The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

Exactly what it says on the tin...

Don't you just hate it when...

... people use their phone in the cinema? Well, if I ever find myself in Texas I'm going to the Alamo Drafthouse, where they know exactly how to appeal to film lovers:

I'd love to claim I found this all by myself, but I need to thank Ben Child at The Guardian.

The Great Action Movie Debate

I'm fully aware that my life is not that interesting. That's why I blog about movies rather than talking about me. However, you'll have to indulge me for a moment when I talk a little bit about my girlfriend.

I'm a very lucky chap for many reasons, but the important one for the purposes of this post is that my girlfriend is a big geek. She loves comics, sci fi, fantasy and everything in between. As such we have a great deal in common and tend to have similar opinions on the films that we watch. That is with one big exception: action movies.

If she tells me that a film is really good and well worth watching I'll almost always do so. However, I've made it clear to her that if she recommends an action movie to me then I'll almost certainly avoid it like the plague. To give you some examples, in the last year she has lauded The Losers, GI Joe and RED. After seeing the first two in that list I point blank refused to watch the third despite her ongoing attempts to change my mind.

Now as much as I like the idea of just using this post to shame my girlfriend, I'm actually getting on to a bigger point. I have started to ask myself what actually makes a good action film. Well, what makes an action film that I like anyway.

Explosions and heavy weaponry is probably a good place to start. A good bit of slow motion and, if you're a John Woo fan such as myself, someone flying through the air firing two pistols at once while a couple of doves flap around nearby. However, most action movies provide this sort of thing, making them more prerequisites than signs of quality (except the doves of course...).

If I think back to the big action movies that I grew up with in the 80s, I'd say my favourites by quite a distance are Die Hard and Leathal Weapon.

With Die Hard you have the brilliance of Alan Rickman as one of the best movie villains of all time, which is almost enough to give Die Hard the title alone. However, what gives it the extra edge is the superb wise-cracking Bruce Willis. John McClane is a fallible, unlikely action hero and, unlike Swarchenegger or Stallone at the time, he could get hurt. He felt like a regular guy in an extraordinary situation that really brought the audience in.

Then you have the true genius of McClane. His sense of humour. His glib remarks didn't cause eyes to roll like Arnie did, they made you laugh out loud. That, of course, is also why Lethal Weapon is also at the top of my list. Gibson and Glover play off each other perfectly every step of the way, creating my favourite buddy cop duo of all time. In fact if I'm comparing the two, Lethal Weapon just scrapes it for me because the first sequel was actually really good. Certainly superior to Die Harder at least.

So it's fair to say that the right amount of comedy is something I look for in an action movie, whether it's in the form of quick wit or just a sense that no one is taking things too seriously.

However, that doesn't explain my John Woo love as his movies don't really do comedy. Of course they are usually extremely well made, quite well written and superbly directed, which goes a long way.

I suppose that leads me to conclude that the prerequisites just aren't enough for me. If an action film is going to get my approval it needs to bring something more than a reliance on special effects, explosions and a ropey script.

Sorry my dear, you can tell me GI Joe is fun as much as you like but I'm off to watch Riggs and Murtagh take down the bad guys.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

We must be getting close to summer blockbuster season as all the big trailers are starting to hit our screens.

I may loathe Michael Bay and the other Transformers movies may have been a bit pants, but I still can't help but get excited at seeing Optimus Prime go a bit postal...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Here's the trailer for the last Potter movie. It looks unsurprisingly epic and I will confess to being very excited about it.

Though it seems that there will be some fairly big differences to the book towards the end. I certainly don't recall Harry and Voldemort jumping off a bridge together.

Damn you 3D!

Yesterday afternoon I went to see Thor at my local cinema. I’ve never been a big fan of Thor as a comic book character simply because he’s too powerful, but I think they did a pretty good job introducing him and further setting up the Avengers movie, which some of us have been salivating about for quite a while now.

In spite of this I was still left with a bad taste in my mouth after my trip to the movies and this was only partially because of the stale popcorn and flat coke that I had to mortgage my house to buy. The main reason for my displeasure was the ‘3D experience’ that was once again forced upon me.

The amazing immersive world of 3D first bites at the box office. To watch Thor in 3D I had to pay for the price of a normal ticket plus an extra £1.50 for the privilege. Then it would have been an extra £2 for the glasses if I hadn’t brought the ones I paid for last time.

I will concede that Thor is being shown in both 3D and 2D, giving at least the impression that people have a choice as to how they watch the film. I’m thoroughly in favour of this as I think most people will decide to not spend two and a half hours wearing dark glasses and film makers will eventually get the picture and stop trying to resurrect a technology that first failed to impress 50 years ago. Unfortunately my cinema had just one showing in 2D and about 8 in 3D so there wasn’t really that much of a choice.

Grumbling to myself like Mutley at Dick Dastardly I took my seat, placed the glasses onto my head and started watching the movie. Like I said before, I enjoyed it, but that was most definitely despite the 3D rather than because of it. It was ropey at best and downright ugly and distracting at worst. Some of the scenes in Asgard were almost unwatchable thanks to blurring, while scenes at night were often difficult to make out because they hadn’t compensated enough for the amount of light lost while wearing the glasses.

I accept that this isn’t always the case with 3D. I understand that problems occur when a movie isn’t filmed in 3D but has an extra dimension thrust upon it at a later stage. Also, some 3D movies were truly beautiful, such as Avatar (even if the story wasn’t great). However, I don’t think I would have lost anything by seeing Avatar in 2D as the effects were amazing even without the extra depth.

My biggest complaint with 3D is that it feels like the Emperor’s New Clothes. We’re being told that it’s the greatest, newest technology in the world and the future of cinema while my grandfather sits there laughing and telling me that they were telling him that in the 1950s.

It feels more like Hollywood’s latest attempt to prevent piracy than a genuine effort to give customers what they want. I don’t know many people who would rather see a film in 3D and even fewer who are happier to pay extra to do so.

While people have to wear glasses in order to watch films or TV programmes in 3D I can’t see any way for it to catch on in a serious way. Hollywood is going to have to bring me something better than that before I jump on board.

And We're Back

It's been just over 18 months since I last posted, which I'm led to believe is rather poor form for a blogger. So, erm, yeah, sorry about that!

However, I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that I am about to resume normal service on Films and Things so you can look forward to more dry and witty prose from yours truly. You lucky things!

So why have I decided to blow the dust off the keyboard and get back to talking about movies again? Is it because I've seen so many great films in the last year and a half that I'm bursting to talk about them? Is it because I'm so excited about the upcoming summer of blockbusters? Or is it because I wanted to have a bit of a rant about 3D and this seemed like a good place to do it?

If you don’t know the answer then you must be new. Welcome!

Critic Fail

I don’t really class myself as a film reviewer. Certainly not a professional one anyway. I’m just a fan boy who discovered that if I wrote down my rants rather than spouting them to all my friends in the pub then I might find some like-minded souls who not only agree with me, but compliment me on my observational skills, impressive prose and stunning wit. Plus it might mean people will want to come to the pub with me again.

When I go to see a film I very rarely do it with an open mind. If I’m walking into a romantic comedy I’m just looking for an excuse to hate it. If it’s a film adaptation of a Marvel or DC comic, chances are I’m going to find a reason to love it.

Of course this can sometimes leave me conflicted. I deeply dislike Bayhem, but he made two films with Optimus Prime in – what’s a geek to do?

Despite evidence to the contrary, I am actually going somewhere with this. My point is, I accept my bias, possibly even revel in it at times, yet even the best critics can’t seem to admit to theirs. It is often so predictable which critics will like which films, and why, it’s hardly worth reading the review.

I think the crux of my rant here is the tendency by some critics to dismiss any film with the label ‘blockbuster’ attached while lapping up anything ‘gritty’, ‘independent’ or ‘worthy’ (yes, you’ve all heard my ‘worthy’ film rants before, but I’m not stopping now). Granted I have been disappointed this summer, but just because a film is big doesn’t make it less worthy than one about an alcoholic, mentally challenged boy hiding from Nazi’s in war torn Poland (Thanks American Dad).

I mean, come on people, Ricky Gervais joked about Kate Winslet doing a holocaust film in order to win an Oscar. Then what happens when she did a holocaust film two years later? Yup, you guessed it. He even laughed about it when he hosted an award at the Golden Globes this year.

However, one of my favourite examples of ‘Critic Fail’TM is Kevin Smith. As people are probably aware by now I’m a big fan of his work. I love juvenile ‘dick and fart’ jokes and I like how he writes dialogue (must be a fan boy thing).

The reason he is such a great example of ‘Critic Fail’TM is because of his first film Clerks, which was made on a tiny budget and filmed mostly at night in the shop that Kevin Smith worked in at the time. It was shot in Black and White and as independent as they come. It was also a damn funny movie.

The critics certainly agreed – they lapped it up. Kevin was given plaudits and awards and rightly so. Unfortunately Mr. Smith then made a fatal error. He made his next film with a bigger budget, set it in a shopping mall and then, god forbid, shot it in colour.

Mallrats had the same humour, geek references, witty sidekicks (who can deliver a line better than Jason Lee?) and flawed couplings that we saw in Clerks, but was almost universally panned.

Of course I’m aware of the flaws in my argument here. Firstly I’m sure there are plenty of critics who have liked all of Kevin’s movies, or at least been fair with him all the way through. Secondly, Kevin’s third film Chasing Amy was generally well received by critics even though it wasn’t in black and white. However, my answer to this was that it was a film about lesbians, which means it fell into the ‘worthy’ column, so it was ok for critics to like it – nice one Kev!

So here’s a little mantra for all you critics out there: if it’s a big budget Holywood summer movie it’s not necessarily bad and if it’s a low budge independent film then it’s not necessarily good...unless it’s got Ryan Gosling in, because he’s always awesome.

Wow, it’s amazing the sort of rant I can come up with just by watching Zak and Miri make a Porno on DVD again. Even funnier the second time round and with a great soundtrack!

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

It’s no secret that I’m a Harry Potter geek. Unlike most fans I came to the party late and saw the first four films before I picked up one of the books. I had dismissed them as kid’s books, but it’s amazing what you’ll watch with a bad hangover and the TV remote control out of arms reach. Thanks to one of those hangovers I became hooked on the films, which of course led to me reading the J.K. Rowling novels and thoroughly enjoying myself.

Something that always impressed me was how the films were made to represent the books so closely. Of course as the books became longer, this became more difficult. A number of omissions and slight changes were made from the fourth and fifth films, but nothing was lost, and the excellent story remained intact.

This is why I was so surprised when I sat down and watched The Half Blood Prince for the first time. What I watched was not a bad film by any means, in fact it was highly enjoyable. It also fitted in quite nicely with the rest of the films in the series. What it did not do, however, was represent the sixth book in the series.

The Half Blood Prince was always going to be one of the most difficult of the series to film. It represents the build-up to the finale and, as such, possibly struggles with a lack of unique story arc that was always present in the previous books and films.

However, to my mind the most important part of the story was always the history of Voldermort – how did he become the evil dark lord and how can Harry stop him? Obviously the film makers disagreed because this feels like a sub-plot, while the love lives of the students seem to take precedence.

Some critics have commented that the Half Blood Prince is the darkest of the films, which is something I could not disagree with more. With the exception of the dénouement it is one of the most light-hearted of the series. It feels like the comic relief before the drama of the Deathly Hallows, which is still to come.

The film is so light in fact that it was necessary to add in a dramatic scene that never existed in the book. The Christmas attack on the home of the Weasley’s was certainly not in the version of the book that I read. It is possible that I hold Harry Potter to a higher standard, because this would not surprise or bother me with other film adaptations, but to add in such an important scene that never existed before suggests to me that they were perhaps struggling with this one.

All of my fan-boy geek rants aside, The Half Blood Prince is a funny, well acted (take a bow Mr Broadbent), beautifully shot film that is well worth the price of admission. You may have some issues with it if you are a lover of the books, but if I can get over it then so can you.

A Disappointing Summer

My my, how time flies. Three months between posts – sorry folks. It’s not the first time I’ve neglected my blog and it almost certainly won’t be the last. In the past it’s usually been because I get distracted by something shiny or, from time to time, real life.

However, this time is different. I haven’t really had much to say. Granted I should have kept things going by posting trailers and the odd bit of news, but I felt I needed to talk about some of the films that I was so looking forward to just a few months ago. It’s just that, almost everything has been so dull that I couldn’t really be bothered.

OK, Star Trek was excellent but I’ve already talked about that. So far none of the others on my list has lived up to my expectations.

Transformers will always have a soft spot in my heart because I am a child of the 80s. I’ve loved Optimus Prime since I was four years old. However, once you remove that feeling of nostalgia, all you are left with is two hours of Bayhem at its explosive worst.

Wolverine was fun but nothing special. Again nostalgia came into play and it was interesting enough to qualify as two hours of summer popcorn fodder, but there was nothing else to it. If I want to see a great film with Wolverine in it I’ll go back and watch X2.

Of course my reaction to these two films was entirely predictable. I wasn’t expecting to be blown away by innovative direction or pithy dialogue. Unfortunately I had higher hopes for Public Enemies, which is why it is probably the most disappointing film of the summer so far in my opinion.

Public Enemies is a film ruined by the director. I’ve discussed my issues with Michael Mann here before but I never would have predicted that he could take some excellent writing (some of it his own) and even better acting and make them into a poor film.

Perhaps poor is too strong, but his direction is so distracting that it’s difficult to enjoy Depp’s excellent turn as Dillinger as well as some impressive supporting performances, particularly by Stephen Graham who I think is an exceptionally talented actor. Mann’s attempt to shoot the film in an almost documentary, shaky hand-cam, style fails miserably as does his insistence on making every scene 20 seconds longer than it needs to be (a growing problem amongst directors at the moment).

This leaves me with two films from my list. I am yet to see Inglorious Basterds and, despite having already seen it twice, I have plenty to say about Harry Potter (both good and bad), so I will give it a full review in my next post.

Outside of my list I have heard good things about Moon, written and directed by Duncan Jones (David Bowie’s son) and plan on seeing it at some point – are there any other hidden gems I’ve missed out on this summer?

Star Trek

It would be foolish for me to try to deny my status as a bit of a geek to anyone who knows me or anyone who has read this blog. I guess that’s why so many people have difficulty believing that I’ve never really been into Star Trek. As far as the TV shows go I liked the Next Generation due to the extremely talented cast and interesting one-off episodes, but I don’t think I ever watched a full episode of the original series, Deep Space Nine, Voyager or Enterprise.

It’s the same with the films, I’m fairly sure I’ve seen some of the early Trek movies, but I probably wouldn’t be able to tell you which was which with the exception of Wrath of Khan because who could forget Spock dying or Shatner screaming ‘Khan!’ at the top of his lungs? Even so, I think the only film from the franchise that I’ve seen more than once is First Contact, which I think is a great movie in its own right.

I’ve always had a ‘take it or leave it’ attitude towards Roddenberry’s sci-fi bunch, but I did get caught up in the hype for JJ Abrams’ reinvention of the franchise and was very much looking forward to it by the time I sat down in a very busy cinema on Saturday night. So busy in fact that I was unable to find a seat anywhere but in the front row, and this was before the previews had even started.

Sitting close to a large screen during the first ten minutes of Star Trek is quite an experience. I managed to avoid the onset of epilepsy and, once my eyes had become accustomed to the strange burning sensation in the retinas, settled down to watch one of the most enjoyable summer blockbusters that I’ve seen in many a year.

Great casting, story, special effects, direction (yes, even with the unnecessary solar flares every ten seconds) come together to create two hours of great fun movie. Zachary Quinto steals the show as Spock, but that shouldn’t take anything away from the rest of the Enterprise crew who are all very believable as the younger versions of their original series counterparts. Special mention should also go to Simon Pegg as a very amusing Scotty (although I realise I’m a bit biased here).

If I did have one complaint it would be that, at times, it felt a bit like they fast forwarded through character development in order to get to the next big exciting scene, but I didn’t go into the film expecting a massively cerebral experience so I wasn’t too bothered by this.

Kudos for Abrams for creating one of the best prequels I think I’ve ever see (yes Mr Lucas, I’m looking at you), and for doing enough to keep the Trekkies happy. Well, at the very least he has used the wonders of Science Fiction to explain away a lot of questions they might have had about continuity.

So if you’re looking for some great, enjoyable, popcorn fodder, go see Star Trek as soon as possible.

4 Minutes of Terminator Salvation

Exactly what the title says:

More Kermode on Piracy

Here's a follow up from last week's post by Mark Kermode about film piracy. Some really good points made here and I really think it's about time someone in the industry started paying attention.

Movie Piracy

I don't always agree with Mark Kermode, but his point is usually pretty well made, which is why I'm a big fan of his.

However, in this case I agree with him 100% and it is so refreshing to hear someone finally say it.

I still don't think the movie industry is going to wake up for a while yet though.

Summer Season

As you can tell by my previous post, I went to see I Love You Man this weekend. For me this feels like the start of the summer movie season with a load of blockbusters about to hit our screens in the next few months.

So for anyone who’s interested, here’s a list of the films I’m looking forward to the most in the next few months (in chronological order) -

Wolverine
Star Trek
Terminator Salvation
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Public Enemies
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Inglorious Basterds

OK, I get that there aren’t any small independent movies in that list but as it’s the summer season I think I’m allowed to drool over big budget blockbusters without the guilt. Plus the small movies tend to pop up rather than have months of marketing build up.

However, if you’re aware of any hidden gems that are coming up I’d love to hear about them. Or if you just think there’s a blockbuster or two that I’ve overlooked.

The Apatow Bunch

I’m a big fan of the ‘Apatow Bunch’*. I’m referring, of course to the bunch of very funny guys - Seth Rogan, Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd, Bill Hader, Jonah Hill et al – who over the last few years have shown up in a bunch of great comedies that, more often than not, include some form of involvement from Judd Apatow.

Not only is this a really talented group of comedians, but they have managed to find a formula for making comedies that can appeal to everyone. For example, Knocked Up should, by all accounts, be described as a romantic comedy and therefore despised by all men. However, there’s enough guy humour running through it to keep me entertained. It is the perfect date movie.

However, not content with making the men and women laugh, they always through in some great lines for the geeks as well. There’s nothing a geek likes to see more than an in-joke. It makes us feel superior because we get a joke that some people in the audience won’t have understood because they don’t get the reference. You can see a great example of this if you watch I Love You Man staring Rudd and Segal, which came out in the UK last week. Just watch out for the Princess Bride reference – you’ll love it.

Even if you’re not a Princess Bride fan (ie soulless), you should go see it anyway because it’s just plain hilarious.

Amusingly enough I don’t think Judd Apatow had anything to do with I Love You Man, but it’s in the same style and stars two of his boys, so it counts as a ‘Bunch Movie’ as far as I’m concerned.

The only recent film by ‘The Bunch’ that I avoided in recent times was Pineapple Express. Stoner humour just doesn’t do it for me (that’s right, you heard me correctly Big Lebowski), and from what I understand I haven’t missed anything. Still, one dog out of around 15 movies isn’t so bad.


*The terms ‘Apatow Bunch’, ‘Bunch Movie’ and ‘The Bunch’ are registered trademarks of the Films and Things corporation (as if anyone cares!)

In Bruges

Whoever made the trailer for In Bruges should be shot. To take an excellent, original, piece of work and make it look like an average, everyday, comedy must have taken some effort. I can only assume that it was done on purpose in order to bring in larger crowds.

I never really considered going to see the film in the cinema after watching the trailer. Even after it came out on DVD and my housemate bought it I let it sit on the side for about a month before finally watching it over the Easter Weekend.

The film begins with a simple enough premise – two Irish hitmen (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson) flee London after a job and hideout in Bruges on their bosses orders. The first twenty minutes or so go as expected with some great witty banter between the two. However, there is an uncomfortable atmosphere that hangs over the comedy, created by bleak backdrops and a melancholy soundtrack.

Eventually the reason for the depressing feel is revealed and the film becomes one of the best black comedies that I can remember seeing. Farrell and Gleeson are superb and do a great job with some excellently written, witty dialogue. While the soundtrack and direction are impressive, it is the two of them that control the mood of the film throughout, making you laugh out loud one minute and then stopping you in your tracks without ever making it feel forced.

It’s difficult to talk about the film too much without stepping into ‘spoiler’ territory, and this is definitely a film that should be watched with as little prior knowledge as possible. So if you haven’t seen it yet then I would definitely recommend it – especially if you’ve avoided it because of the hideous job they did promoting it in the first place.

Hey Sports Fans

There aren’t many sports I don’t enjoy watching. It doesn’t matter if it’s snooker, darts, golf or Rugby; chances are I will have, at some point in my life, shouted at the TV while watching it. So it’s a bit of a shame for me that, while there are lots of good sports movies, there really aren’t that many sports that make good films.

For example, there are fewer things that make me happier than sitting and watching a good Test Match. Five days of cricket that, in all likelihood, will end in a draw is a beautiful thing to watch. However, I really can’t see anyone making a good cricket movie. I think Bollywood has tried on a few occasions, but they always fill any gaps in excitement with a good song and dance, so I don’t think that really counts.

Football (Soccer for any Americans out there) has potential, but has never really fulfilled it. There are many British males who will point to Escape to Victory as an example of a great football film. However, people only think that because it’s got so many great players in it. Unfortunately the great dramatic ending is spoilt by Hollywood insisting that Sylvester Stallone is the hero at the end of the match. It would be fine if he wasn't the bloody goalkeeper!

Unsurprisingly American sports tend to translate to celluloid pretty well. I suppose this is because it’s much easier to build the tension with a high scoring game that can so often be decided in the last five seconds. American Football, Basketball and Baseball all provide perfect popcorn fodder, even if you’re telling a true story.

Of course this sort of blog post usually results in me giving my top ten sports movies of all time, but when I started to pull one together I realised I had some trouble.

The first dilemma – documentaries. I love When We Were Kings and I would probably include Hoop Dreams as well, but for some reason it doesn’t seem right. To me these are documentaries first and sports films second, so they’re out.

Then there are the films that pretend to be sports movies, but actually aren’t. Caddyshack isn’t really a golf movie is it? Surely it’s a comedy. But if that’s the case then I would have to reconsider White Men Can’t Jump. The Hustler pretends to be a film about pool, but it isn’t really.

Eventually I came to realise that this is one of the hardest genres to qualify for some reason. I think I can easily throw in some of my favourites like Rocky, Any Given Sunday, Remember the Titans, Varsity Blues (at this point you may notice a bias towards American Football movies). At the same time I can exclude ones I hate like A League of Their Own and Raging Bull (I feel my dislike of DeNiro is well enough established now that I don’t have to explain this one). However, this doesn’t make the top ten much easier to fill.

In the end I realised that being a sports fan and a movie fan maybe doesn’t automatically qualify me as the best person to pick good sports movies. This moment of clarity came to me as I was trying to justify why I would rather have Rookie of the Year in my top 10 than Field of Dreams.

Public Enemies

I wouldn't say that I dislike Michael Mann, or even that he's overrated, but I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a fan. I loved the Last of the Mohicans but Heat really didn't do it for me and the less said about Miami Vice the better.

However, he is very good at directing action. Whereas 'Bayhem' takes the wall of sound approach of throwing everything at the audience without letting them take a breath, Mann's approach is far more measured and focused, which I prefer.

That's one of the reasons why I'm really looking forward to seeing Public Enemies, the new film about the FBI's attempts to take down notorious gangsters John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd.

The fact that Johnny Depp is playing Dillinger certainly helped to raise my interest, but I think Mann's style will be very well suited to prohibition era America - there's just something very cool about the Tommy Gun.

Michael Marshall Smith

In the past I made comments about no one reading my blog, only to be surprised to discover that some people actually were! It now appears that this number is growing (can't wait to hit double figures). I even have one person officially 'following' Films and Things - thanks James!

Once you get over the ego boost of such an event, which can take a while, you realise there are some real advantages to getting involved in this whole blogosphere thing (sorry, I know it's a crap word).

For example: as soon as you read the blog of someone who's reading your blog, you start to look at other people's blogs who read their blog but who have probably not seen your blog yet. Still with me? Good.

Killing time (that would be more effectively spent doing some actual work) by reading random people's blogs means that you sometimes come across great little finds like this interview with Michael Marshall Smith, one of my favourite authors.

The interview is well worth a read, whether you're familiar with Smith's work or not. Plus it includes a really amusing rant about Richard Dawkins, which is worth the admission fee alone.



P.S. A quick message to Phil over at the Live for Films blog (in case you're reading) - Any chance you can get Michael to send me a signed copy of The Servants?...

Go on, I'll be your best mate!