B-Movie Marvels: "The Punisher" (1989) has Ivan Drago from Rocky IV killing people with bullets

With "The Avengers" not far off, and with plenty of people looking back at the films that have led up to this mighty, experimental team-up film, I thought I'd look back a little further and remind everyone that movies about Marvel Comics' characters were around waaay before the blockbusters of the last ten years. Unfortunately for Marvel, the movies that were made using their characters prior to the "Blade" and "X-Men" films were really cheap and often very, very terrible. Luckily enough for me (and you readers) one of my life's passions is watching cheap movies from a bygone era and making fun of them on the Internet.

For a variety of different reasons, I've been in a bit of a Punisher-type mood of late. It dawned on me that I really don't know all that much about him, beyond what I've seen of him n the Spider-Man animated series, as well as guest-appearances in other comics. His basic shtick is that he's a Vietnam vet-turned cop whose wife and children were murdered, so he becomes an angry gun-toting vigilante. This puts him at odds with most of the other characters from the Marvel Universe, for while most of them have vowed never to kill and others only doing so when absolutely necessary (like Wolverine), Frank Castle is a mass-murdering psychopath who lives to...well...punish those who would do evil, with bullets.

Everybody knows that there's been two movies based on The Punisher in the last decade, and that neither of them were that successful. Were they any good? I don't know. I haven't seen them. I've heard mixed reports from fans and critics, with many people saying that the first wasn't very close to the comics but that it was really sick and twisted. I've also heard that the second movie was closer to the comics but that it was even more sick and twisted. Naturally, I'm looking forward to watching both of them. But right now, we're not talking about either of those movies. We're talking about the low-budget movie from 1989, "The Punisher" starring B-list action hero and Rocky villain, Dolph Lundgren.

As you can well imagine, The Punisher works best when he's put in crazy 80s action movie stories. So naturally the original movie that was actually made about him in the 1980s would be awesome, right?

Well...I'd hasten to say that statement is 'wrong'. But that's the best thing I can really say. "The Punisher" is definitely not a big-budget actioner. It was shot in Australia, and this is painfully evident when minor characters are unable to do a proper imitation of the American accent. It only loosely bases itself off the actual comics character and even has the gall to strip him of his trademark skull-symbol that he wears on his chest.

But to say that "The Punisher" movie is not entertaining is a huge disservice to the movie. While it's fair to say the movie's a bit shabby in places, it's never boring. Unlike other Marvel B-Movies (which we'll get to in due time) there are no lumbering sequences of dialogue that flesh out the movie's run-time. Every scene is significant and paces the movie along nicely.

First off, while the action in the film is simplistic and low-key enough, the body-count is very, very high. This is a film in which many mobsters and even more ninjas are killed with bullets. One of my favourite scenes saw Frank get an elevator up to a whole room full of ninjas training in front of the elevator. Why would they place the dojo right in front of the elevator where they're just going to get completely bulleted in the face as soon as one of their enemies show up? Who cares. Many ninjas get killed swiftly with bullets.

Other cheesy action highlights of this movie include the Punisher's eradication of a vindicated mobster at the start of the film. Frank Castle stealthily kills all of his bodyguards (he hangs one of them, stabs another and I think he shoots the third guy) and then blows the whole fucking house up. And just to show that he's not dicking around, he actually walks outside and lets the news media (camped outside since the mobster was released from prison) see that it's definitely him, before he escapes as the house collapses. It's the best kind of awesome 80s destruction.

The movie stars Swedish-actor (and apparent chemical engineering graduate) Dolph Lundgren, most-famous as the guy who played Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV" (he's also He-Man in the "Masters of the Universe" movie, as well as Gunnar in the two "Expendables" movies). I'd probably say Lundgren himself is one of the highlights of the movie. Rather than making him a dashing, handsome hero, in this movie Frank Castle looks exhausted and beaten, physically and psychologically.

Looking physically imposing and very frightening at times; he's caked in sweat in every scene; he truly looks like a driven, psychologically-fractured vigilante. He's also got some pretty great dialogue in certain parts of the film. In the opening scenes, we hear Castle's internal monologue, where he's asking God for an answer as to what he's doing and whether His lack of an answer indicates an approval. In a later scene, a cop asks Castle what he thinks about The Punisher killing 125 people in 5 years, and Frank replies "A work in progress." It's clear to the viewer that Castle is a very sick man and he's never to be regarded as a traditional hero.

The movie deviates from the comics in a few considerable ways. The most aesthetically obvious is that Frank doesn't wear his skull chest-symbol that he wears in the comics (luckily enough, he still looks awesome in a black leather-jacket and steel-tipped biker boots).

Second is the introduction of original characters created for the film. Louis Gossett Jr. plays Officer Jake Berkowitz, a former associate and friend to Castle, before Frank's family were killed and he became the Punisher. In many ways, Jake is who grounds the film and firmly establishes that what Castle is doing is wrong. At the start of the movie, he's spent five years trying to track down the Punisher, unable to find anything other than the calling cards Punisher leaves behind (knives with skulls on the top of them; at least the movie found some use for the skull-symbol!). His new partner (played by Nancy Everhard) believes in Berkowitz's theory that the Punisher is Frank Castle, and she helps him out, using her Advanced Computer Skills OMG to track down Punisher's sewer headquarters (which is possibly the cleanest depiction of New York sewers I have seen in a film). Most of the Marvel B-Movies have original characters like this, and most of them fail because they give too much screentime to them and not to the titular character (or characters) of the movie. Luckily enough, Berkowitz and his partner's appearances are welcome and brief and the focus never lingers on them for too long.

The other original character is a classic 80s Dumbass Comedy Sidekick, on the more annoying end of the scale (played by deceptively Australian actor Barry Otto). The credits refer to him as "Shake", although I don't believe he's ever referred to that in the film. He's a homeless alcoholic and a failed actor, who acts as an informant for the Punisher in exchange for bottles of whiskey, which Frank delivers by way of miniature remote-controlled trucks (you heard me). Most of his dialogue is in rhyme as well, which is as infuriating as it sounds. This character really fails as there's no explanation given as to how a failed actor could have any success being engrossed in the activities of the criminal underworld. On top of that, his appearances detract from Frank's typical depiction as an unhinged killer. When Shake's around, he becomes an uncharacteristically human straight-man. "Shake" has no foundation in the comics and offers nothing to this movie. His character isn't even given a fitting ending, he just sort of sneaks off in the third-act.

The villains of the film are the generic white-collar Italian crime bosses (although there are a bunch of Yakuza as well) that appear in every single film made in the decade of the 1980s and unsurprisingly enough, they provide the foundation for the plot. In the wake of The Punisher's systematic eradication of organised crime, Gianni Franco (played by former Bond-villain Jeroen Krabbé, who is not Italian) manages to get all of the competing Mafia crime families to combine for the sake of higher profits. Unfortunately, the Yakuza step in and want complete control, and kidnap the children of the different crime bosses. This leaves The Punisher with an interesting moral dilemma; his actions have put the innocent lives of children in danger. Should he save the children of his enemies, or let them die so that the mob can suffer more? No prizes for guessing what he does.

Don't get me wrong, "The Punisher" is a bad movie in most respects. But it's the best kind of bad movie. There's some terrific (if ridiculous) shoot-outs, plenty of blood and badassery and you even care for some (though not all) of the characters. While the movie is technically impaired by horrific acting and cheap sets (I LOVE Franco's shite excuse for a secret meeting room, with an automatic door that's trying to look like something from a Bond movie), this only serves to enhance the cheesy joy that makes "The Punisher" work. I went into this movie with little or no expectations and I was rewarded greatly. "The Punisher" is a silly, bloody, marvelous B-movie romp that never fails to be entertaining.

Unfortunately, that's something I can't say about most of the other B-Movie Marvels I'll be reviewing over the next few weeks...

"The Walking Dead" Compendium (Issue 1-48) Review

I've always been a casual fan of the zombie genre, but truth be told my favourite uses of it are usually comedies rather than the more serious incarnations. A zombie movie or story inevitably ends up being a repetitive variation on a theme anyway, so only real originality that can shine through comes from the human characters, the madcap dialogue they spout and the zany weapons they find themselves using. The best examples of this are in "Return of the Living Dead", "Zombieland" and of course "Shaun of the Dead".

Typically, I usually don't find the same appeal in the more serious George A. Romero-type of zombie film. As I mentioned before, they tend to be quite repetitive, with the army stepping in and saving the day at the end.

This is not the case with "The Walking Dead", at least with the first 48 issues in the mammoth Compendium I finally got around to reading. In Robert Kirkman's "The Walking Dead", there's no 3rd-Act Deus Ex Machina plot device that saves everyone and restores society to what it was before the rise of the living dead. In "Walking Dead", there's no miracle, no grand-standing saviour for the characters. It really is the end of civilisation, with the remaining humans battling against the armies of the undead and scrapping amongst each other for survival, for dominance, for superiority and sometimes just for pleasure.

In a nutshell, that was my favourite thing about these issues. It's the first zombie story I've encountered where humanity is well and truly doomed, and all that keeps them going is their ambition to stay alive and stay safe by whatever means necessary. The story follows middle-American cop Rick Grimes, who in typical zombie-story fashion, has just awoken from a coma to discover that the dead are rising from the grave and eating the living. He desperately searches for his wife and son, finding them holed up with a small group of survivors. Rick provides the group with weapons from his abandoned police station and they take their chances on the road. Eventually what's left of the group (as well as some others they find along the way) find an abandoned prison, with non-perishable supplies, protective equipment and renewable resources to potentially keep them alive indefinitely. They quickly settle down in the prison, only to find that laying claim to such a sprawling fortress isn't as easy as they thought it was going to be. The body count rises and morale takes a nosedive as a horrified Rick begins to realise that the remaining humans can be just as savage and monstrous as the hideous creatures helplessly clawing at the prison gates.

I've been reading Robert Kirkman's other book "Invincible" continuously for over five years now  and while many people told me that it was a very different book to "The Walking Dead", I wasn't very surprised when I discovered that actually they're not that different. Both books are gratuitously violent to the extreme, both books use ongoing plot threads, sensational shock-twists and red herrings to keep you coming back for more and unfortunately, both books have a tendency for their plots to seem a bit idealised, as well as the characters seeming forced and two-dimensional.

The problem of forced characters, dialogue and idealised revelations was more apparent to me reading "The Walking Dead" than it ever was reading "Invincible". Characters validate each other to the extreme ("Hey, great shot!" "I have a great teacher! Consider it your victory!"), in ways that don't sound like how real people would speak. Romantic relationships sprout up out of almost nowhere, and while I can forgive that given the apocalyptic insanity of the surroundings it seems a bit much when characters are already engaged in love triangles after only a week of being with their original partner. The characters finding a mostly empty prison is one thing, but then to find non-perishable food that will last 'decades' as well as a room chock-full of loaded weapons and armour is a bit much. Kirkman's storytelling can sometimes come across as the kind of idealised scenarios you envision while playing with action figures as a ten-year old. Structurally, they're always compelling and they seem to explore human nature very well...but there's just a tendency for the whole thing to seem a bit...off.

In saying that, though, "The Walking Dead" is a really, really good comic book. It's probably my favourite serious use of the undead zombie concept, for one particular reason. Over the course of the mammoth Compendium I burned through in a couple of days, Kirkman slowly develops the idea that deep down, we're all just as monstrous and chaotic as the hellish creatures that are terrorising Rick and Co. In one issue, after Rick has just killed one of the inmates of the prison who was trying to eject Rick and Co. from the prison, Rick breaks down in front of the entire group, stating how life and death has lost all meaning; that all of humanity is now waiting for the moment they die, and that all that they can do is kill anything that stands in their way. "We are the Walking Dead!" he shouts at the other, horrified survivors, who know that he must be right.

The Compendium ends in one of Kirkman's shock-twists, but unlike the others that take place throughout the massive volume, this one is a complete game-changer. The whole premise of the story has changed from this moment and I can't wait to get the next set of stories. Unfortunately, there's no second Compendium yet; but there are plenty of other types of collected editions that I'll probably jump into, to bring me up to speed. 

As for the TV show "The Walking Dead", I've never seen an episode. I purposely avoided it until I'd read a chunk of the comics first. I'm keen to check it out, but at the same time, I'm a little apprehensive, given the extensive mythology of the books. There's also the problem of it being toned down for television. The comic book version of "The Walking Dead" features people getting raped, mutilated, castrated, sodomised and of course, eaten on a regular basis. Even on the more liberal AMC network, I don't know if that kind of stuff is fair game; and I'm not really sure the story works without (most of) it. I'm sure even a toned-down version would make for great television though and if it's anything at all like the comic, sign me up. 

There's a movie where Swayze rips a guy's throat out and it's called "Roadhouse"

You're welcome, Internet.

"Roadhouse" is one of those crazy, completely-forgotten-about 80s action movies that's not only badass and completely watchable, but gloriously bizarre in its decision to include scenes such as the one above. It's like the script wasn't finished yet and the writers had just thrown in whatever crazy-ass dialogue they could think of, and they never bothered correcting it later on.

There's another line in the film where Swayze is walking through a room full of creepy dead-stuffed-animals (is 'taxidermised' a word?) and the main villain says something like "Impressive collection isn't it? There's only one thing that's missing...YOUR ASS."

He says it so completely straight-faced that I can't help but wonder if the actor ever really pictured how galactically hilarious it would be to have Patrick Swayze's tightly-groomed posterior hanging proudly on his wall as if it was some kind of measure of achievement.

The movie is a riot from start to finish. It's a "modern-day Western" as only the 80s could envision, with Swayze's character 'Dalton' (it's never specified whether that's his first or last name) rolls into town to work as a bouncer for a troubled nightclub full of The Wrong Crowd. Naturally, he goes up against the typical Capitalist villain Who Owns the Town and is the only one with balls enough to stand up with him. Throughout this run-of-the-mill plot, he earns $3500 a week for working in a crappy nightclub in the middle of nowhere (!), lives in a barn and drives a peesashit car even though he has a Mercedes, fires half the barstaff because they're scumbags and sees lots and lots of naked female bodies and kicks even more asses

It's clear that this movie was pandering to the badass-action-movie-liking male demographic with its emphasis on high-octane fights and female toplessness.

Why then did they feel the need to have this great big scene where Patrick Swayze's Ass is given more screentime than Venom in "Spider-Man 3"? You could stop time with those sharp buns. Almost every attempt at a tender scene in the film is rendered ridiculous by its forced inclusion of ridiculous 80s nudity or bizarre sex scenes. In the film's attempt at a 'love-scene', Swayze rams his blonde girlfriend up against a wall, without even taking her clothes off. The film's attempt at seriousness in scenes like this just make the film even more endearingly crap and awesome.

The highlight of this film is course the absolutely concentrated injection of manliness that is Patrick Swayze. If Dirty Dancing was the movie where Swayze proved he could dance, "Roadhouse" is the movie where he proved he could fight like a motherfucker. Throughout 90 odd minutes, Swayze kicks all kinds of middle-American ass. I have to say though, the fight scenes in this film are really well-choreographed and visceral, even by modern-day standards. There's a few moments of sheer lunacy (the 'Fuck you in prison' guy from the video once brandishes a pool cue like it's a samurai sword) but the violence is mostly realistic and always impressive.

The throat-ripping scene above isn't an isolated incident, either.

It's referenced earlier on in the film that He Once Killed a Man and that that's how he did it. The Throat-Ripping even comes up in the final battle with the main villain, where Dalton suffers the inner struggle between his thirst for throat-rippage and his Desire to be Human and Conquer His Demons (capital-letters for movie-clichés, in case you hadn't copped it). There seriously needs to be a "Roadhouse" drinking game for every time Swayze does the weird "throat-ripclaw" hand-tense. CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

This movie was passionately recommended to me by a friend and made for perfect 2am viewing last night. It's bizarre in a way that makes it eminently watchable, but it sort of yo-yos between sheer lunacy and actual quality (for an 80s action movie). It's not as moronically bizarre as the likes of "The Room" or "Troll 2" and it certainly has a flair of style and craftsmanship that far exceeds those two supernaturally-bad cult movies; but make no mistake; this is an awesomely bad movie, for many of the reasons I've mentioned, and loads more that I haven't. These are the kinds of films I was born to watch.

"The Muppets" is one of the greatest American comedies of all time

Admittedly, I've always been a casual fan of The Muppets. Like many children of the 90s, I had a VHS copy of "A Muppet Christmas Carol" that I watched to death, to the point where every other version just seems like an adaptation of the Muppet film. And while I was too young to have seen the actual "Muppet Show", I did watch its short-lived 1990s revival series "Muppets Tonight" religiously, to the point where I always associated the happiness of a carefree Friday evening with The Muppets.

The first "Muppets" movie I saw in cinemas was the immediate predeccessor to this new one, "Muppets in Space". It was a critical and financial failure, but I thoroughly enjoyed it at the time and it was a shame that they didn't make any big-budget movies in the intervening years. During the 12 years that The Muppets were more or less outside of mainstream circulation (outside of a few TV movies here and there), a lot of the older Muppet movies were repeated, particularly at Christmastime. The original "The Muppet Movie", "The Great Muppet Caper" are really good, but don't hold a candle to the almighty classic "The Muppets Take Manhattan", which I would easily rank as one of my favourite comedies.

The new film, simply titled "The Muppets" takes everything that "The Muppets Take Manhattan" did right and sends it soaring into the stratosphere, enhancing and multiplying it ten-fold. The completely lunatic sense of humour and logic is back with a vengeance, leading to some of the best deadpan humour I've ever seen (and that includes more 'grown-up' fare like The Office or Family Guy). It's the kind of comedy-gem I've only seen a handful of in my entire life. And you can bring a three-year old to it.

The movie sees new Muppet-character Walter, who has always felt different and alone in the world. His brother Gary (Jason Segel) has always been his best friend and has always stood up for him and built up his self-confidence. When Walter discovers an old tape of "The Muppet Show" he becomes a fan for life. Years later, when Gary wants to bring his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) to Los Angeles for a special anniversary, he invites Walter to tag along, knowing that he'd love to go to the Muppet Theater. Unfortunately, the Theater has become run-down and derelict and is being sold off to a greedy oil tycoon, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) who plans to destroy the building. When a horrified Walter discovers this, he teams up with Gary and Mary to gather up all the Muppets for one last show, to try and raise enough money to save the theater. Alas, it's not as easy as they thought, as many of the former stars have moved on with their lives.

Jason Segel's lovable originality and credibility as a goofball has made him a favourite of mine in films like "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" as well as TV shows like "Freaks and Geeks" and "How I Met Your Mother" (where he's easily the most innovative and original character). He's also written and composed some really hilarious songs on HIMYM and his movies (as well as demonstrating a love of puppets in "Dracula's Lament" which appeared in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall") As soon as I heard he was involved in a new Muppet movie, I knew we were in luck and that the film would be transcendent enough that anyone of any age could watch and love it. For the first time in years while watching a 'Family Film', I never once cringed at an excess of maudlin dialogue or over-dramatic scenes. The movie earns these moments by making the viewer care in every single frame of the film. Even the most black-hearted, Generation Y cynic will be crying with laughter at certain scenes, and by the finale, will be tapping their toes as hard as they can to "Life's a Happy Song" (the absolutely amazing Bret McKenzie, of Flight of the Conchords served as Music Supervisor for the film).

And that's why the movie works, making it one of those proud examples of how wonderful the American style of comedy can be. In classic Muppet-style, a lot of the jokes venomously lampoon the sort of cliched tropes you find in family movies (they also break, smash and obliterate the Fourth Wall on dozens of occasions), but unlike similar fare (e.g. Family Guy), the movie has a genuine heart and you really care for its many different characters. A lesser movie would have failed to juggle so many different goofy personalities, but "The Muppets" performs admirably. It succeeds on so many different levels, with messages about tolerance, always trying your best and appreciating the important people in your life. While they may be tried-and-tested motifs to structure a movie around (as is the 'old-school' plot), the innovation of the production never makes you feel like you're watching something even remotely stale.

I can't recommend this movie enough. It's been two full days since I've seen it and I still feel as strongly about the coughing-in-pain-with-laughter effect it had on me and is likely to have on many other people. I'm delighted to hear it was such a commercial and critical success Across The Pond; here's hoping it's as much of a runaway success on our shores as well. Please, please, please do not miss this movie.

Kiefer Sutherland caused "Twilight"! (or 'I just watched "The Lost Boys" for the first time')

 Retr

Last night, I watched "The Lost Boys" for the first time. It's heralded by many as another one of those "Classic 80s Movies". Is the 1980s the only decade of cinema that actually has a film-genre named after it?

Anyway, for one reason or another, I always assumed that the movie was sort of a chilled-out indie slasher movie. I went into it thinking it was going to be "The Breakfast Club" with vampires. Well, it was none of those things. The movie is recklessly overblown, ruthlessly stuffed with 80s cheese and frankly, while watching it, I had a horrible realisation. "The Lost Boys" gave birth to the sexy, sullen vampire phenomenon, probably resulting in "Twilight".

(KILL IT!)

Throughout the movie, Jason Patric's character Michael deals with the newfound urges, physical differences and mood swings that come with being a vampire (I quickly learned that subtlety was absolutely NOT the movie's strong point). Throughout this journey over to the world of coffins and crosses, the movie plays this creepy song, to set the atmosphere.

Michael's rarely seen without his trademark sunglasses and spends most of the movie fawning after mysterious beauty named 'Star'. There's even a lusty sex-montage between the two lovers (although no bedposts are broken or wombs eaten, like in that other vampire movie), just so all of the 80s Movie boxes are ticked. And of course, 'Cry Little Sister' is the song that plays over the montage. In spite of how overplayed it is over the course of the movie, it's hauntingly catchy and you'll find yourself humming "Thou shalt not faaaall..." well after the movie is over.

The cause of Michael's fangtastic new lease on life is a gang of biker-thugs led by that pesky young Kiefer Sutherland. Kiefer's character David takes Michael under his demonic wing and turns him into a 'half-vampire', meaning he can still walk around during the day and so on. Unlike a lot of movie vampires, this particular brand of Nosferatu can actually fly without turning bats (as in, they can fly like Superman); but we rarely actually get to see them actually doing it. Instead the movie displays Jaws-like P.O.V. shots, where instead of seeing the vampires, we just see their petrified victims. It works effectively the first couple of times, but it gets to the point where the movie's just never scary.

That's not to say the movie's not entertaining, though. The comic duo of The Two Coreys, Haim and Feldman make the movie really watchable in an unpretentiously fun, cheesy-80s way. They're the comic relief the pretentious "Twilight" movies don't have and they help to remind the viewers that after all is said and done, the movie is really just a bit of silly fun and not to be taken too seriously. There's a really cheesy scene where Haim's character Sam walks into a comic book shop run by Edgar and Alan Frog (played by Feldman and Jamison Newlander; no prizes for guessing who they're named after) and the three young men challenge each other with their insane, anal-retentive knowledge of comic book numbering and trivia. It's one of those scenes that really helped to stereotype what comic fans are supposed to be like. I'd argue that we're not, but then I'd be disproving the whole point of having an Internet blog about superheroes, now wouldn't I? I did really like the poster for "The Dark Knight Returns" seen many times in the scene (and again later in the movie), though.

On that note, I feel like I should mention that the movie was directed by "Good Ol'" Joel Schumacher, the auteur who gave us other quintessential 80s hits like "St. Elmo's Fire", and went on to direct genuinely amazing films like "Falling Down" and "Phone Booth" as well as...well..."Batman & Robin". The film looks similar to how his two Batman movies turned out, with some of the high-concept lighting and production design (but nowhere near the neon flamboyance of his Batman films). It's also hilarious (and a bit worrying) to think that perhaps the only reason he was ever hired to do Batman was because of this film, where there was an abundance of bat-like creatures, as well a scene that was all about comic books. This would seem like I was grasping at straws, except for Kevin Smith's infamous story where he suspects that the only reason he was chosen to write the (never-made) "Superman Lives" movie, is because of how he referenced comic books in "Mallrats".

So basically, in a roundabout way, you might say that the 'sexy, sullen vampire' craze that eventually led to 'Twilight', started with 'The Lost Boys', which was directed by the guy who also made what is generally regarded as the worst superhero film ever made. It's all connected!

Anyway, the movie really is quite entertaining despite all I've said about it. The Two Coreys inject a dumbass charm into it that stops it from being stuffy and pretentiously dark and like every vampire film, it has a few of its own additions to the lore (I loved how it's established that every vampire dies in a unique and different way). The soundtrack is really bonkers and overblown, but it's also lots of fun. All of the actors do their jobs well (meaning, they all over-act suitably) and you won't regret the 90 minutes you spent staring at the screen, by any means.

I'm even a little eager to check out the recent straight-to-video sequels starring Feldman and featuring cameos from Haim and Newlander; but no Kiefer Sutherland sadly; he was too busy having a career after the 80s ended, I guess). Corey Haim's recent death by drug overdose (after a long battle with addiction) meant that he couldn't be in the third film.

(Before we go, I have one interesting fact about Corey Feldman: Besides being in "The Goonies" and "Stand by Me", hee played Donatello in two of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies!)

TIME-TRAVELLING NINJA-UNICORNS: Now that I have your attention, here's a post about Lent.

I've always felt that regardless of one's relationship with The Guy Upstairs or whether or not they believe in him at all; it's still a really good practice to take one of your favourite vices and completely abstain from them for a while. And what better time than the already-existing Catholic-celebration of Lent? It's the perfect time to be saving money that you'd spend on junk like alcohol or videogames (given that Summer holidays are approaching and you're probably still feeling the pinch from the Christmas splurge) and it's even got a great little widely-respected 'Off-Day' where you can throw your Lenten Vows to the wind (Paddy's Day). I think it's a great little workout for your soul (or your karma, your chemical balance of willpower, your mastery of The Force or what have you) and it's just crazy enough to work.

I'll never forget that sullen Wednesday following an awesome Pancake Tuesday, where my Mum announced that I couldn't have any cakes or sweets for five weeks. It was like being told that your dog had died and your best friend was moving to a different country on the same day. I was suitably traumatised and depressed.

I don't recall whether or not I actually followed up with my Forced Lenten Vow that year, but the dark memory of suddenly being forbidden from so many things I enjoyed, remains fresh. Over the years, instead of abstaining from sweet things during the fasting season, I instead opted for a less soul-crushing compromise: I'd only give up soft drinks. To be fair, they are up the air with the worst things you can possibly digest into your body, so it's not like it was a pointless endeavour.

The other vice I'd most commonly avoid in tribute to That-Time-Jesus-Had-No-Eggs or whatever, was videogames. Recognising that isn't really that difficult, if you don't have any brand new games; I always made a point of buying a game on the first day of Lent, so that I'd be itching to play it for weeks beforehand. This made a fairly routine sacrifice, viciously difficult. It also made "Judge Dredd: Dredd vs Death" seem like the pinnacle of video-gaming achievement (when really it's just a decent first-person shooter).

Crap, I kind of want to play "Judge Dredd: Dredd vs Death" now.

In college, seeing as how semesters go so quickly and life is short, I generally didn't 'celebrate' Lent, opting instead to enjoy the few short years I had there. I did however stop drinking alcohol for an almost an entire Semester (9 weeks in total) to save up for a trip to Canada. Not only was it a nagging, obviously difficult experience, but it also served as a very interesting social experiment. The way certain people reacted or didn't react to my not drinking really opened my eyes to certain tropes we subscribe to while socialising and how much of our relationships are based on alcohol. I thought I'd give that another try this year, just for Lent. But this time, I'm going to do it a little differently, by trying some alcohol-free beers and cocktails when I'm out and about (or when I'm staying in) to see if any kind of Placebo-effect sets in, making it seem a little bit less like I'm completely abstaining.

Also, I'm definitely going to break the Heck out of this for Paddy's Day, in keeping with Irish tradition.

The biggest sacrifice I'm making in JC's name this time around is caffeine. I'm not going to touch coffee, energy drinks or caffeinated soft drinks from now until Easter. This is going to be enormously difficult, given how many cups of coffee I steam through in a day (I usually average at about four or five, not including any other caffeinated drinks I might have that day). To be honest though, I've given up coffee before and while it's very difficult at first (especially in the morning - parts of my body feel as though they're still asleep), you generally feel fresher and don't experience a really nasty lull at about 11am. You still get that nagging feeling a lot like you'd really like a nice strong fresh pot, if you're sitting down working, or reading. The best way I've found around that is to try a range of different Herbal Teas. They obviously have completely the opposite effect that caffeine does, but they're useful for when you have that craving to have a hot drink of something.

I was going to try out decaffeinated coffee, but it seems that most of these actually do still have a few milligrams of caffeine in them and I'm attempting a very strict avoidance-policy. Maybe if I completely purge it from my body, I'll get telekinetic powers like that guy in Scott Pilgrim Vs the World.

At this point in time, I'm really itching for a cup of the black stuff. It's likely that this craving's not going to go away for another little while. But, do you know what? I do feel kind of nice that my brain isn't overloading my body with unnecessary amounts of dopamine and caffeine and that my emotions and productivity right now are all natural and (heh) God-given. Basically, regardless of where you stand on religion or organised religion, I think Lent (or some kind of organised mass-abstinence of vice) is a neat idea. After all, you never know when a medical condition is going to force you to suddenly stop drinking Red Bull or a worldwide zombie invasion is going to completely cut off all production of alcoholic drinks.

With that in mind, I'll bid you all adieu! Leave a comment and let me know where you stand on this interesting time of the year. More content tomorrow, as promised.

Filler Post 1/3: Remember the Spice Girls Movie?

There was once a Spice Girls movie where the Spice Girls were so incredibly famous that they were abducted by aliens who asked for a kiss from Ginger Spice and asked Posh Spice to sign their chest.

Richard E.Grant was also in this movie and wore Riddler-like suits for the whole movie, to the point where I wish he'd played the Riddler in a Batman movie.

In other news, thank you all for massively improving the readership of this site for the past few weeks. I plan on keeping up the tradition of 5-7 articles a week for another while and there'll be plenty to keep you entertained.