, without seeing the first one and so they work well in unison together, or they work well standing alone and I think that’s really one of the great successes of the movie.

NM: I second that, I think that’s exactly right. I think that there is a liberating quality, when you deal with history in general, that this is a story tellers point of view, not the History Channel and like any other story the idea of hyperbole, the idea of fantasy and exaggeration and poetic interpretation, these are all tools that at the end of the day service this idea. Nobody was there - I don’t know anybody who was there and is still around! [laughs] I just think that that is the beauty of it, that there’s entertainment quality to it, there is a populist approach, a fantastical approach to the material that allows you to enjoy an historical thing, without sitting there and yawning or thinking ‘ok so these are the designs, I’m not sure the stick was exactly in the right place!’

And going into it we took a lot a lot of influences on say what Persepolis was going to look like – does it look like Germanic architecture, fascist architecture – there were a lot of very interesting ideas that went into it thematically and from a design standpoint. So I think this is a very liberating thing in that way.

So now we’ve seen you both expand the world of 300 further, are there any plans to continue the saga?

NM: I think there will be three, four, five, six, seven, eight and nine! [laughs] I’m just kidding, I don’t know!

KJ: And from your lips, to Xerxes ears, that’s all I can say!

[the PR wraps things up and Noam suddenly chimes in with…]

NM: And just the answer to that is – I don’t know if there are plans, but there must be, because it’s great!

That’s very well said, thank you both very much!

And 300: Rise of an Empire is in cinemas now..

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Once upon a time, videogame adaptation Need For Speed could have been a Tom Cruise movie, and not just because its title also happens to be a line from Top Gun. As stand-up comedian Rich Hall once pointed out - brilliantly - in one of his routines, all of Tom Cruise's 80s and 90s movies were broadly the same, and can be summed up thus: “He's a race car driver. A pretty good race car driver, too. Until he has a crisis of confidence and can't race cars anymore. Then he meets a good-looking woman who talks him into being a better race car driver."

Need For Speed’s petrol-head protagonist Tobey Marshall (Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul) is a hero in the Tom Cruise mould: he’s a race car driver. He’s a pretty good race driver, too. But then he has a crisis of confidence...

When the film begins, Tobey’s an illegal street racer whose garage is in danger of going bust because he can’t afford to pay the bank manager. Then an old high school nemesis, the unfeasibly rich Dino (Dominic Cooper) rolls up with a job offer: fix up a $2m Shelby Mustang, and he can keep 25 per cent of the proceeds from the sale. Backed into a corner, Tobey reluctantly agrees, despite the warnings of his wacky fellow mechanics. Thus begins a chain of events which lead to further enmity between Tobey and Dino - and an awful lot of racing.

Stuntman and director Scott Waugh (Act Of Valor) executes his driving scenes extremely well, eschewing the obvious CG and pounding music of the Fast & Furious franchise for an approach that’s a bit closer to car movies of the 60s, 70s and 80s (Bullitt even appears on a drive-in movie screen near the start). This doesn’t mean that Need For Speed doesn’t stretch the boundaries of physical possibility, however; although the tanks, planes and gigantic explosions of the more recent Fast entries are absent, there are still moments where cars fly over colossal ramps and then land without giving the occupants so much as a neck twinge.

In terms of drama, Need For Speed is on rougher terrain. Aaron Paul has just the right screen persona to play a stir-crazy driving enthusiast - charismatic, edgy, sardonic - but the script gives him surprisingly few lines of memorable dialogue. This is something of a mistake, given that he was at his best as the garrulous, expressive Jessie in Breaking Bad. Here, he’s the “strong silent type”, as one character puts him - in other words, a wild-eyed cipher with little to say. Dominic Cooper is similarly two-dimensional as his mortal enemy, Dino - though that's partly because he’s only in a handful of scenes.

The most thankless role in the film, though, is Julia, played by Imogen Poots. She has little to do other than sit in the passenger seat and stare adoringly at Aaron Paul for much of the duration, and while she is given a few scenes where she gets to do a bit of her own driving and running about, Poots' primary function is to give the hero someone to talk to during his long car journeys.

Then there’s Michael Keaton, who’s extraordinarily weird as the enigmatic Monarch, who organises underground races via a laptop and rambles things into his webcam like, “Wake up and smell the $2m Lambo in your pocket”, and “Maybe the tart was right!”

Zany characters like Keaton, in front of his computer with his shooting glasses on, and other colourful comic-relief sidekick types, like Scott Mescudi, who flies everywhere in stolen helicopters, sit oddly with the moments of high drama, lurching car collisions and somewhat cringe-making scenes of solemnity. It takes a skilled writer to move a story between moments of light and shade, and Need For Speed doesn’t always manage it; instead, it feels like a script that was once high on pure soap operatics that’s had certain scenes rewritten to provide a moment or two of levity.

Fortunately, it’s the racing we’re paying to see, and it’s here that Need For Speed pulls ahead. There’s a real sense of speed and danger to the best sequences, with some solid, unfussy cinematography from Shane Hurlbut, while the sound design picks out the chatter and whine of exotic engines being pushed to their limits.

Need For Speed isn’t in the same league as the classic car racing movies it references, but as pure, high-octane entertainment, it just about provides the crashes and thrills you'd expect.

Need For Speed is out in UK cinemas on the 12th March.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Warning: contains potential spoilers for a returning character in Doctor Who series eight.

The whispers about this one have been doing the fan community rounds for a while now, part hopeful wish and part rumour: is The Master returning to Doctor Who in series eight? 

Oh yes, says Sylvester McCoy, who was reported to have let the 'news' slip at a recent Newcastle Film and Comic Con panel. And what's more, says McCoy, John Simm's role has already been recast. McCoy didn't reveal who he claims would be playing The Master, save for saying that the actor is "very scary".

Our hands currently overspilling with clutched-straws, could this possibly tally with the rumour that Michael Smiley is to appear in series eight as "Colonel Blue"? Nobody who's seen Smiley's previous work with director Ben Wheatley could deny that "very scary" is well within his wheelhouse. Doctor Who TV has cited Game Of Thrones' Charles Dance as another unsubstantiated possibility.

Without wishing to cast aspersions on the honesty or accuracy of McCoy's words, it's worth saying that he's a man with a healthy sense of humour and at present all this remains firmly in the rumour category. If it were to be confirmed though, and Capaldi's Doctor is due to face The Master in series eight, we hope you'll join us in a mass geek shiver...

Doctor Who TV

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

This review contains spoilers.

4.13 Alone

The Walking Dead has become increasingly dependent on montages set to music, and the more of these the show does, the better the montages seem to get. I must confess to enjoying a good montage, and the opening one of a lonely, wandering Bob Stookey really worked for me. We know that Bob spent a lot of time on his own, but this just emphasizes how alone he was. Wandering down the street, eating what looks like a grapefruit, hiding behind a tree, setting up temporary shelter in a cave, and so on until he's found by Daryl and Glenn and saved from his hopeless, lonesome situation.

In a way, that opening is more effective than the times Bob has mentioned that along the way he's been the sole survivor of his groups; akin to how Beth imagines Daryl will be the last man standing, and how last week Daryl said that was a horrible thing to say, with Bob's introduction we see just how bad that situation really is. The only difference between Bob and the living dead all around him is that Bob's eyes aren't all clouded over and he's eating citrus, not brain meat.

It's not a good way to live, and it goes a long way towards justifying why Bob's the only person who wants to keep his little group together. Maggie wants to go to Terminus to find Glenn, Sasha wants to go set up another shelter in a different city, and Bob... Bob just seems to want to find the remaining members of the group, or at least a different group. Plus there's strength in numbers. Even someone like Daryl could use a friend or two, even if that friend is just Beth (who spends most of this episode threatening to be a love interest strong enough to derail the Caryl shippers like myself). If nothing else, prolonged loneliness and the constant fear of death is enough to make someone go a little Morgan in the head.

Terminus is still the goal for our stragglers, but it appears that they're making a little more progress in that direction, as well as getting closer than ever to unification judging from the way this episode plays it. Curtis Gwinn, who is credited with the script, does a good job at balancing the three story lines, as well as squeezing in a nice (and well-shot courtesy of Ernest Dickerson) little moment at the end of the episode for Glenn, as well as an interesting new wrinkle in the Daryl segment. The structure, particularly the opening with Bob, adds a bit more heft to the rest of the episode, but it's the middle sequences that seems to work best. Daryl and Beth testing their newly-formed bonds; Bob and Sasha cementing their budding relationship.

Bob's not a character we know well enough for him to deserve a whole episode to develop, but a few moments now and then for both him and Sasha provide some much-needed rounding out to Bob's admittedly weak start (being an alcoholic, nearly killing everyone over a bottle of hooch). Bob needed some competence, as well as a reason to drink. That fear of yet another group dying all around him is a pretty solid fear, given his belief that he's a bad luck charm has a lot of merit, and it's only natural that he feel pretty good about breaking that streak, even if he's a little too optimistic by the standards of those around him.

When checking out the cast and crew for this week's episode, I discovered that this week's director, Ernest Dickerson, has directed more episodes of the show than any of the other directors listed. Even Greg Nicotero has only done six, which is kind of amazing considering he's been so actively involved for the past few seasons in the director's chair. Still, when it comes to spectacle, Dickerson seems to be the go-to guy. He directed the end of the Greene farm in Beside The Dying Fire and he handled the assault on the prison in Too Far Gone.

This week's episode doesn't offer up as big a show piece, but Dickerson does craft one of the more suspenseful, clever moments for this half of the show during the fog scene. It's the stand-out sequence from this week's episode; zombies come lurching out of the mist only to meet one of the three defending living humans, repeat as necessary. It's definitely a cool idea, and it's implemented very well. Daryl's zombie escape scene at the funeral home (giving me mini-flashbacks to Return of the Living Dead in the process) is another well-executed scene from the director, using solid camerawork and great blocking to heighten the menace and surprise of the zombie surprise.

If you're one of the vocal folks who thought last week's character study was a nadir for the show, you probably won't like this week's episode, either. I enjoyed last week, and I enjoyed this week. Since returning from the holiday break, I feel as though The Walking Dead has hit a good streak of episodes, with a good balance between spending time on old characters, fleshing out weaker characters, meeting new characters, and killing things. It'll be interesting to see if they can keep up the successful streak, or if we'll stumble a bit at the close of the season.

Read Ron's review of the previous episode, Still, here.

US Correspondent Ron Hogan would be willing to drink moonshine with Daryl Dixon, but only if there were no zombies trying to kill us. Then again, if there were, I wouldn't be any safer with anyone else. Find more by Ron daily at Shaktronics and PopFi.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

This review contains spoilers.

1.7 A Rebellious Woman

The Musketeers has been suffering from what could be considered a mid-season slump. In of themselves, the past few episodes haven’t been disastrous, but they are guilty of not living up to the relatively high bar set in the opening episodes. They had the feel of filler, the narrative calm before the ramp up to the end of the season. In many ways A Rebellious Woman confirms this, as it sees a triumphant return of form for the show.  

This week it’s all about Ninon De Larroque (played with admirable defiance and passion by Annabelle Wallis), an independently wealthy woman who cherishes independence, freedom of thought, the right of education and above all else the ability for women to enjoy all three. Of course, in seventeenth century France this is anathema to the strict religious teachings and direction from Rome, which sees any such act of independence as heresy. It just so happens that Rome has sent an envoy to the Cardinal in an attempt to persuade France to drop their treaty with Sweden.  It is as this point that the two stories collide with the Cardinal having to scheme against De Larrouque to take her fortune, whilst satisfying Rome that his faith remains to the church in order to secure popularity for his own advancement. Cue Salem-like witch trials, poison, Milady and that Freudian slip.

This is truly The Musketeers back on form. It felt like there was a renewed energy amongst the cast as the banter quotient was high, the lines hit well and for the first time in a while, everyone looked truly comfortable in their roles. A reoccurring problem with The Musketeers has been the shoe-horning of heavy drama in-between the humour and action making it feel out of place and awkward. A Rebellious Woman has the issue of women’s rights front and centre, and consistently throughout the episode. As the other plot lines were intrinsically interwoven with De Larroque and her plight it strengthened the issue rather than detracted from it, which meant the episode felt much more cohesive and less contrived.

There were also some great scenes. I criticised the way in which the King was portrayed in the previous episode as he appeared a caricature of himself – playing it extremely childish and unlikeable. Here, the King, although at times immature seems much more in control of himself as seen in his response to Sestini’s introduction as he still grasps the importance of the situation and knows how to take advantage of it to great and humorous effect. The trial itself was really well done, especially the appearance of Miladay and Athos’ subsequent reaction. This was in many ways an important moment that the series had been building up to and it was good to see it wasn’t fumbled.

Whilst talking about the trial, I have to mention the excellent work by Murray Gold. Gold’s music has been generally great – the theme alone is a good example of how he so well captures the spirit of a show. However, there are a couple of examples, the trial, the building of the pyre and the final Constance/D’Artagnan scene in which they all benefit from his interpretation of the mood and character and are in turn much better for it.

Perhaps the element I most enjoyed was that, after fearing Capaldi had been wasted as a Cardinal who was too often passive and under developed, we finally had an episode that seemed worthy of his talent. Here we saw what the Cardinal was about: cunning, maliciousness and selfishness. The plot was tailored to explore what he would be willing to do for his own gain and advancement, and we were left with no uncertainty over how far he would go. His stating that he wasn’t a cruel man, just a practical one wasn’t just a good line, but was an excellent window into his psyche. Of course - he is a cruel man – but that fact he doesn’t see this as cruelty but rather a measure of practicality is not just bordering on the psychotic but is exactly what you want in such a great and interesting character. He last speech declaring that nothing will stop him rung with a significant ambiguity – stop him from what? The finding out, I’m sure, will be good.

Although the Cardinal’s morality-debating, witch-burning and poisoning was by far the most enjoyable aspect of the episode, it didn't make the most impact. That, of course, was left to the final scene in which D’Artagnan and Constance finally got it on. I’ve wondered how the show runners were going to get around the fact that despite their obvious attraction and Constance’s less-than amorous affection for her husband – they were still going to commit adultery. They handled it in the best possible way – with an episode focused on the liberation of women, their rights and freedoms, along with an innocent Freudian slip followed by a very guilty pause. The lack of signposting (D’Artagnan was kept largely in the background throughout the episode) gave it additional depth and wallop. Just how their relationship continues will no doubt be explored in the next few episodes, hopefully it continues in the same thoughtful and patient way it has developed.

I’m pleased that A Rebellious Women worked so well, especially after the recent episodes lacklustre approach. Finger crossed it continues, but of course it must as next week we welcome Vinnie Jones… 

Read Rob's review of the previous episode, The Exiles, here.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Joss Whedon, it’s fair to say, is not short of fans. Between Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Serenity, Cabin in the Woods, Dr Horrible, and latterly his work with Marvel (not to mention his adaptation of a play by that little-known writer Will Shakesman), he has an enviable back catalogue, and Whedonites (as I promise not to refer to them again after this sentence) rank among the most devoted, rabid and occasionally frightening fans in geekdom. If you want an idea of just how passionate people are about the man’s work, write the phrase “I am a leaf on the wind” in any comment thread below a Whedon-related article, and hang on to something. Said thread may experience some slight turbulence and then explode.

But there is one series that, while it does have its vocal supporters, is generally regarded at best as a noble failure, and at worst as the unloved, slightly deformed illegitimate-child-we-keep-in-the-attic-and-don’t-talk-about of Whedon’s small-screen oeuvre. Its reputation in critical circles – again, not exclusively, but generally – isn’t much better. I refer to the short-lived and ill-treated Dollhouse, and I would like to explain exactly why I think you should give this much-maligned show another chance, because for my money it's as brave, idiosyncratic and downright thrilling as anything in the holy televisual trinity of Buffy, Angel and Firefly (I’m not counting Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, a) because it’s more his brother’s baby than his, and b) because at the time of writing it’s not particularly brilliant, although I still have hopes that it will reach its potential).

“Did I fall asleep?”

First broadcast in 2009 and cancelled after two thirteen-episode seasons, the series stars Eliza Dushku (Buffy’s rogue Slayer Faith) as Echo, one of a group of ‘Actives’ living in the titular Los Angeles-based Dollhouse whose minds have been (voluntarily – or at least, that’s what we’re initially led to believe) wiped so that they can be imprinted with dozens of other personalities and skillsets and rented out to super-rich clients. These personalities range from horny college students to NSA agents to genius bank robbers and hackers via bounty hunters, dominatrixes and, in what is generally regarded as the nadir of the series, backing singers for temperamental divas. Naturally the ‘engagements’ tend to go wrong in unforeseen ways, often relating to Echo's gradual rediscovery of her past self, and thus Dollhouse begins as, on the surface at least, a fairly standard mission-of-the-week series (or maybe personality-of-the-week would be more accurate).

It doesn’t stay like that, however. Oh no.

The premise is admittedly problematic, and much of the criticism levelled at the show is valid. For some viewers, the fact that Dushku and the other actives are essentially different characters every episode, reverting to benign blank slates when they’re not out on engagements, is a deal-breaker. How do you relate to a protagonist who is not the same person from week to week? It’s entirely subjective; either you can engage with the conceit or you can't, but this odd setup meant that the show was hindered from the get-go. Personally I was invested enough in the premise, in Echo and in the richly-drawn supporting characters – both Active and non-Active - to stick with it, and for me, even in their wiped doll forms, the actors exhibit enough personality for me to care about their fates. However, it’s fair to assume that this was a major stumbling block for many people trying to get into the series, and all I can say is that it's worth persevering.

The Dollhouse itself is also conceptually troublesome, which is one of the reasons why the execs at Fox were unhappy with the series. Fundamentally, the idea is pretty icky. Many of the engagements are of a sexual nature, and whether the actives agree to what happens to them or not they are basically being sold to rich businesspeople wanting a willing partner who will conveniently forget about them after the act. Tension is therefore built into the show, particularly in its early episodes, where the breezy tone of the personality-of-the-week adventures bumps awkwardly against seedy undertones of prostitution.

It’s to its credit that Dollhouse does not shy away from the uncomfortable nature of this concept, confronting issues of sexual abuse and slavery head-on in several episodes once it settles into a more arc-based groove. The blurry moral ground on which the Dollhouse, its staff and its clients operate is explored compellingly, and while you may actually come to sympathise with the reasons the characters give to justify their involvement, the show rarely - if ever - comes down on the side of right or wrong. Ultimately, the picture it paints is of a corrupt and often degrading institution run by people who are all, in their own way, trying to do what they perceive to be the right – or at least the necessary – thing.

It’s a fascinating philosophical minefield to navigate, but it sometimes makes it difficult to know who to root for – not an accusation you could really level at Buffy, Angel or Firefly, no matter how far into darkness their characters slipped. However, if you like your beautiful ass-kicking men and women (and they are very beautiful, and they kick a whole mess o’ ass) served with a side order of existential horror and a generous dollop of moral ambiguity, Dollhouse might just be the show for you.

“I try to be my best”

Whether you buy in to the inner lives of the Actives or not, I think it's safe to say that the supporting cast is as strong as any of Whedon’s other ensembles. From tech wizard Topher (Fran Kranz) to Dollhouse head Adelle DeWitt (played to icy yet subtly vulnerable perfection by Olivia Williams) to house physician Claire Saunders (Amy Acker! Yay! Someone give this woman all the series and films please), everyone who works in the Dollhouse is damaged in some way. They’re all flawed, ethically compromised people existing in a frightening and bizarre grey area, which makes for some seriously thought-provoking drama. Topher, for example, starts the show as a fairly typical wise-cracking genius man-child type, but as he slowly begins to rediscover his fractured morality, his arc is both compelling and ultimately very moving. Even FBI agent Paul Ballard (once you get past Tahmoh Penikett’s slightly peculiar, mannered way of speaking), who starts as something of a cipher, is blessed with an unexpected and interesting character trajectory.

Credit must also go to Eliza Dushku herself, who I feel is as unfairly maligned as the show in which she stars. Granted, perhaps she isn't the strongest actress out there, and she is occasionally shown up by Dichen Lachman and Enver Gjokaj, who play fellow Actives Sierra and Victor respectively, but although she may not be as adept at inhabiting different personalities she does provide a firm anchor for the show, and hints at a strange, unsettling intelligence when in her child-like doll state. As the series progresses, with Echo steadily finding a new self nestled in the tangle of borrowed memories and skills with which she has been imprinted, she grows into a very credible heroine, and Dushku acquits herself well.

Enver Gjokaj, meanwhile, should definitely have been the show's breakout star. The guy is quite phenomenally adaptable, particularly when mimicking other members of the cast - an episode in which he is imprinted with Topher’s mind is especially delightful, with Gjokaj delivering an absolutely pitch-perfect take on Fran Kranz’s twitchy mannerisms. Someone give him all the series and films too. Along with Amy Acker, maybe? Like, maybe they could do the whole driving round in a van solving mysteries thing, maybe? Except that it’s a Firefly-class ship not a van? And then their ship gets damaged and they get rescued by Serenity and join their crew? With Dichen Lachman along for the ride too? For six seasons and a movie? Sorry, I digress.

“I enjoy my treatments”

Dollhouse takes a little while to establish itself, and the early standalone personality-of-the-week episodes, while entertaining, are definitely the weakest. However, after the Joss Whedon-penned Man on the Street (which features a brilliant guest performance by Patton Oswalt and paints a more nuanced picture of the Dollhouse and its function than we’ve previously seen), the series’ real concerns start to emerge, and it kicks into gear in a big way. The latter halves of both Season One and Season Two feature mind-blowing twist after mind-blowing twist, with shifting identities, double-crosses, philosophical quagmires, unforgivable (or are they?) acts, corporate intrigue and plenty of badass fight scenes, despite a rapidly decreasing budget.

The show's curtailed length also arguably ends up working in its favour; with an early end in sight the writers go for broke, squeezing several seasons' worth of plots into a handful of episodes and raising the action to white-knuckle levels of intensity. Watching it all in quick succession makes for a serious adrenaline rush, and you’ve barely had time to recover from one rug-pull before the floor beneath the rug gets ripped away. Season One's finale, Epitaph One, is particularly jaw-dropping, and it's a crime that it wasn't actually broadcast during Dollhouse's initial run; fans had to wait to discover its apocalyptic delights on DVD.

That (admittedly divisive) episode is, for my money, what really sets Dollhouse apart, cementing it as the bleakest of Whedon's TV oeuvre – yes, even taking into account Angel episodes like Reprise and Not Fade Away. There are few clear-cut heroes in this series, and even fewer happy endings, and it never compromises on the darkness inherent to its premise. We are there every step of the way, pulled down with the characters as they traverse their own personal hells, experiencing the nightmarish consequences of the technology with which they’ve been playing. It was always a minor miracle that the show was renewed for a second season after the first's lukewarm reception – although fan pressure might have had a little something to do with it - and having watched it all the way through, I'm still kind of amazed that something this weird and morally ambiguous managed two seasons on a network like Fox. From its murky sexual politics to the ethics of mind-wiping to some fairly on-point political satire, Dollhouse is a fundamentally more adult show than its predecessors, and while it is often very funny, fans of Buffy etc. may be put off by the relentless darkness, and by the lack of Whedon's trademark quippiness (it's still there, mind, just... muted).

“Shall I go now?”

Well-acted, thought-provoking and frequently devastating in its twists and turns, Dollhouse is a peculiar oddity, an extremely brave piece of fiction that fearlessly tackles uncomfortable concepts and themes and asks challenging questions. Can you ever truly erase a person's soul – if, indeed, there is such a thing? What might the next level of augmented humanity look like? Is voluntary slavery still slavery? How much do we love Victor and Sierra (answer: lots)? With its more realistic setting and intelligent exploration of the side-effects of new technology, it has much more of a hard-SF feel than Firefly, and while there are undoubtedly bumps along the way - and one or two contentious twists near the end – if you can look past these and stay the course, it makes for a really rewarding viewing experience. I've not even gone into the headfuck that is The Attic, or the reveal of Alpha, or the mini-arc with Alexis Denisof's Senator Daniel Perrin, or the end of Needs, because you deserve to experience it all without it being spoiled.

So don’t believe the bad press. Give Dollhouse a chance. And you may find one more show to prove your “OMG Joss is totes teh bestest!!!!” theorem.

Or you'll feel vindicated in your position that he's an overrated hack. *Shrug* I tried my best.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Amidst a host of comedy renewal announcements from Fox, which has just granted new seasons to Andy Samburg hit Brooklyn Nine-Nine, New Girl, and The Mindy Project, was the news that serial killer drama The Following will be returning for a third run in 2015.

The show, from Scream's Kevin Williamson, stars Kevin Bacon and James Purefoy as the cat and mouse in a story of serial killers, cults and bloody, bloody violence.

The Following's first season wasn't without its problems, but the second run - according to our reviewer at least - has established itself as a grotesquely bonkers and darkly comic exploration of obsession and manipulation. Fingers crossed that its success means Mr Bacon will no longer have to pop up in those excruciating cinema ads...

Read our spoiler-filled reviews of The Following, here.

Collider

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

"Jack Bauer is a traitor, and a psychopath"

He's also the man tasked with stopping not only the assassination of the US President on foriegn soil but also the outbreak of World War III in new limited series, 24: Live Another Day.

The new twelve-part series stars Kiefer Sutherland and Mary Lynn Rajskub as returning characters Bauer and O'Brien, alongside newcomers Benjamin Bratt, Yvonne Strahovski, Gbenga Akinnagbe, and our very own Stephen Fry as the UK Prime Minister.

Teasers and promo images aside, below is our first real look at 24's return to television:

24: Live Another Day comes to Fox in the US on the 5th of May and to Sky One in the UK shortly thereafter. Read more about the series on Den of Geek, here.

Comic Book Movie

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

This April sees the first half of Mad Men's seventh and final season come to AMC and Sky Atlantic, with the remaining half airing in 2015.

US audiences have already been treated to a teaser promo for the new episodes (unavailable in the UK at the time of writing). It shows a sharp-suited Don Draper on an airstrip descending the steps of a plane. Does it signify a new beginning for the character? A return to the past? Whichever, it has us just where showrunner Matthew Weiner wants us when it comes to his critically acclaimed series: guessing.

The first poster for season seven is less ambiguous, marking as it does a drastic step taken from monochrome into late-sixties psychedelic technicolour.

When it comes to American graphic design, it doesn't get a great deal more iconic than the artist who came up with the ubiquitous 'I heart NY' logo. His name is Milton Glaser and he's he man Weiner hand-picked to design this take on Mad Men's classic opening credits image.  

Read our spoiler-filled season six Mad Men reviews, here.

Entertainment Weekly

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

There's potentially a minor spoiler for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in this story, if you don't happen to know who the villains in the movie are.

We're just over a month away from the release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which sees Andrew Garfield reprising the role of the world's most famous webslinger. Inevitably, there's been quite a lot of chatter about the movie as its unveiling gets closer and closer. And there's been concern raised over just how many villains appear to be populating the movie.

After all, there's Jamie Foxx playing Electro, Paul Giamatti as Rhino, Chris Cooper as Norman Osborn, Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn (and alter ego), and further hints at Doctor Octopus and Vulture. How do you fit that lot in?

Well, whilst attending SXSW, director Marc Webb has been addressing these concerns. "We're obviously familiar with the complaints people had. We're very careful to make sure the stories intertwine", he told The Hollywood Reporter. "For Peter Parker, it's very important that you create obstacles that are difficult to overcome... I'm going to embrace the spectacle. I'm not going to be beholden to smallness. I want it to be fantastic, to be big, to command and express that feeling when you're a kid and reading the comics".

Webb added that Giamatti's The Rhino would only be appearing in the film for "four minutes". That would tie in with the suggestion that this is very much a film that sets up further chapters of the story, and the already-confirmed spin-off movies.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has a release date of April 18th in the UK.

The Hollywood Reporter

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

The story behind the Veronica Mars movie is extraordinary. It should never have existed and might never be emulated again but, if the film is a success both with audiences and financially, then that story could become an amazing fairytale of fan loyalty and creative triumph. If it were to disappoint those who bankrolled the comeback via Kickstarter, however, all of that could be instantly forgotten. But that pressure aside, rarely has there been such a lovingly crafted adventure in fan service as this, with cast and crew banding together to create something purely for those loyal devotees – defying the CW’s cancellation and making international news out of a television series that barely anyone watched in the first place.

But that’s history now and, after a groundbreaking and unprecedented campaign to resurrect our favourite (once) teenage sleuth for a big screen comeback, Veronica Mars is very much in the cultural discussion. All eyes are on this movie – fans for the delayed resolution to a frustratingly unfinished story and others for its potential to alter the movie making model for the future. And here's the good news: the Veronica Mars movie comes off as a wonderful (potential) send-off for the character, a love letter to the fans and a success story for a show that could have died a long time ago. This is what we’ve longed for, with everything that worked on the small screen transferred beautifully to a slickly realised 109-minute labour of love.

After taking a brief trip down memory lane (thanks to a heavy dose of early exposition), we learn that Veronica (Kristen Bell) is living in New York and interviewing for snazzy lawyer jobs while dating old college boyfriend Piz (Chris Lowell) and steering clear of any drama. With Veronica being the addict she is, however, it’s not long before temptation arises in the form of old flame Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring), who has been accused of murdering fellow 90er girlfriend Carrie Bishop (here disappointingly not played by original actress Leighton Meester, but replaced by Andrea Estella). That the case happens to coincide with the timing of a ten year high school reunion is a not-so-happy accident, and the hunt for answers leads Veronica to reconnect with some familiar faces, old friends and bitter enemies she’d rather have left in the past.

With big delays or when a story switches mediums, there’s always the fear that what we loved about the original could be lost in translation, but that definitely isn’t the case here. Veronica is back in every single way – mind, body, heart and spirit – and, for those who kept the hope alive for so many years, handing over their cash as soon as the opportunity arose, that’s the greatest gift imaginable. Not only do we get Veronica and Keith (Enrico Colantoni) back investigating the escapades of Neptune’s ever-more corrupt elite, but there's also a return for every member of the main cast along with supporting characters who played a role in establishing Neptune High as a living, breathing, Hellmouth-esque nucleus during the first two years of the show.

The criticisms that will meet the film will be regarding its distinct lack of cinematic aspirations. This is not a blockbuster movie designed to appeal to a mass, uninitiated audience, but a feature-length finale to a show that has no qualms about littering the script with in-jokes and references, and nothing more than a stylised ‘previously on Veronica Mars’ segment inserted at the movie’s start. New viewers will likely find themselves lost and adrift after the first ten minutes but, that said, it also serves as a lovely introduction to everything this world has to offer. Repeated or adapted themes from episodes past form the basis of the film’s mystery and various character journeys, for example, resulting in a gratifying microcosm of Veronica’s world.

The things existing fans will love about the film are just too numerous to list here. There are endless cameos that somehow never feel tiresome or unnecessary, the razor-sharp wit and humour that characterised the show is intact, and there's a sense that the place in which we find everyone is completely in keeping with the way we left them back in 2007. Keith and Logan are the most important and thus prominent returning players but, if your favourite character happens to be someone else, rest assured that absolutely everyone gets their turn in the spotlight. It’s kind of obvious when you think how long we’ve been waiting but every development, whether it’s for specific characters or their relationships, feels totally earned and completely deserved.

The film’s smallness makes it hard to imagine it as the huge financial success we’ve secretly been hoping for, and there are plenty of flaws that could be picked at, but that’s hardly the point. This is a movie that defied all the odds and owed fans a lot for their support and loyalty, and it has more than delivered on its humble promise to finish the story we all fell in love with nine years ago. This is the finale we deserved back when Veronica Mars was still on the air, but it’s also a great demonstration of what made the show special in the first place. Even if it doesn’t capture the attention of the average moviegoer, at least it will prompt newbies to go back and experience the show, and that’s just a bonus.

Always rewarding but never self-indulgent, the movie version of Veronica Mars is as much a continuation as it is a loving swan song to the original show, and enthusiasts and curious film fans alike can stop worrying. Whether this project changes anything or not, impossible movies are a cause for celebration just for their mere existence. It’s all true fellow Marshmallows – Veronica Mars is back, and she's in the form of her life.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Sony's got a lot of confidence in its upcoming horror movie, Deliver Us From Evil. Originally set for release in early 2015, the release date has been moved forward to the middle of summer this year. Given how well The Conjuring did for Warner Bros and director James Wan last summer, this may well be a wise move.

Deliver Us From Evil comes from director Scott Derrickson, who previously gave the world the impressive Sinister. The film stars Eric Bana, Olivia Munn, Sean Harris, Edgar Ramirez and Joel McHale. And a new trailer for it appeared over the weekend, which you can see below these words.

Deliver Us From Evil arrives in the US in July, and in UK cinemas on August 22nd.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

It's less than a month now before Game Of Thrones returns to our screens, with the premiere of season 4 earmarked for April 6th on HBO, and the day after in the UK on Sky Atlantic.

HBO has been careful and deliberate with its teaser trailers, but it's accelerating its promotion right around now, and here's the third trailer for Game Of Thrones season 4. Inevitably, there are spoilers if you're not fully up-to-date with your Game Of Thrones viewing. But you probably guessed that...

Here's the new trailer.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

We missed this story, which popped up in the Hull Daily Mail the week before last. But we suspect that many of you may have missed it too, and thought you may be interested.

While promoting his new hit movie Non-Stop, Liam Neeson chatted about the role of James Bond, with which he was heavily linked in the 1990s. "I was heavily courted, let's put if that way, and I'm sure some other actors were too", he said.

So why did he turn it down?

"It was about 18 or 19 years ago, and my wife-to-be said 'if you play James Bond we're not getting married. And I had to take that on board, because I did want to marry her!'"

Neeson's of course referring to Natasha Richardson, who he went on to marry, and the two were married from 1994 through to her tragic death in 2009.

As we charted in this feature here, Neeson was in line for a second remake of Thunderball, under the guidance of Kevin McClory, that would have been an 'unofficial' James Bond movie. But it all never came to pass.

Non-Stop, meanwhile, has already taken over $50m at the US box office, and marks his latest action thriller hit.

Here's the full interview at the Hull Daily Mail.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.