Stumbled onto a friendly London Bus driver

Again, with the non-pop culture related posts! When is this going to stop! I’ll be back on DC’s case soon enough, but for the time being they seem to be quiet and contemplating their idiotic choices, so we are letting them do that and see if they can make a Deadpool out of a Green Lantern. Very unfortunate that the bad movie in this analogy is DC and the good one is Marvel, I promise it was not intentional. Well, not completely intentional. I didn’t wake up thinking up a connection between DC and Marvel in the form of Ryan Reynolds. You know what? I will switch sides! “I’ll be back on DC’s case… idiotic choices… and see if they can make a Bruce Wayne out of a Matt Murdock”.

So this is going to be another post about nothing to do with superheroes, wizards, TV series or anything remotely of interest to me. It is going to be about transportation. Public transportation. British public transportation. Let me start by saying that I came back from Nepal, where any form of transport is a risk for your well-being. I think the whole ‘you are more likely to die in a car crash than a plane’ would be very different if Nepal was excluded from this statistical analysis. Seriously, the only adhered law in Kathmandu is that if a cow decides to sleep in the middle of the road, cars have to quietly make a detour, which I think should be a law everywhere. So upon my return to civilised driving, I believed that nothing could ever again bother me on the road. But I had, of course, forgotten about the London Bus drivers. They clearly feed on our misfortune; I know everyone has at least one story of the bus door shutting in their panting, sweaty faces and the bus driver menacingly smiling and waving goodbye. Those are the moments they live for, I am sure of it. In their defence, if I was a bus driver I would probably do that at least once a week.  Or at least once for any passenger who could not spare a semi second to smile back. A wild GUILT has appeared while writing this post.

My recent experience involved one of those drivers, but a morally indecisive one; for the sake of the narrative, let’s call him Chidi. So Chidi stopped at my bus stop where I and another lady in front of me wished to get on the bus. It must have been Chidi’s first day on the job and they must have left out the ‘more than one people may get on the bus at each stop’ lesson. Granted the lady in front of me was tall, let’s call her Tahani, and I am very short, so maybe Chidi simply did not see me, but Tahani barely made it inside which makes me think maybe another bus howled and ours was rushing to its aid, or however buses work. As you do in these cases, I kindly knocked on the door, suggesting that we put all this behind us and I get on the bus and get home to all that pop-culture I am leaving out of this post. Chidi was not happy! He frowned, he huffed, he almost banged his hand on the wheel, but ultimately decided to let me in. And then it happened. The indecisiveness. From what I gather, midway my entering the bus, Chidi decided he didn’t want me there! Chidi sped off before all of me was inside the bus premises and I had to practise my long-forgotten, basic ballet skills. And then the driving began. I felt so much sympathy for everyone in the set of ‘Speed’. I know this is the go-to movie for anyone describing an insane bus driver, but there is a reason for it! There is a limited amount of action movies starring buses. I would look around and I could see the shared fear, the certainty of death before us! And just like any good psychological thriller, Chidi, the villain in this case, was softly but very distinctly humming a melody which to me sounded like ‘Requiem for a Dream’. I might be making that last bit up. I don’t know what he was humming. But I feel it could have been ‘Requiem for a Dream’.

Nonetheless, I am alive and well and very much able to celebrate Jake Gyllenhal being discussed as the next Spiderman villain (which means they might keep Battfleck for a while longer). I am, therefore, going to end this post on a positive note; I have not yet died on a London bus and intend to make more meaningful posts in the future.

Stumbled on to… the flu

So of course, this is not the end of the world and in fairness I have only been sick for two days; I really should not be this frustrated. But I want to give the common cold the attention it deserves. For too long people have been dealing with real health problems and ignored the anguish of having the opportunity to watch Conan O’Brien videos for a whole day but instead getting a headache half across the first clip. It is not fair. So I thought I could come up with some ground rules, some terms of agreement with simple viruses, such as the flu. Now if the rest of the viruses would like to follow, they are more than welcome.

Quantifiable symptoms

I hate getting a fever as much as the next person, but it is a necessary evil; if I am sick and do not have a fever, I will neither be excused nor cared for. Take my current state as an example, my flesh hurts, I have a headache from the simple act of typing this, but I just Skyped my mother and apparently I am fine and lazy. Which, you know, is generally true, but still! I demand that when I feel like crap I have a temperature of 37^oC minimum so I can at least get some sympathy from all those non-believers. Fever gets much attention; you have medicine for fever, measuring instruments, one Black Keys song, I could go on. People trust fever, therefore I trust fever and accept to endure it as a means to an end; the end being lying in bed all day.

Retaining of appetite

I try to diet every day of my life with little to no success and, surprise, the only time I do not have an appetite is when I need food in order to get drugged up. Also, when one is sick, one stays in the house all day doing nothing, which is the best time for one to eat food, just to relieve some of one’s boredom! Yet one does not want to! This is so counter-productive. And then when I will be healthy again (by now I have a fever, so I can formally complain) and need to get things done and I know I will get distracted by creamy mushroom daydreams. And cheese. And milk chocolate digestives. I think my appetite might be back.

Alignment with a new TV series

I assume these are starting to sound ridiculous, but again, I am discussing the more trivial sickness of the spectrum, so my demands are corresponding.  Problem is I got sick just as I finished up Luther. I was so obsessed with Luther, I did some rearranging of my sleeping, work and socialising patterns and got through the whole series in seven days. I got sick on the seventh day, with one episode left. Such a waste of an opportunity. Had I known, I would have just started Luther one week later. I have been late to this police-drama party for eight years, I could stand another seven days! And now I have been sick for one Luther-less day and I cannot think of what else to watch because Idris Elba has only appeared in so many TV series and I have seen them all! And the decision-making process of starting a new series makes me shiver. Or it might be my fever going up, cannot be sure. I haven’t worked out the details of how this would work, but the virus should only present itself if confident that passive entertainment in the form of television is available.

And last but not least, something needs to be done about that blocked nose/sore throat situation

I would like to end this post by asking the flu to pick one or the other because the combination leads to a never-ending cycle, which frankly is pissing me off! It all starts with a blocked nose; the one that gives you that attractive, husky voice, which goes to complete waste considering you are surrounded by used up tissues. You proceed to sleep, but of course the blocked nose dictates sleeping with your mouth open, exposing your sore throat to further sore-ness. The worse your throat is the worse your nose gets and of course sleeping, which is the only thing you can do when sick, gets interrupted by either inability to inhale or coughing. It is a vicious cycle that keeps the symptoms going forever. So my counter-offer is choose one, nose or throat, go to town with it and maybe we will consider willingly nursing you for a while longer without complaints.

Why this pop culture-deficient post, you ask? Well, I am bored, I do not have a TV series to watch and cannot eat crappy food. Perhaps inspiration will return once this cold wears off. Until then, have this beautiful mucus infused picture to keep you company.

Stumbled on to something Marvelous (finally)

I am so happy to write about something I loved rather than a stupid comic book adaptation franchise who continues to make one stupid decision after the other and is still going forward with replacing one of unexpectedly good casting decisions, even though my blog specifically told them not to. And they always find a way to sneak into my new entries in the form of unnecessarily long sentences. I will stop now. And begin this topic. No more DC dissing.

I will begin with a huge thank you to Amy Sherman-Palladino, for never letting me down. I have been a Gilmore Girls fan since forever and when I heard a new Sherman-Palladino series was happening I could not help but be thrilled. And then I found out it was an Amazon production, which meant good budget and some of those swear words you always felt Lorelei would use but somehow didn’t. And I was right! Beautiful characters, beautiful setting and most importantly, those Amy Sherman-Palladino dialogues. I could listen to her witty, never-ending sentences for hours and I wouldn’t even care what the topic was. Honestly, between Midge (the marvelous Mrs. Maisel) talking about brisket and a doctor talking about my urgent blood test results, I would take the brisket.

And what an empowering series for women! I know feminism is finally a thing in Hollywood, but I just think this is how it should be done. New characters, with original storylines, drawing influences from female comediennes who were renegades amongst a male-dominated profession. Yes, I think it should be that specific. Re-boots are okay and so is giving Kristen Wiig diarrhoea while in a puffy dress, but this is just so much better. The main character is a beautiful, feminine woman who is also smart, strong-minded, competent, funny and pissed off. This is the empowering bit. But there is another bit there; the realistic bit about why gender inequality sucked and sucks. She is also a wife that had to down-play her wit to protect her husband’s ego. She is also insecure about her looks, even though she is gorgeous, because a woman with personality does not measure up to a thin and proportionate woman. Okay, it is set in 1958, but is this not some of the oppression that lingers on? And isn’t it beautiful to show that behind a seemingly mainstream, pretty, pleasant woman there is brains and madness? I think it is.

So Lorelei 2.0 is a great character and Rachel Brosnahan, who portrays her, is a good lead. It is not just her though; just like Gilmore Girls, all the surrounding characters are an absolute joy. This is perhaps the least realistic depiction of society, the one in Amy Sherman-Palladino’s world. Everyone is funny, everyone is smart and everyone is enjoyable. I am fine with watching a spin-off series with Drina Romanoff, the fortune teller, THAT is how good all the supporting characters are. And you have got to love Tony Shalhoub, any scene he is in is the best and I am now obviously watching all of ‘Monk’ just to get more of him.

I started the previous paragraph with a subtle hint of judgement, the Lorelei 2.0 comment. It is true, the characters, the relationships, the pace, the dialogues are all very similar to Gilmore Girls, but is there anyone who minds? Lorelei (now Midge) was a terrific character, Richard and Emily Gilmore (now the Weissmans) were lovable in all their oppressive parenting glory, Sookie (now Imogene) was a loyal friend and Chris (now Joel) was a jerk but no one really hated him, did they? So yeah, it is all very familiar, I mean Alex Borstein is in both, but it is just that good. And the story line is just that good.  It doesn’t matter that it is familiar, it is familiar for all the right reasons.

And I just want to say this. I know a lot of men have missed out on Gilmore Girls because at a first glance it looks like a family drama aimed towards girls. I know some guys possibly felt ashamed to engage in the mother-daughter drama. Well, if you need an excuse to watch this one, so you do not miss out on another Sherman-Palladino series, Rachel Brosnahan flashes a comedy club. Feel free to say you watch it for the nudity and actually watch it for the words.

Stumbled onto Batman Replacement Rumours

I hope people are not expecting sound arguments and objective viewpoints. This is a blog, it’s obviously not going to happen.

Nonetheless, let’s start with something objective. The DCEU is in shambles. We have not seen a copycat this bad since Justin Bieber. There have been five movies in this universe with four having flopped both commercially and critically and one having soared; I guess kudos for that one. There are so many problems with their movies and Warner Bros is in damage control mode, so I understand that changes are discussed. But those changes should NOT be Batman!

Those changes should perhaps be Snyderisms.

This is a bold way to start a blog post, but here it goes. Is anyone satisfied with Snyder’s take on the DCEU? Man of Steel was boring, Batman v Superman was terrible and Justice League was abysmal. I know people are now asking for Zack Snyder’s cut for Justice League and blame the mess on Joss Whedon and I have to ask; really? The guy that made Avengers is to blame? The way I see it, Warner Bros decided Batman v Superman was good enough to show the world. They, however decided Justice League was not. I do not want to know what was presented that made them go ‘This is not up to Batman v Superman standards’. Joss Whedon was damage control, Snyderisms were the damage.

Those changes should perhaps be chronological.

Let me explain. I have read this on numerous articles, so it is not really an original idea but it is an important one. The MCU worked so well because it introduced most characters before bringing them all together. That is, independent movies first, fun collaboration later. Batman is a complex character, the best there is! So, why is our first introduction to this new version of Batman alongside Superman and Wonder Woman? And let’s say that this decision was based on the previous Batman installations being quite recent. What about the Flash? Cyborg? Aquaman? Why did we have to meet all of them, resurrect Superman, forgive Batman, travel to Themiscyra, AND defeat a villain in one movie? Of course it’s not going to be any good! All I know about this Flash is that he needs a lot of pizza to function.  And I generally love the Flash, I’d love to know all about this one.

Those changes should perhaps be the villains.

There. I said it. Everyone complains about MCU villains, well, it’s time you listened to what we have to say about DCEU villains. They suck! And their CGI sucks! And their plans suck! They suck, I say! General Zod was good, but I think the real villain in Man of Steel is the casting director that selected Amy Adams as Lois. As wonderful as an actress she is, she looks like Henry Cavill’s aunt Sybill (which might explain why he has to go save her every four minutes). Lex Luthor was The Riddler on cocaine and his plan was idiotic (and you know it). Doomsday was an extraterrestial Flubber and literally nothing more. Like, nothing. He is not an interesting villain even after killing Superman, the man that cannot die. I have not mentioned Wonder Woman because it was a beautiful movie, but I will now; because Ares was not a good villain. First of all, professor Remus Lupin is not a villain! Another swing-and-a-miss for the casting director. Secondly, when revealed as a villain he became CGI. It’s almost like a virus in the DC universe. The enchantress was just weird and not the good kind. Actually, I cannot talk about Suicide Squad, I will pretend it never happened and hope DC does too. Which brings us to Justice League with… that… guy… with…CGI from five years ago… and the boxes? That’s all I got.

Those changes should perhaps be the godawful little details.

‘Here in the DCEU we will spend 25 million to ruin rather than fix the small details that make modern superhero movies blockbuster material’. I am, of course, referring to Henry Cavill’s CGI upper lip. Maybe it was kept as a distraction from the poor plot and dialogues. Speaking of dialogues, how did they manage to ruin the ‘Do you bleed?’ line? That was the most badass moment in all five of these instalments! Why repeat it? Why waste its brilliance and downgrade it to a catchphrase? I am going to stop here, because as I am typing I am re-living the frustration I experienced leaving the Justice League theatre. Rest assured, there are numerous small, disturbing details.

Those changes should perhaps NOT be Ben Affleck.

Does anyone remember the outrage when Ben Affleck was cast? I think Trump was more favourable among Hollywood celebrities than Affleck was among comic book fans. And with good reason. No one trusted the man who spoiled the blind defender to play the best hero DC has to offer.  I was part of that outrage; I haven’t been as active on YouTube since. And then the trailer for Batman v Superman came out and everybody, including yours truly, shut up. We all agreed that we had been biased and harsh and wrong and Ben Affleck was the Batman he needed to be for this depiction of old man Batman. And that it the last piece of positive feedback DC got until Wonder Woman came out! So stick to your guns! You showed us up and good for you, you fought hard and won!

It’s not just the trailer. The only good thing about Batman v Superman WAS Batman! He had sound motivation to hate Superman, reasonable reactions to what was happening, a heroic yet ruthless manner that Batman is known for and kickass fight scenes! Such. Good. Fight scenes, oh, they were beautiful! Ben Affleck is a great Bruce Wayne, a tough vigilante and can keep his lips shut (that one is for all the Christian Bale fans). His character development was good, unlike anything else in that film regarding either character or development. Okay. His character development was good, until Martha. Whoever greenlighted that Martha thing was a complete idiot. But I think Ben Affleck is the best 40-year-old, run-down, bitter Batman we could get. Justice League gave him one-liners and a lover’s quarrel with Wonder Woman; admittedly we did not get the best depiction of Batman. But it’s not just Ben Affleck; Gal Gadot, the amazing lead from Wonder Woman’s solo movie, was reimagined as a heartbroken heroine with a flirty smirk. Jason Momoa’s script was reduced to videogame combo exclamations (Yeah! My man!). All characters were treated badly and we therefore struggled to see good performances, but Affleck’s work as Batman is admirable when the material allows it.

Wow that was long! And this is the cut version. If you want to read the whole three-hour-long post about everything that is wrong with DCEU, blame Joss Whedon; that always seems to make sense.

Stumbled onto... well, all of the sexual assault allegations

Has anyone noticed all the sexual assault allegations happening in Hollywood? She asked sarcastically.

The story burst with the very sick Harvey Weinstein, who apparently did not have access to psychological therapy, manners or a mirror. The general public was shocked firstly because of the magnitude of allegations and the secrecy that surrounded this behaviour. A-listers had kept quiet, journalists were put off from shedding light to this story and meanwhile Weinstein was ejaculating into close-by potted plants. The response was relatively unanimous; everyone denounced the behaviour, Facebook and Twitter crucified this disgusting man who abused his power and forced himself on women because he felt entitled. So far, so good. He deserves the fall from grace he got and the Hollywood myth was debunked.

But then, Kevin Spacey assaulted a fourteen year old some twenty-five years ago. And since, he has been accused of predatory behaviour towards younger male crews members on House of Cards and while director of The Old Vic. He was fired from House of Cards and from pretty much every project he’d been associated with. There is a good chance that this admittedly amazing actor’s career is over. So far, the story reads the same. But something different happened this time. This time it wasn’t a Hollywood executive nobody felt an emotional connection to. The general public, Facebook and Twitter did not care about Weinstein, they did not know Weinstein; crucifixion was easy. But Frank Underwood? Verbal? Those are iconic portrayals worthy of admiration and awe. Suddenly, ‘he was drunk’, as if he was forced to down all that alcohol. Suddenly, ‘it was one time’, as if that is not enough to traumatise a young boy. Suddenly, ‘Rapp said it to become relevant’. I personally believed Rapp because of Spacey's statement. Spacey has a team of publicists that suggested he come out in order to take some of the heat off. And they also suggested he admit to the assault and claim drunkenness. The publicist’s job is to make the best twist of events; THIS was their best twist of events. Then some more philosophical arguments; ‘the artist is separate to the man’ when this man abused his power for the actor he was. He felt entitled and enjoyed luxuries a common creep never would. Lastly and most compellingly, ‘it was so long ago’; it really was 25 years ago (plus) and he cannot even be legally prosecuted. In that case, perhaps social prosecution is a form of justice. Hopefully, the man will go into therapy, work out his issues and manage to stay away from the public eye for the rest of his remorseful life, rather than be repeatedly tormented by the media; he did lose his everything. But are we really baffled that organisations like Netflix distance themselves from Spacey? Are we really defending this man’s actions?

To sum up, people felt connected to Spacey because of his performances as an actor, because those made you feel as if you personally knew the man. Now, let’s move up another level of familiarity. Comedians. Louis CK. The best comedian of our day; no doubt about it. Five women came forward saying that they were sexually harassed by Louis, with some visually disturbing descriptions involving him stripping and masturbating; mind you he did ‘ask’ for consent. And we all rush to make excuses, because we love the guy! It is nowhere near as bad as the aforementioned; everyone was of age and no one was explicitly or implicitly threatened; it is just perverted. But he himself, or rather his publicists, admitted that it was abuse of power as these women admired him and once again, we are getting the best twist of events. It is simply perverted and it puts a lot of his jokes in perspective; which is unfortunate. So yeah, it is definitely not in the Weinstein/Spacey ball area, but let’s not completely ignore his ‘masturbating man’ bit; during and off stage, that is.

So all these men are being shunned, society seems to be in the right. Then, Ed Westwick is accused of rape at two different occasions, Brett Ratner of sexual misconduct, Hollywood keeps on tumbling down. But this is what bothers me; the sounds we hear and utter are ‘ugh, yeah, yeah boring’. As if these people’s lives and misfortunes are part of a badly written, repetitive script! People I admire wonder why everyone is coming forward with this simultaneously. That is the dumbest question I have ever heard! Because you cannot take someone in power down as a single person! Because they felt they were not alone! Honestly, for the same reasons anyone is more likely to speak out when there is a little bit of support. Maybe some claims are a ruse, maybe some are a cry for attention; but is it not sad that we make this our primary assumption to excuse our favourite actors and entertainers? Is that not part of the problem? I live and breathe pop culture, I binge-watched House of Cards, I’ve spent hours on YouTube watching Louis and I have cried with Miramax productions. Of course, it is not pleasant that these people we love and admire are bastards, but at least it is bringing attention to the very disturbing standards our pop culture generator accepts.

I am just wondering, if it weren’t Hollywood, if say we were bombarded with all the sexual assault cases that are happening in the common world, would we start getting bored and start saying the victims are doing it for attention or the perpetrators were drunk? I just hope we have not all reduced to attention spans equivalent to Jimmy Fallon videos; short and silly.

Stumbled onto a free Cosmopolitan

This blog post is a milestone! I actually stumbled onto something rather than either intentionally encountered or have worked it up in my head for a long, long time! Finally the title of this blog post is relevant and true! I shall celebrate by complaining/mocking the Cosmopolitan world I so unexpectedly re-encountered.

I am not going to pretend I haven't spent money in the past actually buying these magazines as a teenager. My friends and I would sit around and read through the make-up sections, the celebrity gossip, the outfit suggestions and the flirting/relationship tips as if they were gospel. We outgrew said phase once we actually started wearing make-up, good looking clothes and flirting/dating boys. I sort of feel that this was not a coincidence. I’ll be honest, though, I’m still up for the celebrity gossip.

I was initially going to read through the magazine and complain, but life is too short and the psyche too fragile, so I just skimmed through it. But no worries, I can still complain just fine.

Let’s start with how ugly a magazine it is. I am not saying I expected the graphic design of i-D (that is as hipster as I go), but if we are talking about a magazine in the popularity levels of Marie Claire and Vogue, they could have made the pages look like something other than a five-year-olds sticker book, with leopard coats standing in for the sticker bit. Honestly, they employ photographers and graphic designers; make them work for it.

Secondly, there are interviews with two celebrities, obviously women, who talk about literally nothing. And I do not generally mind, but this is the time where the name Harvey Weinstein can be overheard in a stranger’s conversation at least once a day. It is easy money and a good opportunity to talk about gender inequalities or sexual harassment or something other than the strangest item in Kate Hudson’s fridge (placenta pills, if you were wondering). This magazine addresses a specific age group which is usually exposed to silly, useless celebrity facts (and we love it), but it is simply too good an opportunity to pass, now that this important issue has been Hollywood-ified.

I feel like the tone of this post has become a tad heavy so I will move on to a funny point in my stereotypical-girl-oriented journalism. There was an investment section! I am not joking! It was ‘Best Dry Shampoos’  on one page and ‘How to Set Up a Business’ with quick tips on equity on the next. First of all, I have lived with many finance enthusiasts and the only thing I have learnt regarding equity is that I need to read more than a speech bubble to understand what it is (I haven’t, I don’t). Also, the contrast was insane. Maybe include a transition article, like ‘How the Pricing on Dry Shampoo Works and If You Think This Article is Boring, Skip the Next One’.

The final complaint for this Stumbled On magazine will be a bit more general. I want to actually complain about the unrealistic, compartmentalised bullshit tips this magazine provides that can make a young girl feel inadequate. The pop psychology sections are and will always be a shame to journalism and the unfortunate parasite to light entertainment. For example (a real example) saying all women meet the man they will marry by 23 is both idiotic and unnecessary. So dear Cosmo, write all you want about dry shampoos (best discovery ever), lipstick, tan creams, cellulite creams, swim suits, lingerie, sex toys, smoothie parlours, homemade hair masks, Oscar appearances, bags, tags and rags but STAY WAY FROM MY SCIENCE!

I feel ashamed cause Cosmopolitan is an easy target and other than the aesthetic complaint, you get what you are looking for, I guess. 

Well, I suppose I needed to use words in a syntax to feel as if I retrieved the missing IQ since I read about the placenta pills.  

Stumbled onto a Private Investigator in Soho

Last time I wrote a post, Sherlock had just finished. Therefore, it is fitting that the next post would be about the new detective on the BBC block, Mr. Cormoran Strike, PI! (it is important not to be confused with General Stryker; Mr. Strike did not make Wolverine the weapon he is today, I mean was… it’s really been a long time since I wrote a post). As this is a new detective series and as the true writer of the books it was based on is J.K. Rowiling, I think we can all agree I was meant to write a post about it.

Time for some background info. Rowling chose to write the Cormoran Strike novels under the pseudonym Robert Gallbraith, as she did not want them to be connected with her previous work in any way. Nonetheless, in the chaos that is modern literature, the books did not climb the ladder well (because chaos…is a… nevermind). Then, someone accidently let it slip that it is Rowling’s work and she accidently made more money. That’s not to say that the books are not worth the attention; they are really good! The woman has a gift for underdogs with unwanted fame, it’s undeniable.

Cormoran Strike is a war veteran that lost his leg and is now working as a PI in Central London. He is also the estranged son of an old rock star and a groupie/model, because why the hell not. As PI’s are a ridiculous occupation in the modern world, Strike is poor, has unpaid debts and lives in his office. One sunny morning, the beautiful Robyn enters his life as a temporary secretary, as does the brother of dead supermodel Lula Laundry. And this is where we meet our hero, with a brand new employee and a high-profile case to turn his financial situation around.

The book was really good, but this is not the place to talk about the book. I am here to congratulate the best casting director in the UK, because these characters were so spot on, it was spooky! Strike is described as ugly, but with a certain charm, but as this is the magic box, they could not cast someone who is too ugly. Tom Burke comes in with his scrappy upper lip and chubbiness and those eyes and manliness, he is perfect! Needless to say, I developed a much deserved crush that I had not felt since, well, Sherlock, who is monopolising this post. Robyn is gorgeous in a girl-next-door way and the most important thing; her chemistry with Strike is wonderful! That’s not to say she is not doing the character justice independently, but their interaction cannot be overlooked; it is exactly as the book had promised.

London is also portrayed in all its gloomy glamour, with old, empty pubs and dodgy Indian food parlours. Then you get the over-the-top, marble white, high-class houses all the celebrities live in and the hip areas of east London, where coke-loving models and hipsters mix. There are some beautiful little details that further ensure you that this is the London we know and love; Robyn lives far out because she cannot afford central London and commutes long hours every day. Strike lives in his office in a fold-out bed because he cannot afford an apartment and every nicotine junkie smokes outside like an exile. It’s really beautiful in its own, strange, London-y way!

And now for the complaints, yes we all knew they were coming. While the three episodes do not deviate much from the book and they also take care of a couple of issues, such as that vile attempt at rap lyrics by MC Row-bling, they were… flat. Like the visual depiction of someone sitting in a chair and narrating the book. Television is a different medium and especially of late, TV shows have caught up with cinema and can be works of art! I would have rather seen something less faithful to the book but something that would have worked without Rowling’s name attracting the crowds. I am going to mention Sherlock one last time. Of course, half the work in Sherlock is Benny and Marty and their chemistry, but the other half is beautiful directing and, I am assuming, a larger budget. And this brings me to my final question; why is Rowling not giving her work a larger budget?

It’s more than Strike; as of late, everything feels rushed and mediocre and this from a woman who wrote Harry Potter. I am not a fan of the movies, but they involved recognised actors, beautiful effects, Alfonso Cuaron (at a time) and a general feeling of polished work. And then we get Casual Vacancy as a miniseries, which just made you feel like it was done to be done; a checklist outcome. I can’t help but feel like this falls under the same category; it could have been done more carefully, it could have been up in Sherlock territory (okay, I lied before). She is a billionaire, so is it still about the money? Is it all a hit-and-run? Is it that her name only carries weight when Harry Potter is involved? I don’t know, but I think that this story line and these leads had so much more potential. I was really hoping for this series to be my substitute for Sher… for that other detective series. 

Now, am I going to watch the Silkworm this Sunday? Of course! Because I believe in Strike and his potential and I am hoping this second installment of the series will be better, because it still was very, very enjoyable and because Tom Burke is a hottie! Had to be said.