One Ring, One Coin, One More Series....

So Grimm is quite interesting so far. It's still the first series so there's a likely chance it will get worse - but for now.....  I like it.

Let's not overthink my afinity for such things, da?

Although, I find the actors annoying at times. The guest ones, mostly. Mainly the ones I've seen elsewhere.

Let's start with him first.

He was in Mentalist. He played well against Jane, but I think I mainly just liked Jane driving his very expensive car blindfolded....

(Like everything Jane does, it worked perfectly - but then he forgot to set the brakes on a hill. Leading to a hedge. Leading to a cliff. Typical Jane. Thankfully the car was empty...)

So in Grimm SPOILERS  no, of course he's not going to be the villain: he's just going to seem like it, but he'll turn out to be a nice guy.

Where. To even. Start.

I've actually seen her in several things: Agents of SHIELD; Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing which was actually my introduction to her; and then, of course, Person of Interest.

The latter, of course, now permeates everything.

Because SPOILERS she's going to be a villain, but you're REALLY going to relate to and feel sorry for her, but she's not really going to care.

I really, really, really can't stand her. She's prettier as a spider though, I can grant that....

(On a side  note: I really am horrid about those spoilers. Not in general, but for Finch. One person finally watched past the scene and....  Oh, I'm definitely evil.)

Speaking of Person of Interest, that series was even worse at taking actors I knew and using them in basically every other episode. It was annoying. And such fun to guess the ending - I wonder if that has aired again yet....

I digress!  My hands are stiff....

But it is quite interesting. Incredibly predictable in most points, but what can you expect from a television series? Most follow the same paths. The same basic characters, the same basic forumla, the same basic ending...  More or less.

I'm talking characters, not episodes. Although those have been pretty predictable too - but that's irrelevant and normal. I characterise.

And the main characters are pretty dull. Nick Burkhardt is thrown into a world he doesn't understand and didn't know of, and he's pulling those he knows into the world with him. Monroe is someone that loves history and is alone and is teaching the world.

More or less. There's nothing to learn about them. And Juliette is the girlfriend who knows nothing about the world - that's going to end terribly....

(By the way, can magical creatures automatically read German? Or are they all taught it as children?)

Really, there's only one interesting character here on the series: the Captain.

Why? Because we know nothing about him.

SPOILERS!!! IN GENERAL!!!! Mostly for Flash and Grimm.

We know that he has ties in with and knows of the supernatural world around him. We know that he has high standing IN the world. We know that he works with very dangerous people in that world. And we have no idea what side he's truly on.

Nor do we know what he is. Is he a Grimm? Is he human? Is he a creature?

We don't know.

And that is the best part.

We also know he has a Smeagol-like affinity for certain gold coins, but I think that's the One Coin's fault and not his.

Sound familiar at all?

 Harold Finch did (and does) the same thing: we know nothing about him.

But Grimm is basically following almost the same thing as Flash - although you might say the 'reverse'.

It was unavoidable.

But while Wells was basically good and helpful and you couldn't believe that he was evil, the Captain is basically bad and we really doubt that anything good he does is truly for any good reasons.

Either way, the end result is the same: I want to follow his story line at expense of basically everyone else.

And I really, really hope he doesn't turn out completely bad - that has a bad habit of happening.

While we're talking of Flash that was still an idiotic ending. THE PARADOXES JUST WHY????

At least Doctor Who hides it better!!

Back to Grimm.

Actually, not quite: speaking of Flash and annoying crossover actors.....

Dr. Caitlin Snow. Who is annoying in Flash and about a hundred times more interesting in Grimm - but this probably has something to do with the fact that she's a supernatural character. What is there not to like?

She's also incredibly annoying as a character given her actions, but not nearly so much as Snow, so....  (That's ironic. She plays snow and breathes fire. I love it. Yes, I over-complicate things massively - I recommend not encouraging me unless you want me to continue weaving insane crossover universes....)

But back to the Captain.

Yet another character with an expertly chosen name: Sean Renard. Sean means either 'gift from God' or 'God is gracious', and Renard means 'fox'. Basically.

Which, alright, the meaning of the first might be a stretch to match up given - as I said - we know nothing of the Captain. However, he is certainly fox-like. He's wily and cunning and playing more than one part and he's smooth. Certainly a fox if nothing else.

And the first name can be twisted to basically anything, but I personally am leaning toward the presumption that he will end up fighting with Nick. Which, alright, I admit is wishful thinking - but I can dream.....  Besides, him being a villain would be dull. Much more fun to make him on the side of the hero and then get to make him, really, really double sided and multi-leveled. The best sort of character.

Although, as a fox, right now his character really reminds me of Heather Dale's song...

And up spoke our master huntsman, the Master of the Chase:

"If only the Devil himself come by, we'd run him such a race."

The men, the hounds, the horses went flying back to town;

And all on their heels went a little black fox, laughing as he ran:

"Ride on, my gallant huntsman, when must I come again?

For you should never want for a fox to chase all over the glen."

Which is....Oh, I really hope he's on the side of the good guys mostly - it would be a brilliant character arc then. (And yes, the song is a little weird, but it does apply....)

And for goodness sakes, STAY AWAY FROM COINS OF POWER!!!

Yes, that is what I've named those things. It fits.

Alright, now I'm curious.... Do more of the names fit? Again?

Nicholas Burkhardt -- 'People's Victory' and literally 'strong or hardy fort or castle'.

This name is genius. He's a Grimm - he's not really a supernatural being. He's basically a human. and, of course, not really. But by killing and hunting the evil supernatural things - even by just bringing criminal's to justice - he brings victory for the people. At the same time, he does defend the people - he is a Strong Keep to shield those unprepared and unknowing of the supernatural world around them. Just like a fort.

(Although, the more I think about it, a 'Grimm' is ancestral and hereditery too - it basically is a Wesen, isn't it?)

Let's see who's next...

Ah, Monroe. Finally learnt his name - danke schonn. He also only has one. Which irks me. I like two names. More fun.

Anyway!

 Monroe -- 'from the mouth of the red haired'.

Loose application. But in certain lights, his hair really does look more red than brown, or it could be applied to the bloody connotation's of a werewolf's role. But he is the one Nick goes to for information so the 'from the mouth' part definitely fits.

Ooh....this one's brilliant. On the level of Sean's and Nick's so far.

Actually, there are very few main characters here......

Adalind Schade -- I couldn't find 'Adalind' specifically, but Adaline was the same and means 'noble'. The surname means 'damage' or 'to do damage'.

The first? Is that it's a German name. this is brilliant in it's own right - actually, many seem to have names with German roots. Completely surprising, I know...

Now, 'noble' is trickier... It can mean someone of rank, someone (or something, just....assume the two are synonymous right here) high bred, renowned, well-known, illustrious..... It means more than just pertaining to rank or blood. It also means something of superior quality.

Now, onto her surname. It was a word that referred to either a thug or clumsy person, or to a robber knight that would raid other people's lands. And, of course, it's translation of 'to do damage'.

So her name literally means 'illustrious beginnings to do damage'. More or less, combining versions of definitions.

"You do ugly so well."

Really a brilliant choice for her character!

Juliette Silverton -- 'father's child' and 'white thorn'

Well, obviously, she is her father's biological child. Bit impossible not to be. Without knowing whether or not her character is like her father's, I can't say if that name fits perfect on all levels.

'White thorn' does fit, and a bit more characterly than her given name does. Because she's pure. Untouched. White. The 'thorn' I'm taking to mean the forests and thorny brambles in faerytales, given that this is Grimm and it's basically completely from faerytales. Now, the thorns or forests (are there ever any safe forests in faerytales? No. Thus? There are thorns. However, thorns stand for women and femininity, actually - sensibly, given the forests shroud and protect things and that is the essence of modest in a woman. Propriety. Ideal.

They also stand for refuge, and she is that to Nick - she is his refuge from the supernatural and the homicidal.

On a side note, in reference to her first name's meaning as 'father's child', Adam is the father of humans - it's the mythological Lillith that where in the WORLD did she come from that's the line of monsters. Thus? She is her father's child given that she's human and not supernatural.

She's also an example of a name that barely works until you overthink it massively.

And, by the way, she has grown on me since the Pilot. She is an excellent character - my only complaint against her is that she's a girlfriend. It would be immensely easier to ignore if they'd stop kissing please. And touching like that. It could be worse, I know - but it could be better.....

Hank Griffins -- 'enclosure or home ruler' and 'lord or prince'.

And his name is a perfect example of why I probably read into things too much. Because unless you take it to mean that he's the ruler of his house because he lives alone? This really doesn't match unless you stretch it so much that it could mean anyone. So, I'll get back to this at some point. Maybe. If they work with his character more.

Now, he is another problem with this series because he is entirely too much like the Asian from Sleepy Hollow for me to separate the two. Except he's thankfully alive. And, after I looked it up, thankfully they have different names - that would have been really, really creepy....

Which is basically the only reason he's on here because his name is incredibly dull and just means 'military or masculine'. Incredibly discriptive...

I do hope he comes up much more - I enjoy him.

What is it with me and my stubborn ability to prefer background characters over the main characters? Very, very irksome....

It is interesting though, how many series do this.

By the way, I wasn't going to include her, but I've seen more of her and think that it would be interesting.

Rosalee Calvert -- Well, I learnt something new. 'Rosalee' comes from 'Rose' comes from German words that mean 'fame' and 'kind or sort or type'. So the closest I could translate that is 'fame of a sort'. Very interesting......Of course, it also means 'rose like' and roses are associated with femininity, and innocence. And 'Calvert' simply means 'cattle herder'.

Sometimes, names are just brilliantly chosen, and then at other times it's obvious that I'm reading into this.

So. Rosalee. I majorly spoiled myself for her. Thanks a lot subconcious head. Thanks a lot. anyway!

Her name if I was to profile it or characterise it comes from her knowledge and innocent appearance and yet thorns of experience in her past, as well as her ability leading and corraling Nick and Monroe. Who really do just...lumber into things.

Yes, feel free to say I'm overthinking things. I'm aware of it.

Happily Ever After

(This is another reason I should be allowed nowhere near one of these things. I did finally figure out where that line comes from by the way: Sherlock, when he refers to John's blog. Fitting, given my first post - I quite agree with him on my account. But this is what happens when I think about characters and have absolutely nothing to do with this. So I throw it up here. My apologies...)

There are people oh so terribly, terribly bad, dear. They've no hope for redemption - no chance for cure. They bathe in blood and feed on flesh and have no skin upon their bones. Monsters they are, recognisable on sight and something that walks in the darkest, evillest nights.

Oh Darling...haven't you ever heard of villains before?

Come, sit down. let me tell you a faery story.

Oh, this isn't going to be a happy one, dear - in fact, it ends rather horribly.

Don't cry, darling - it's still about a princess. There's still going to be a prince, and the dragon, and the evil witch, and the unfair advantage - but there won't be a happily ever after.

Are you surprised?

It started in castle, in a perfect little world. All was marble pedestals, and nothing went wrong.The family was happy, the subjects content, the realm rich, and the little princess played in her tower with her dolls and her china.

You like that? You would, darling...

She enjoyed looking out of her tower window - she could see for miles around. She could see everything.

And all was pretty and perfect. All was spring and summer and never any winter.

So is every faerytale, is it not? Oh, but Darling, we've only just begun.

Like every little princess, she grew older. She outgrew her dolls and her china was all smashed.

she grew older, and her family broke apart. She grew older, and a pall fell on the kingdom and the subject fell ill and scorned the realm's ruler. She grew older, and the marble cracked and became tarnished clay.

She grew older - but no one else did. She changed, but all around her stayed the same. She looked out the window and saw her games end - saw the truth.

But on every tower there is a door. And that door is always locked. And hers was no different.

No, the story doesn't end there, Darling - the prince hasn't come yet.

The princess was content to stay for a little bit. Content to curtain the window and cover the pedestals until all looked right. Content to ignore what she had seen for the security and familiarity of her rooms and life.

But she couldn't ignore it forever. No one ever could. And so she left.

She pushed over the pedestals and she smashed the clay and she uncovered the window and stood in it.

And she fell. She jumped. She flew to the ground.

Oh, Darling, this is a faerystory - does the princess ever die?

I did say there wasn't a happily ever after, didn't I...

She walked away from the fall, dear. She lived.

But the Princess died. Someone so perfect and innocent could never survive it, and she killed the princess.

No prince would rescue her from that tower - she was too young, too dull, too sheltered... A Prince had better things to be doing, and no one else would free her. So she killed the princess and ran away. She killed the princess and she survived.

She was broken and scarred and wounded and she could never heal - but she walked away; and darling, isn't that all that matters?

And she walked through the world on its level now. And she saw all of the other marble pedestals, and she saw all of the other content subjects, and she saw all of the other girls in their perfect towers....

And she wondered what was so wrong.

She had grown older and all had gone wrong. And she had grown older and no one else had - so upon whose shoulder rested the fault?

And she hated the rest of the world. She screamed at it - but no one heard her in their perfect realms or towers.

So she tried to bring them down.

And, Darling, the Prince came for those princesses, and he came for those realms - and she hated him.

Have you ever fought, Darling? Have you ever grappled for a gun, or wrestled with a knife, or partook of a dinner that might cost you your life? Oh, Darling - it's a delicate dance.

It's deadly and burning and doomed to end badly - and she played it. She played it again and again and again - desperate to pull one of the perfect towers down - to break one of the marble pedestals.

But she never could.

It was a gambling game, dear - and she got the wrong hand.

It was never going to end well. And she knew this from the start. It was why she killed the princess, so the little girl would never see the mess that led to the inevitable final fall.

It was like some sad joke of a story - like some joke that would get better at the last moment. Someone would leap out and announce that of course she would win, just this once - but no one ever did.

She dug her own grave, darling. and she dug it of her own free will. But she was never buried in it.

She's meant to be forgotten, ignored - shamed until she's a thing of myth and legend.

But you can never blame her. You can never say she did it for fun, that she delighted in the chaos she wrecked - in the lives she destroyed.

You never saw the tears she cried at night, saw the blood she vainly scrubbed off her fingers as if rubbing them raw would make any difference. You never saw the ghosts that surrounded her bed at night, reminding her of every time she'd fail and taunting her with the end that awaited her. You never felt the ache in her heart every time she turned away from her ruin....

She is the monster, you say? She bathes in blood, you say? She hunts at night, you say?

Oh, but darling, you don't know villains.

Oh, Darling, they're just the same as anyone else - simply more broken and more scarred. They're the ones that smile when everyone's looking and scream when they're alone. they're the ones that lash out at others and are tearing themselves apart inside. They're the ones in the silence that hurt to drown out their pain. Their the ones in the crowd that draw attention to feel alive.

And that is the worst monster, darling: the one you can become.

Because you are her, aren't you? Sitting in your tower, surrounded by your marble pedestals, hoping that you'll never grow older to have to face the real world....

Perhaps one day you'll jump, perhaps one day the Prince will ride up - but you won't truly know. Either way, the Princess must day. She always has - she always will. In the end, the Villain and the Princess are the same things. One will die quicker, and the other will linger - but they both follow the same path.

So don't fear the beasts in the dark, dear. Fear the people in your life. They might be more monstrous than ever could I be in the darkest, evillest forest, Darling....

For the Evil Queens are the Princesses that were never saved.

Come to the Dark Side...

Matt is hilarious. Completely. Him and...John in the Memory Lapse video typically have the best parts. The weirdest parts - but the best.

Especially his news announcment - read the news scolling at the bottom of the screen.

So, the electricity went out last night. I at least got a whole night's sleep for once - exhausted enough to sleep through the eletricity coming back on thrity minutes after I lay down - but we lit some candles. I really wish I could take pictures because the set up! A scene with candle light hold the same allure that a Noir setting does - but sadly I can't take pictures. So I shall simple have to save it in my head and just imagine what the pictures would look like.

With my luck, they'd turn out the same way my drawings do: horrid rubbish.

Anyway! It is a Gothic aesthetic. I said so in reference to that style that includes gargoyles and old cathedrals and perpetual rain, however, I also learnt that the term refers to someone that comes of Old Germany.

Which fits in a way.

But then the word was taken back again to refer to the style of which I refer to, simply calling it 'Germanic' or 'Teutonic'. Of course, that era passed, and then it returns to refer to styles that refer to the original Gothic fashion and era.

Quite interesting! And all for want of a camera talent...

It is interesting though.....  I realised that this is probably the most honest version of me that exists - or at least the most honest public version. It holds ALL aspects of me, even if most are subtext rather than blatant - they are at least hinted at.

I doubt it would ever be completely honest. Ever. I don't think I'm really capable of knowingly being so, especially in public.

But may the Lord help me if anyone found this. It's bad enough that some I do trust more than others know of this - I'd personally prefer that none knew of it at all.

So welcome to the dark side - I don't have cookies right now, but I'm sure that if you're here already then you'll find something worthwhile.

It is very much like watching a library burn down, knowing that there are books - first editions and only copies - within that will never, ever be replaced. It's like standing beside the ashey rubble picking up charred books that will never be read again because that was the only copy.

What would be my worst fear? If the house would ever burn down. I would lose it all, and I'd never, ever be able to get it back. It would just be...horrid. Hardly bears thinking about.

I quite enjoy spy films. I quite enjoy fairy stories. I always have - I was raised on them.

But imagine a story where two high Russian nobles fled after the Revolution and came to England. There they hide, but refuse to use the money and end up working as servants under different names. Until, of course, they are recognised.

And imagine another story where a tourist is mistaken and taken for a spy even though he has absolutely no idea what's going on.

and imagine that there are two versions of these stories - different players in the same tales.

AND THEN KNOW THAT BBC HAS GOT TO QUIT DELETING THESE THINGS BECAUSE IT'S INFURIATING!!!!!!

I never really thought I'd have this problem with old productions, In fact, that was originally why I preferred them. Cliffhangers held no worries, they were clean, they were safe - I could watch them without fear.

And, of course, I proved myself completely wrong. What's new.

Au contraire, I find that I have better luck with the new series than I do with older series. Oh, certainly not in appropriateness or safety on that score - but rather in...availability.

Tovarich, Epithet for a Spy.....Beau Brummel...  Oh, they certainly exist in other productions - but with different actors and thus different in character....

I mourn for that I do not know, and weep for what may never come - say rather than it never was than wish for it to see the sun.

For what is this that I care for? What is this that holds my sight? It is not mine to clutch and hold to - so long ago it lost the fight.

..........I have poetry on the mind again.

I still wish I could have seen Benedict's part. Perhaps it will be available, rather than OTHER productions that currently hold my annoyance, but if it will not then....Well, at least I get to see scenes. There aren't even SCENES of the others.

It is amusing though.

I had to memorise Hamlet's Soliloquy for school, and I love it. I especially love quoting it. Always. In different tones and moods. It is....a wonderful distraction.

......and, of course, I can speak the truth and merely say that I am....quoting. For all know Hamlet's speech. Who here would ever think otherwise? None.

....but then, why is 1984 still available, and yet not others from the same series?

I Heard the Bells More Loud and Deep

Oranges and Lemons, say the Bells of St. Clements.

You owe me five farthings, say the Bells of St. Martins.

When will you pay me? Say the Bells of Old Bailey.

When I am rich, say the Bells of Shoreditch.

When will that be? Say the Bells of Stepney.

I do not know, say the Great Bell of Bow.

Here comes a candle to light you to bed.

Here comes a chopper to chop off your head.

Chip. Chop. Chip. Chop. The last man is dead.

"It was curious, but when you said it to yourself you had the illusion of actually hearing bells, the bells of a lost London that still existed somewhere or other, disguised and forgotten. From one ghostly steeple after another he seemed to hear them pealing forth. Yet so far as he could remember he had never in real life heard church bells ringing."

If you liked Orwell's book 1984, then you would like the 1954 adaptation of it. From what I remember of the book, it was excellently done. Short, but excellently done.

However, I couldn't stand the book. It was just a bit.....too old? There were some scenes in it that were a bit too...obvious. I didn't like it. I am very good at skipping things however, and the rest of the books was.... I quite enjoyed the rest on a....political level? Perhaps?

On second thought, perhaps I should reread that thing.

But I was watching the film and, while I know it refers to political matters, it also refers to single....fates? I really haven't read the book and can barely hear the film.

But he's searching for the past, looking for something he doesn't know - doesn't understand and has no reference to. He asks the old man in the tavern about life before the Revolution, and he goes to the banned area of the town to look at the people and paperweights - to look at simple beauty.

And he takes back what he can. He reclaims what little bits of the past and what should be as he can - but it will never be whole.

Even Julia, dressing in make-up and the clothes of poor people, of a forbidden forgotten time. And she has no idea what to do - she just puts it together as she faintly remembering it being.

But there is none they can ask for help, no chance that this world they long for can ever be real again - can ever be more than a fanciful dream indulged in in fleeting, lost moments. It can never, ever truly come to pass - it's just a...fool's vain hope. Nothing more. That's all it can ever be.

And what else is a dabble in the vintage life? Is that not what Winston does? What Julia does? Begging their elders for remembrances of a seemingly lighter, perfect time? Of a beautiful time that they can only dream of? Of song and melodies that can whisper through their dreams but can never be heard aloud again?

But then the game is over and the clothes are put away. The makeup is washed off, the clothes are folded away, the water poured onto the street..... They walk back to their apartments and their departments, pretending nothing happens.

Certainly, the consequences for the discovery of their game is much more dire - but are not the elements the same?

And when it began? When Winston walked out alone and Julia learnt 'Oranges and Lemons' from her grandfather? When each walked down to the forbidden area (I've forgotten the name...) and admired trinkets of no value simply for the link they held with the past? When they looked around at the rest of the people around them dressed in the same drab clothes? When they knew that they could never share their interests, their desires, their dreams simply because no one else would care or understand?

It doesn't matter that the past shapes the present - the past is forgotten. The present is all that matters.

But then they find each other. and, alright, I hate that - but! Imagining that nothing else goes on - imagining that they only shared there dreams and interests, then...  They would have found one other person that longs for the past the same as they did.

It is a lonely world. To wear modest, outdated fashion, to wear shapewear, to have long natural hair, to obey one's parents as completely openly, and to walk through a world where seemingly no one else does this? To find even one. other. person. that shares these interests is...precious. Seemingly impossible - but precious.

To learn that there are others that have a greater hold to the past, and are better able to bring it into the present - to learn that it is possible to continue living in the past while in the present seems impossible; and it is.

It is the past. It is the present. Never the twain shall meet. We are not of the past - we can only pretend to be. But we are a product of our times. Those of the past did not document ever little thing - taking it for granted. And so, we have lost it. We can bring back a little bit in aesthetic, in etiquette - but...not completely. Not without a time machine and taking a child back and letting it be raised in the past.

We mimic the past, but we are not the past, and thus is our weakness. Thus is always the weakness. We are actors, we are not the part.

And we know little or no people that can teach of the past - that can lead us back.

And just as the Next Generation will know nothing of 'Oranges and Lemons' or indeed of any life before the perpetual War, so we will continue to lose the things of the past.

It is as it has always been, and so it shall always be. Sadly so.

.....the saddest thing about this? Winston dies. And if you continue the correlation it gets rather morbid.

What's new?

And yet....  (Didn't I do something like this before? Draw pointless parallels between a film and something nonfictional? It seems familiar...  Maybe it's just my life.)

"How many fingers?"

"I'm trying to see five"

If Big Brother says that two plus two makes five, then so it does.

If the modern world says that women don't need men to be chivalrous to them, that chivalry is misogynistic - then so it is?

I hardly think so.

But then again, 'it always was rather small'....

It was an excellent adaptation. But I only reccommend it if you know something (a lot) about the book, or you'd watch something for Cushing regardless of plot. I take no responsibility for it beyond that.

"If you are a man, you are the last man."

"Chip. Chop. Chip. Chop. The last man is dead."

Made by Angelique

Let it end - such dark beginnings

Hold no good for what may come.

The threads now chosen are dark-tainted -

Will now no one run?

What have we now brought on ourselves?

What have we shaped our fate?

There is evil, but still we call

To the reflecting plate.

Let it end - let us rather

Choose a different road.

If we go on, there is no ending -

Only a heavy load.

What have we now begun ourselves?

What way can we escape?

There is sorrow, and all we are

Is some forgotten shape.

Let it end - it never started,

Reflections of the past.

It was but dreams that had no future -

Such things could never last.

What could we have made of ourselves?

What story have we told?

We mimic those better than us -

Actors of stories old.

One and One and One Again

Well, look who's back....

I did say that I had found other films to watch - I just finally got around to it.

My apologies to all who are quite sick of this subject and all it entails - but you are quite welcome to leave.

For whatever reason, old films tend to be....quick. Short. Perhaps it's because they set up and end everything quickly without side plots and tangents, and stick to the main characters and story from the start. And, of course, they ARE shorter. But that's irrelevant at the moment.

They still make hour and a half films now (Sherlock...) that seem longer than these old films. It just...intrigues me.

It was as good as I expected. The scene of Kharis' burial of the princess was long and unnecessary, and quite violent - but only insomuch as typical royal Egyptian funerals. The reason I found it unnecessary is because I already knew it.

And Kharis was.... By the way, SPOILER ALERT if you plan to watch it and want to be completely unspoiled and you couldn't guess the ending.

Well, he was very proud. I doubt he's unintelligent, so I can only assume he's proud. Because trying to fight his way out of the only exit of a tomb through many guards would have been doomed to failure and also rather undignified. However, it was at LEAST a day until he was sentenced - no escape attempt?

It wasn't as if he didn't know what to expect... And then he just walks into his own tomb? That's it? ........unless they did more than just wrap him in bandages....

Alright, that would actually answer it. If they had mummified him completely alive and then buried him while he was 'alive' under the Scroll of Life... That would answer it.

But even before that! He knew what would happen to him!

He does play quite proud people.....

And then, of course, there's John Banning.

For whatever reason, He kept reminding me of Finch in this film.... He talks more than Van Helsing and so wasn't him it was just....

He had a twisted leg, had an energy about learning, and meddled in things he should have better left alone.

He was rather finch-like. Except that even Finch doesn't come THAT close to death.

......except that one episode that I'm evil and tell people about.

I really am going to be in trouble whenever they watch it.....  But then again, people shouldn't spoil ME.

I don't spoil people the right way....

And Isobel's hair-! It does have to be rather thin though.... Although, we never do see it actually come down - it's possible that, since the scene is cut up (like they do it in films), it's not her natural hair.

But it's so long and lovely! And dark - but that's a different subject.

Speaking of different subject, the film was incredibly familiar. It took me until the last few minutes to figure out why: it was much the same as Pyramids of Mars. Not quite in plot, of course - but rather in set and design.

Doctor Who

The Mummy

Both Egyptians in a rich house, both wearing red fezzes, both controlling mummies. The difference being, of course, that Kharis was human once and the ones of Pyramids of Mars were alien...things.

The Mummy

Doctor Who

And both got killed by the things they thought they controlled. Granted, in The Mummy, he did control him - but then he ordered Kharis to kill the 'Princess' and that went about as well as could be expected.

The Mummy

Doctor Who

And the women are even both wearing supposedly Victorian garments! Well, as close as they could be....  Sarah Jane's rather looks more like Edwardian than Victorian, and Isobel's day-clothes look more Georgian or even Tudorian rather than Victorian - but we'll allow that they are wearing old gowns. That's probably about all we can allow on that note....

But Sarah Jane at least isn't SUPPOSED to be a Victorian lady as Isobel is - and for whatever reason, Mrs. Banning meeting the inspector in her dressing gown and nightdress with her hair DOWN just....seems wrong on countless levels.Someone would have had to go fetch the Inspector, so surely she could have gone and put on some proper clothes? Please?

But that's beside the point - as I said, we'll allow....  One can't expect great historical accuracy in older films unless they're older films set in the time period they were produced in - and aren't those just so much fun?

It's amusing how many times before I said they were inaccurate, not realising that they were MADE in that time thus they MUST be right. I annoy myself....

Doctor Who

And both the Doctor and Banning are strangled by mummies to unconsciousness. Both are thought dead and left behind, and both come back to life - or at least don't actually die.

The Mummy

The Doctor is saved because he's an alien and it really wouldn't be fair to make him so much like humans because he'd have run out of regenerations long before he'd have been around so long. They had to at least put him on SOME sort of equal footing after giving him a death wish and fatal curiosity. Especially too much of the latter....

And John Banning is saved because Isobel loves him and did he REALLY think she was going to stay up in her room after telling her that he was going to be attacked next by something that wants to kill him, alone? Hardly likely!

This also makes the....third and fourth times Lee strangles Cushing. At least Banning doesn't pass out so quickly - so either he got better at acting (Impossible - well, mostly.  Horror of Dracula came out in 1958 and The Mummy came out in 1959) or he still has no excuse for losing consciousness so quickly when strangled by vampyres.

Although, as Van Helsing, he also has the extra pressure of being fully aware of what happens if he slips up or loses - so perhaps the exertion before and hyperventilation contributes to lack of oxygen later? And Banning has a much cooler head and not the threat of condemned (the other word works better, but it sadly has rather....crude connotations any more. Why have people ruined the English language? Or any language? Why must they be crude anyway? Not fair..... I have to find other descriptive adjectives and there aren't many for that place...) immortality for all time, drinking the blood of others.

That would be a horrid thought really. I feel sorry for Harker - what he feared came upon him....

And why didn't they just blow the Mummy to pieces? It wasn't exactly....healing itself from the damage Banning inflicted on it - why not simply continue the damage until it was blown into such tiny pieces that even Abby and Ziva couldn't put it back together again OR all the King's Horses and all the King's men?


For that matter, they could have just turned the mummy into a mummified version of Ducky's Meat Puzzle - that would have worked too.

Instead, he's sunk to the bottom of the bog with the Scroll of life (that water was disgusting and Isobel's hair was covered in it that's just...ew. And how did Lee go UNDER the surface? It just....No.

Of course, I assume it wasn't really a bog - but nonetheless. The idea.

But who's to say he can't or won't come back? He could control himself now, could he not? And they only did how much Frankenstein films - it isn't that improbable....

Irrelevant!

I did enjoy the film though. On the subject of NCIS though, I wonder if Tony's watched any. He seems to have watched everything else, it wouldn't surprise me - In fact, I certainly expect him to have.

Which, of course, will mean that he hasn't and won't. Surprise, surprise....

It is fun to recognise his his quotes and references - and amusing to see how much we do know.

Now, what is immediately left....  Grimm, 1984, and Island of Terror. What I'll start and what I'll finish are two different things though, as ever.

By the way, on a side note, a 'Terance' (or Terrance?) directed both films.

Grimm Faerytales

.....I'll give you a hint for anyone who knows absolutely NOTHING about the Grimm's collections: if an episode opens with a quote concerning a certain wolf, and the episode continues to show a girl in a red hoodie jogging alone through the woods.....  What do you THINK is going to happen?

The original faerytales were NOTHING like the....gentled versions most children read. They were rather violent.

So wolf in the woods with girl alone - let's ignore what that story was metaphorically standing for and just hazard a WILD guess as to what happens, shall we?

By the way, as if I didn't have ENOUGH imagination problems concerning dark alleys, strange people, strangers in general? Thank you for intruducing me to this terrific series concerning creepy faery tales....  I'm sure I'll have no ill reactions to it WHATsoever.

He agrees with me.

On a side note though, don't study faerytales. There's a bit too much in it blatantly or subtext or not there at all and only there in my head which is COMPLETELY possible given how much I love complications, but it....  Well, it adds much to the series, but not in a good way. Ick.

However, if you don't know it, then it's perfectly fine! Minus the creepy parts of course and the general police series drama!

That being said it was....surprisingly funny. Very much so.

Well, except for the scene where you DON'T GO INTO A DARK HOUSE WITH A SUPERNATURAL CREATURE ARE YOU TRYING TO GET YOURSELF KILLED?

Which turned out about as well as could be expected to...

Do I WANT to know who she is? Not really...

I had rather expected Grimm to be like Sleepy Hollow. At points, it definitely is.

For the majority of it, however? Rather not. Oh, the humour is the same as it's the only kind I enjoy - but, it works at a completely different level of creepy.

And not in a bad way either, thankfully.

Speaking of this, what ELSE do I need to catch up on??

For all that Sleepy Hollow is....humourous and I do enjoy Ichabod's character, I've never had a good relationship with Sleepy Hollow or the legend of the Headless Horseman. Something about late nights and people telling a little girl a terrifying ghost story that does not end in the ghost being eradicated. It...left an impression.

So, on that note, whyever did I ever watch the series? Something about the Revolutionary War and a man that basically time travels to the modern era from it and I really should never have watched Forever - it has led to entirely too much trouble in my life.

However, Sleepy Hollow is something you never EVER watch at night with an open door behind you, and ESPECIALLY never alone. Seriously don't. Watch it in broad daylight with a cross and stake or letter opener or whatever calms your mind in your hand - while it is a fun series at times, the humourous moments are at least equally balanced with the terribly suspenseful ones. Making for a case of: WHY DO I KEEP WATCHING THIS THING!!!!

Although, perfect example of how I simply do not understand how Horror of Dracula, or House of Shadows (alright, that one's sort of a parody...), or The Mummy are considered horror films when they are not NEARLY as creepy as a television series? They're not even a percentage as creepy. Just...no.

Anyway! Side note....

So Grimm is actually incredibly tame. And the monsters are killed or done away with - an extra bonus point.

Granted, I'm only a few episodes in and much can change - but for now....

Lovely, creepy, faerytale stuff. Sadly, with a girlfriend. WHY must they feel the need to inflict that upon us watchers - I do not understand it.... I suppose I could be bored watching him try to court some other girl, awkwardly - so at least he already...has her, for lack of a better word. But I'm sure they'll still manage to make it dull and more awkward.

But I could be wrong! Who knows.

That cup, by the way, is NOT from Grimm. I've no idea where it's from, but the cup itself is gorgeous, and it fit them...mood that I've at the moment.

And while Penny Dreadful is a series that I can never, ever watch - it does have some absolutely gorgeous costumes that I really wish I could remake on my own.

I've yet to figure out how I got those pictures to sit so close together in my first few posts....  They refuse to work together now. To my frustration....

But the lace! And the collars! And the embroidery! And the beadwork! And.....Oh, the only thing I DON'T like about these is that I don't have them.

And that a few of them have rather low collars, but that is easily enough rectified.

And yes, they're also quite dark - but that only adds to it.

The high-collared, long-sleeved dresses are better though.

Sorry - it was this or a picture of Zachary Smith.....

After rambling, I do enjoy finding pictures for this.

But, back to my original point, I quite enjoy Grimm so far. It has been well-handled, and I especially enjoy trying to guess the faerytale from the opening quote.

...And I just realised that I've been using the archaic spelling for 'faery' again.....

It's a Dangerous Business....

"You know, that looks like a really interesting series! It looks like something I would really enjoy! I think I'll watch it - there aren't that many things I can watch."

"Well. THAT was a mistake.

Alright, so it's only happened once. Twice maybe - but I've not seen the Pilot for SG-1 in a while and can't recall what was in it....... But how many other times has it happened when I consider watching something and then have to ditch the idea because of the content!

Finding series the first time....

"I have nothing to watch now.... Well, I do - I'm just not in the mood for any of it.

Oh! Let's search shows similar to what I want to watch but have already finished!

Look at all these amazing series! I'll be busy for years! I'll never have to worry about watching series again!!

There are all just what I enjoy. Fantasy, mystery, history, comedy, drama, action....."

"And....there's the catch. There's only inappropriate content in every other episode at least......"

Thank you, series producers. I'd love to watch this thing! But I can't. I hope you're happy.

This is namely for three series currently - actually, four. Because I'm bored and was thinking the other day and just.....  WHY??

Anyway, the culprits of the hour are: Outlander, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey, and Supernatural.

The last wasn't so much for inappropriate content as twisting the Bible ENTIRELY too much. Basically, once I heard they used angels, it was off-limits, and the more I learn, the more glad I am that I researched the series a bit before ever starting it.

I DID research Outlander, but apparently no one had correctly updated the parent reviews. That series is just.....  Time travel! In Scotland! Why??????

Downton Abbey only held my passing interest for the costumes and sets - but I can't really put up with......very, VERY good friendship between valet and Lord. Nothing wrong with rank or anything - but that was TOO good a friendship. And sadly rather explicit if I caught on.....

And then there's Game of Thrones. A massive world, different language, rich cotumes elegant hair, new cultures, complex stories.... And if you disregard the crude language and humour, it's STILL incredibly inappropriate for a MOVIE let alone a television series.

I'm just going to sit over here and bang my head on my desk, alright?

alright. I'll grant that most television series tend to be safe for me - thus why I'm more likely to turn to them. However, romance also gets on my nerves. Generally, through whatever fault in my head, I completely miss it - but when they get obvious, it's just......

Ick. Ick. Ick. Ick. Ick.

I know, I'm incredibly mature.

But it's usually completely pointless.

Can't we just be friends? What's wrong with just being friends?

I also know that I'm a hypocrite in that, given that the High Fantasy book features SEVERAL marriages.

However, one was...forced, for lack of a better word, several were arranged, one was of conveinience, and most read like brother and sister.

Which I didn't realise until I started another book with siblings and realised I wrote them the same.

So there is that........

And then there's period dramas and films and series set in the past.

these are just...amusing.

Oh, some are quite good, and some have TERRIFIC inspiration for characters given that the garments are at least similar - but......

Then there are the older ones.

This isn't something I myself have noticed much in series - but it is common in films: the older the film is, the more likely it is closer to the period it is made in and not the period it's depicting.

This obviously doesn't hold true for ALL things - but let's take Cushings Pride and Prejudice for the moment. His costume is passable, and her's - while a bit too ruffly is still close in silhouette at least. Then there is the adaptation either directly before or directly after, and the women look as if they stepped out of the Civil War. Wrong style ENTIRELY.

And not even similar enough to the Georgian era to be counted as them having been too poor for whatever reason to update their fashion.

Which was basically impossible anyway given they went to BALLS. Their clothes were fashionable. Kitty's especially.

And it's not always terribly glaring (don't watch Disney's adaptation of Swiss Family Robinson - not only is it horribly handled and ruined, it's costumes also tend to be a bit more modern than period) but it is worse in the past. Especially for the leading ladies and romantic interests.

The more modern the film or series, the more accurate they are - they actually can do the research now, I think.

But this is so often my reaction to watching a series.......... Both of their's - Allen's and Weaver's.

WHY do they have to put that stuff in series? It boggles the mind and is generally just infuriating!

It's a dangerous business, watching a show - you start on the Pilot, and there's no knowing where you'll be swept off to!