Jim Miles

1:09 and 1:30 !!

Super Nintendo, Super NEZZ, or SNEZZ, but never ess-enn-ee-ess for me.

As usual, the comments are gold. "This dude is Wolverine."

I played the demo co-op with some friends yesterday (first two of them did one scenario then I did the other with another) and it was off the chain. The co-op works so well, I loved it. The highlight for me has to be when my partner lost all his life and was being attacked so I just threw a grenade into the malaise and green herbed him as he stumbled out with a huge explosion going off behind him (exploding barrels were involved too). Awesome.

Is it Ghostbusters 2 Battle Royale 3?

Please Take Care of My Cat?

Even if you tried, you couldn't make it more obvious that you don't listen to radio and will only bother tuning into something if it's on TV. Better luck expressing yourself next time.

Because it adds almost nothing to the experience. It's not a judgement so much as an observation. If they wanted to make the show for iMax with full smell-o-vision and rumbly seats requiring the Steel Battalion controller it would still be a good show, but you could also still say that aspects of the medium in which it was presented were extraneous.

I'm halfway through it on iPlayer and it's good but I think it would be better as a radio programme. That's a really small point, and it doesn't really matter but I do find I keep switching to look at other things while the guys are talking. I paused it to write this.

I think it's generally pretty shaky ground when people harp on about a performance being bad, because we can never know what the actor* was going for or what they had been directed to do. I used to be exactly like you toonfool and just not get the bad acting thing (except when it was deliberately bad - like Dean Lerner in Darkplace - which is a skill all of its own). However, I came up with my own formulation of bad acting which I feel is better than complete relativism but also doesn't inhabit the snide negativity of herd opinion about what is bad acting (usually people are grossly unfair about it). Firstly, you need to view a single actor across a range of performances, and make sure you get a good sample of them when they're not being type cast. It is usually the case for many actors who are - IMO unfairly - classed as "bad" actors that they are just being recast as essentially the same character again and again and it's not really their fault. When you do this, you can start to see the signs of a "bad" actor. I believe there are two and only two such signs: 1.) The actor recycles mannerisms across roles to the extent of completely shattering the illusion that their character is an individual within a specific scenario. (e.g. Keanu Reeves looking faintly confused, Richard Gere sighing and nodding his head to the ground, Keira Knightley repeating that unique teeth-gnashing smile in every role she plays.) 2.) The actor "slips out of character" continually throughout a performance, again shattering the illusion of a consistent individual. (e.g. "forgetting" that they are supposed to be from a particular part of the world and reverting to a native accent or showing a blank expression when they should be reacting to the other characters around them.) I completely stand by my point about only being able to say for sure that an actor is "bad" by studying them over a range of performances, because no matter how "bad" or "unbelievable" or "paper thin" the performance appears, you can't be sure from just the one that it's not exactly what the actor intended and had been instructed to do. Once you see more though, it becomes obviously pretty quickly whether the actor has skill or not. *using the Guardian convention of "actor = male (actor) or female (actress)".

I really loved Key's poetry this episode. Last episode the bit that had me choking and crying with laughter was Charlie's running out of toilet paper musical number but it was Key that really had me rolling on the floor this time. He's utterly brilliant. I enjoyed the episode, but Charlie was a bit too cunty and not as incisive as he can often be so that dampened things a bit. I'm not such a big fan any more of the bits when he's just watching something and swearing at it; it's starting to feel too puerile in comparison to his really great bits of analysis.