I wasn't very sure whether I should blog this publicly or not, because I fear it might actually be quite boring unless you're really into making wedding veils. But it has been pointed out to me that you are the best judges of what you find interesting, not me. So I'm bunging it up, and if it's not up your street, you can always skip it. But I must warn you, there'll be yet more wedding blogging over the next few days...

So, a few weeks ago, I bought three metres of tulle in order to make my 'test veil', but when I spread it all out I realised that not only is three metres quite a lot of tulle, but that there's also just nowhere near enough room in our flat to spread it all out flat. I also learnt that it's really hard to fold that much tulle up on your own in a confined space.

Last Tuesday, I went back to Dorset to get some wedding planning done whilst Kev was away on his trip. Mum and Dad have a lot more room in their place than we do, so I took down the tulle so that I could work up the alpha version of the veil.

The main set of instructions I'm using were written by Jennifer Haley, but there's this Michael's Stores illustration of how to make a veil as well, and lots of veil pictures on The Veil Shop to give you an idea of how it should look. What I'm going for is a two layer veil, with a fingertip or waltz length lower layer, and a blusher that comes to just above my elbows. The exact lengths will be determined at my first fitting for the dress, so that I can make sure that the veil and dress work perfectly together.

So, right before we get to the whole making the veil thing, a little geometry. When you think about a veil, you think about something that's longer than it is wide, right? Hm, yes, me too. And when you read the 'making a veil' instructions, they all make it sound like you're making something that's longer than it is wide too. But the tulle is 108" wide, and if the blusher is 50" long, and the blusher is 35" long, that's 85" long... which means that the rectangle of tulle that I'm working with is actually wider than it is long.

The key thing to getting a veil that hangs well, with lots of wavy edges that cascade down your back, is the shape of the tulle. In Jennifer's instructions, she suggests that you fold the tulle in half, and round the corners off with a radius equal to half the full width. Indeed, the diagram makes that look like a pretty simple thing. But the problem is, with a rectangle that's wider than it is long, you run out of length before you've finished your half-width curves. Indeed, given that the curve for the blusher has even less length than the curve for the waltz layer, the whole thing ends up being, well, a bit squished.

Rather than the expected U shape, geometry insists we have a sort of asymetrically flattened 0 on its side.

So, right, Veil Mark 1. I cut the tulle to roughly the right length and rounded off the corners with a radius of 24", which was at that time my estimate for the length of the blusher.

This is where I have to interject that tulle is a right bugger to cut. It doesn't matter how sharp your scissors, it's a nightmare to get a straight line or, indeed, a smooth curve. It's also quite hard to cut tulle if you have a kitten sat on it.

Anyway, back to the veil. I folded the blusher part over, and then used whipstitch to gather up the tulle along the fold, leaving 24" on either side ungathered. I didn't have a comb so I had to test it out by pinning it to my hair with one of mum's spring-loaded interlocking toothy comby thingies. You know the sort of thing I mean.

Can't say that I was overly pleased with the way that this one worked. It didn't really hang all that well - you couldn't really see any of the edges cascading in a nice wavy way, nor was the blusher long enough.

Veil Mark 2. I'd only loosely sewn the veil up, so it was easy enough to undo the gather, and fold more fabric over for a longer blusher - this time, 34". I also this time whipstiched all along the fold, from edge to edge, rather than just gathering in the centre. Whilst the blusher looked about the right length once pinned to my hair, it really didn't fall well, and the waltz layer looked again quite drab.

Mum kindly offered me her veil, but whilst it's a lovely veil it's way too short, but I spent some time studying it and trying to figure out how it had been made. It seemed to me to be made of two separate pieces of tulle, rather than one that's been folded, so I decided to try that tactic.

The problem with the folded tulle is that the gathers of the blusher become smooshed up with the gathers of the waltz layer, and it become hard to separate them when you bring the blusher forward to cover your face. That affects the way that the tulle falls, and it obscures the edges, so where they should be falling attractively to frame the face, they are buried in the depths of the longer waltz layer.

My veil experiment didn't take place all in one day, although if you had nothing else to do, one day would be more than long enough. Rather, I spread it out over three days, picking it up and putting it down. I'm pretty sure that I can make the real thing in one day, or maybe one weekend, given that the real thing will need more embellishment than this trial veil.

Veil Mark 3. I cut the tulle in two, one piece 51" long (I had intended 45", but it came out a bit longer), and the other around 34", and then gathered the longer piece with whipstitch all along the flat top - now it really did have the fabled U-shape. The blusher piece I trimmed down further, so that it was the same width and length as the blusher on my Mum's veil, and then I gathered that too. I sewed the two together and again pinned them to my head.

Now the blusher was falling better, but because I am going to have it pinned quite far back, rather than on the crown of my head, it was producing a rather unattractive undulation in the hemline when brought forward. I pinned it where it was falling too long, then took it apart again, and trimmed the bottom into a smoother, more circular curve. Sewed it up again, and bingo, problem solved.

That just left the longer bottom layer to sort out. By this point, I'd figured out that to get a very subtle veil with few waves you need a U shape; to get what they call an 'angel' veil you need a V shape; but what I wanted was something in between, without the V point of an angel veil, but more curvy than a U veil, which has all it's drapes in the middle instead of the edges. (Bearing in mind, of course that the U and V are wider than they are tall.)

Veil Mark 4. I undid the waltz layer again, spread it out on the floor, marked out a longer curve with pins, sort of a half-oval, and shooed Castor away. (The little blighter had decided I was paying way too much attention to the veil, and had come to the conclusion that a good tactic to regain my attention would be to position herself in the middle of the veil and then move as if to sharpen her claws on the tulle. I will admit, it was a tactic that worked flawlessly.)

It took four attempts, but the last, more sweeping curve worked just fine. The edges of the tulle cascade nicely down the sides, and it works really well with the narrower blusher.

I then took my lace samples that I made a couple of months ago, and sewed three of them to the bottom of the blusher, just to see what they would look like. I was surprised that the wider sample actually looked far better than the narrower ones. I still need to find some other patterns to try, because it's going to take 4ft of lace to trim just the blusher so I need to be able to make it quite quickly. The rest of the veil would need 17ft, which is really rather a lot, so I need to think of an alternative trim for that.

Friday, we popped into Ringwood and I managed to get a proper comb, albeit black, and some satin bias binding, so I could see how the veil looks with the waltz length layer thusly edged, and with the whole thing attached properly to a comb. And I have to say, it looks good! The bias binding is a little bit stiff and it flattens out some of the curves, but it's a possibility.

That's as much as I can do, really. Next thing is to try it with the dress and see how the lengths work, and to buy the right coloured tulle. Obviously I can't do that until I have a sample of the ivory silk dupion that the dress will be made of. I might see if I can find some real silk tulle - although it's much more expensive than synthetic tulle, it falls much more softly.

I also need to decide how to decorate the veil, and how much decoration I should indulge in. The dress is going to be quite simple, so the veil can afford to be a little bit more flamboyant, but I don't want to overdo it! Still, we have time to think about all that yet!

So, a couple of weeks ago, I realised that the burgundy card I had bought to make the invitations with was, well, the wrong colour. This was particularly painful, given that I thought I'd finally cracked it, just a few days before. Honestly, I felt like I'd been round every art supply shop in London, and had got samples from all of them.



I really couldn't face searching out yet more art supplies shops to try and find yet more burgundy card, so I gathered together my samples and reconsidered the situation. See the burgundy mulberry paper - that's the one that's laid on top of the ivory coloured card? That's the colour I was trying to match. See that burgundy card towards the bottom of the pic, with the writing on it? I figured that was a pretty good match, but as a card it's just way too thin - it won't really hold up very well to having lots of thing stuck to it.

What to do? What to do?

I laid out all my supplies, and had a think.



Then, inspiration! given that I bought a ton of burgundy card that's just enough of the wrong shade to be usable, but the right thickness, why not glue the card that's the right shade to it? That'll give me a double thickness backing card, and the wrong coloured card won't be seen because it'll have ivory mulberry paper glued to the back of it. Sorted!

Of course, this means that we have the added tediousness of gluing together some 25 sheets of card, but it hopefully won't be too much of a chore. When I was home last I got Dad to make me a jig, just two bits of wood at right angles, so that I can more easily line up the two bits of card.

The only issue I then had was that the burgundy mulberry paper that I bought was also the wrong shade. I couldn't find the one that I wanted on the WeddingDIY site, so I had to email them. They replied really quickly and sent me the right URL and, well, frankly, it was just me being a bit dense and looking at the photos instead of the description, and therefore missing the right burgundy because it looked a bit lighter in the photo than I was expecting.

Last week, whilst I was down in Dorset, WeddingDIY sent me the right burgundy mulberry paper, and I am sending the wrong one back tomorrow. I have to say - this is fabulous customer service. They'd put the right paper in the post to me before I even asked them to! If you're looking to make your own wedding invitations, I couldn't recommend WeddingDIY more highly.

Tonight, then, is invitations night. Once we've had dinner, the laptops will go away and Kevin and I will start on making up the invitations for our family and friends who are travelling from afar. The rest of you, however, will have to wait. Invitations aren't usually sent out til about 6 weeks ahead, but given that people need to book travel and accommodation, I suspect we'll do our second batch when we get back from our holiday in mid-Sept.

I just booked the register office (apparently, it's not registry, as I always thought it was) for our wedding in February, and had a sudden and unexpected burst of nerves and overwhelming excitement as I did so. Squeee!!

Now that I'm starting to get tangible evidence of impending nuptials, I'm starting to get much more excited than I have been since Kevin first proposed in January. We have the stuff for the invitations, bunches of lavender and rosemary drying, the 'trial veil' (which I'll blog about only if people actually want to hear about how you make a veil - I have lost the ability to tell what's interesting and what's dull now!).

It's all slowly become much more real, and I'm slowly getting much more excited. Indeed, every now and again I get a sort of flash of "Oh gosh! I'm getting married!", accompanied by a little fizz of excitement and happiness. I'm glad that we didn't rush things - I'd be missing out on all this anticipation if we had!

Vince and some of his pals at Crimespace have set up a poll to find the World's Sexiest Writer 2007. The nice thing about it is that you can add people to the list, not just be forced to vote for one of the existing entrants.

Of course, I entirely deny that I added any names to that list at all, and I most strenuously repudiate the implication that I voted for person whose name I most definitely didn't add. Equally, I would never, upon my life, ever suggest that you pop over there and vote for the person whose name I am completely innocent of typing into the little box that says "Add another option".

I'm not sure when the poll ends, but I would hazard to propose that authors who wear a lot of black and are patrons of digital rights organisations are really rather dashing and lovely, although, of course, I would never attempt to influence anyone when they were just about to do something as serious as vote in something as important as the World's Sexiest Writer 2007 poll.

UPDATE: Recent developments in the poll require that I add a clarification to this post, lest anyone misunderstand. I might have possibly have added someone's name, but it wasn't mine! I'm quite embarrassed now, specially as if you look at Vince's post, I don't even qualify! *scurries away, blushing*

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: My name has now been removed from the poll. Mind you, I was doing quite well at one point, in the lead with 8 votes.

The thing about weddings is that the majority of the work is in getting the detail right. Luckily, I like detail. One such detail is how to do the place settings at the wedding breakfast. Everyone will have a specific place to sit, but how to we indicate who is sitting where?

I don't like traditional place settings - they're boring. So I struck on the idea that we could use a little posy of dried lavender, with a name tag attached to it with lace or ribbon. Mum and Dad have a lavender bush in the front garden, but it's not enough for the number of posies we need. In fact, it's probably only enough for one. But Mum teaches adult exercise classes, so she asked if any of her members had spare lavender that they would cut for me, and many of them said they had.

Sadly, the weather this year has been just dreadful, and the wetness during June and July has ruined much of the lavender which needs hot dry weather to flourish. The flowers came out earlier than expected, but when people cut them, they were so damp that they just went mouldy.

Despite this, some of Mum's members have managed to cut some nice lavender and successfully - to various extents - dry it for me. Mum has been keeping it in the airing cupboard, and yesterday i sorted it out. Some of it had gone a bit mouldy, so we had to throw out three large-ish bundles, but the rest of it was fine.



This is what we had left, and I've put it in a box in the loft, where it's nice and warm.

Mum got an additional bundle yesterday, which I prepared for drying in the loft, but I don't think it's going not be usable as it was picked after the majority of the flowers had died.



You can see how much greyer it is than the top photo. I bundled it and hung it up in the loft to dry anyway, as I might be able to use it for small favours.





If you look, you can see there are just a few actual flowers left on this lavender, the rest are just the dead husks of the flowers.



One other option is, instead of having posies of lavender, we use bundles of rosemary. Now, Mum and Dad do have an absolutely enormous rosemary bush in the garden, so yesterday we cut as many of the long stems as we could.



I've bundled handfuls of four or five stems together, and hung them in the loft to dry too.



It should take a couple of weeks for both the rosemary and the lavender to dry fully. It's hot up in the loft, and the weather at the moment is quite warm, so it should dry ok. The rosemary bush grows like the clappers, so Mum's going to do another prune in a few week's time so that I get a second harvest. Hopefully that will give us enough rosemary and lavender so that we can put one little posie on each place setting.

I've had an interest in extreme weather events for as long as I can remember. Indeed, I very nearly did a meteorology degree at Southampton University, but had decided that it was just too close to home - only half an hour across the New Forest from where my parents lived. As it was, I opted for a joint geology/chemistry honours degree at Aberystwyth instead, only to find myself transferred to the geology department of the University of Wales, College of Cardiff when Aber's geology department was closed down. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if I had done meteorology instead.

I've been particularly interested in flooding since reading Richard Doyle's Flood, in which London drowns under 10m of water. It's one of those books where the actual writing style is a bit clichéd and clunky, and where it would have benefited from being a third of the length, but despite its shortcomings it's a gripping read. Pulp disaster fiction, maybe, but enjoyable stuff.

I had two reactions to Flood when I read it. The first was that I never looked at the London Underground quite the same way again. The second was that I wished I could have adapted it for the big screen. It would be just such a joy to take a book like this, with such potential, and turn it into a first-rate disaster flick.

So it was pretty inevitable that when I saw the headline on the BBC, Review of London's flood defences, that I'd click. Colour me surprised, however, to see this photograph:



Last I looked, London's never been flooded like that!

Turns out to be a still from the forthcoming disaster film... Flood. Fab! It's got Robert Carlyle in the lead, who I love, and Poirot, er, I mean, David Suchet as the Deputy Prime Minister, but what's more, it's being directed by Tony Mitchell. Mitchell also directed Supervolcano, a two part TV 'docu-drama' looking at what would happen if Yellowstone National Park - which is actually what's called a supervolcano - erupted. I rather liked Supervolcano, it seemed to me to be a pretty well thought-through piece of speculative fiction which was grounded in reality and which had paid attention to detail. I can see why someone like Mitchell would be attracted to a story like Flood.

Watching TV last night, I saw a documentary on flooding in the UK, which happened to include interviews both with Richard Doyle and a guy from the Met Office who, surprisingly to me, seemed to be supporting Doyle's point of view that the Thames Barrier is becoming inadequate and that London really could be at risk of a flood event. But according to that wonderfully reliable source of journalistic purity, The Daily Mail, the 'Environment Agency dismissed it as nonsense, saying: "It may make for a good read but it is not good science.'"

The reaction from the Environment Agency, who are responsible for the Thames Barrier, is slightly strange. On their website they say:

Media reactions to the fictional tale are being compared to the hysteria that swept the United States in 1938, when a radio adaptation of HG Wells' War of the Worlds saw Americans gripped by panic at the thought of martian invaders devastating their country.

Really? Where? The press release is dated 1 August, just a few days ago, but I can't say that I've seen any media hysteria over this film. Indeed, I've had to look pretty hard to find any sort of reaction at all in the media, and have found only the stuff on the BBC and The Daily Mail. That's hardly a media frenzy, now, is it? Unless you count the East London Advertiser (nice photos there, by the way).

The Environment Agency then say:

As a result of the interest, Lionsgate and the Environment Agency have resolved to work together to highlight the actions that people can take in the face of real-life flood events and to reassure London of the Thames Barrier’s efficiency.

In reality, a team of Environment Agency engineers and operations staff at the Thames Barrier work continuously to ensure that this type of scenario remains firm fiction, with most recent modelling showing that the Barrier can withstand expected flood pressures for many years to come.

The possibility of London’s defence structures succumbing to a major flood is currently estimated at having a 1:2000 or 0.05 per cent chance of occurring. The last major flood was a 1:300 event in 1953 and it was this event that led to the construction of the Barrier.

Steve East, Thames Barrier technical support team leader said: "The recent flooding and heavy rains in Britain will have made people more aware of the dangers of extreme weather. In fact, our current modelling already takes into account the many different factors that contribute to tidal flooding including weather conditions, fluvial flows and known tidal cycles.

"Even with all of the possible worst case scenario statistics included, our calculations can not be combined to create a wave that could pass over the top of the Thames Barrier. The defences that we have in place can presently cope with the worst that can realistically be thrown at it, but of course it is right that we plan for the future, to ensure that this level of protection is at least maintained in the decades to come. The Thames Barrier protects 125 square km of central London – encompassing 1.25 million people and an infrastructure valued at £80bn."

The Thames Barrier does not stand alone as a defence system – rather it is part of an integrated system of defences stretching from Teddington in west London, to Shoeburyness in the outer estuary. The estuary is also protected by over 300 km of floodwalls, embankments and numerous small gates and barriers. London’s flood defences compare with some of our European neighbours such as Italy where for example, flood protection in Venice is also being designed to 1:1000 year level. Defences in other major cities such as St Petersburg are also designed to the same level.

Producer Justin Bodle said: "The best way to create a programme about an unpredictable scenario like this one is to work with the real-life experts. The Thames Barrier is a structure admired the world over for its efficiency and resilience. Our production may be a work of fiction but it has served to highlight the challenges and investment needed to maintain effective flood management programmes in the UK."

So the Met Office say on TV that the Barrier is getting on a bit and needs to be reassessed, and the EA are saying that all's well, and Lionsgate will say whatever they've agreed to say. I find it rather disturbing that the EA should react to the release of Flood by immediately going on the defensive, especially when there actually are causes for concern. London is sinking and sea level rising; the Barrier was designed after the 1953 floods and so isn't cutting edge anymore; and a report by the London Assembly's Environment Committee into flooding in the Thames Gateway found 1.25 million people living in areas at risk from flooding, 5% of East London defences in "poor or very poor condition", and that flood planning is inadequate. I find it even stranger that the EA and Lionsgate should form an agreement to 'work together'. Perhaps it was a condition of their being able to film in the Thames Barrier itself. If so, that's more than a little distasteful to me.

But back to the BBC article that set all this off:

Westminster's head of contingency planning, Brian Blake, said: "Central London is very well protected thanks to the Thames Barrier to the east and Teddington Weir to the west.

"But given the uncertainty created by climate change and the intensity of some of the downpours we've had recently, it is only prudent to review our plans."

In my opinion, it's only wise to ensure that London's flood defences are up to snuff, but that's something to be determined by the evidence, not through media posturing and press releases. Saying that the Barrier is fine doesn't make it so - I want to see the evidence. Equally, Richard Doyle has done a fair amount of research but he's published only his conclusions, and not his sources, so it's hard to see if he's on the money or grasping at the wrong end of the stick.

Anyway, back to the film. Here's another still I found:



The trailer is on the official Flood site, although I can't find it on YouTube so I can't embed it, sorry.

Unlike The Dreck, sorry, Dark is Rising, I fully expect Flood-the-film to be a good adaptation of Flood-the-book, not necessarily because the source material is as good as Susan Cooper's books, but because I don't see any evidence that Mitchell has messed about with essential elements of the story in the way that Cunningham did. I fully expect Flood-the-movie to be a fun romp, with some great special effect and possibly, even, a better plot than the book, although we'll have to see whether I'm right or not.

Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing it on the big screen!

Dammit. I don't believe this. Not only is the mulberry paper I bought the wrong one, but the burgundy card I got isn't actually the right burgundy, even though it looked like it was in the shop.

Waily! Waily! Waily!

I blame Lloyd for this morning's game of Mornington Crescent on Twitter. I don't think that everyone could see every player - Lloyd has some people that I didn't see, and I know I had some that he couldn't see, and there were some players that I tried to follow but Twitter wouldn't show me their tweets... so all a bit of a mess, really. But still the best 20 minutes of the day, frankly.

LloydDavis omg @bowbrick that gives me an idea - Mornington Crescent on Twitter
LloydDavis So I'll start with my usual opening local gambit of *Pimlico*
bowbrick @lloyddavis I think you night be on to something. And with GPS you could play with real locations!
bowbrick Duke Street
LloydDavis some strikingly pedestrian moves so far. time to stir things up with a couple of blue tokens at *Lancaster Gate*
LloydDavis clearly stunned the fools into silence, building my empire with *Baker Street*
bowbrick Poland Street
LloydDavis intrigued by @bowbricks W1 strategy, but undeterred *Green Park*
Suw /thinks that @lloydDavis's Green Park is a predictable follow on to Pimlico and goes *Mundania Street*
kevinmarks Well, I me be confused by the jubilee extension showing up since I left London, but there are enough podumes for *Victoria*
LloydDavis clearly @suw has not seen the green podumes in my...curses! @kevinmarks comes out of nowhere
bowbrick Meard Street. Hah!
LloydDavis trying to think on my feet and ignoring @bowbricks scatology *White City*
LloydDavis wondering why I just got an invite to stay at Holiday Inn, Solihull. No, that's not part of the game... unlesss
bowbrick Is it my go?
LloydDavis @bowbrick - yes for heaven's sake, the clock is ticking
bowbrick Hey. I'll just take a moment to tell you how absolutely brilliant Harold Moore's Records in Great Marlborough Street is.
imajes @lloyddavis: frankly i go for the middle of it all and stick my pin in *Burnt Oak*
Suw Well, i'm going to double-switch podumes and nullify kevinmarks' Victoria with a Mudchute.
bowbrick And in Foyle's cafe they've now actually replaced the power sockets with blank plates!
Suw @browbrick: curses upon their foul and pestilent corpses!
kevinmarks Well, thanks to the Greenwich Ferry and the Millennium Bridge, that leaves me an escape route to *St Pauls*
imajes there's fantastic podumes to be had with Gloucester Road
LloydDavis @imajes shhhhh! don't tell the newbies
chrys got diverted to West Brompton this morning on my way to Hammersmith. damnation.
LloydDavis heh! lining up for some monster LV with *Fulham Broadway*
LloydDavis taking momentum from @kevinmarks Central Line opening to break into *Upton Park*
imajes @lloyd: Ruislip is unquestionablly next.
Suw Damn! i was going to go Fulham Broadway, but now you've blocked LV, I'm spenging Fairlop.
febake gets off the central line at *shepherds bush*
bowbrick Jaunting to Flask Walk!
febake and lines up a parallel line manouvre: gets on the H&C *Shepherds Bush*
imajes @Suw: i think we can divert around the LV and ensconce ourselves in Mansion House
Suw And a late joiner from @febake! and possibly @chrys, although that could have been a coincidence. Snaresbrook!
londonfilmgeek @lloyddavis Aurora Gambit, *Poplar*
LloydDavis drat @suw getting sneaky must think fast. *St John's Wood*
LloydDavis @londonfilmgeek - welcome, thank you and *Angel* for your trouble
LloydDavis does anyone have any pink tokens?
imajes @londonfilmgeek: if you're going to visit poplar, clearly next is Elephant & Castle.
Suw omg! the Aurora Gambit! I haven't seen that played in 20 years! My hand is forced. Neasden via the long way round.
LloydDavis erm pink tokens anyone?
febake Drops a "cleveland steamer" by moving to *Rickmansworth*
imajes @lloyd: low on the pinks, but i have a few spare reds. might that work?
londonfilmgeek @suw luggage spilled at All Saints, walkaround to *Whitechapel*
LloydDavis @imajes - how many can I have for two greens and a taupe podume?
Suw Feels a pincer movement from @Londonfilmgeek and @febake. Collusion! Collusion! I demand a Cockfosters!
LloydDavis *Holland Park* opening Parks and Recreation
imajes @lloyd: a dozen, bakers or otherwise. Cab at Whitechapel takes us to Lancaster Gate, which may or may not open.
LloydDavis swingin' @imajes it's a deal which makes my *Wembley Park* quite interesting I think you'll agree
imajes @lloyddavis: i think we can come to an accord, but only at *Sloane Square*
londonfilmgeek @suw is the Amicus shuffle up for grabs, if so *Hanger Lane* for 50
LloydDavis @suw : I think your Cockfosters is upheld, please people keep to Trott's Civility wherever possible
bowbrick I don't like the way you're all playing stations and I'm playing streets. I feel a bit intimidated: Denmark Hill!
imajes Excellent. Amicus shuffle played. now possible to do the Daisy Maneuver. I'll go all in for *Goldhawk Road*
Suw @londonfilmgeek: I take your Amicus Shuffle and swap you a Complexification and agree on Maida Vale.
febake tries an advanced pre-construction gambit *Wood Lane*
LloydDavis meh! Scoble's Retreat - *Warwick Avenue*
LloydDavis oh @imajes btw nice Daisy :)
Suw @LloydDavis: thank you for your ruling and a reminder that Trott's Civility is now in force. May I presume upon Boston Manor?
LloydDavis i don't think I'm ever going to get any work done ever ever again
imajes @lloyd: i think you're playing the california variation which was declared unsafe in the 1986 rulebook. go back 4 and start at *Kilburn*
LloydDavis @suw you're welcome, be aware though that Metcalfe's Interruption is still a possibility
londonfilmgeek @febake i call foul, it's clearly a post-construction move, we can settle for the dangerously close *Camden Town* Charring X/Edgware share
Suw @parkylondon: Invisible sammich exchange at Queen's Park.
LloydDavis @imajes - this is twitter, man, your 1986 rules hold no sway here!
LloydDavis oh if you must - *Leicester Square*
imajes @lloyd: you must stick to the agreed rule book as per the MC Rules Committee. it's the only way to preserve a level playing field at *Oval*
Suw Foul against @febake upheld, no deconstructionism allowed under the '64 rule 237a which clearly states all constructionism illegale. Oval.
LloydDavis @imajes - duh! haven't you heard of MC2.0 ? it's all pastel shades and round corners here matey *St Pauls*
Suw Damn! Gazumped! *panics* Morden!
LloydDavis *Dollis Hill* .... /sniggers
londonfilmgeek @suw, @febake has his Longhorn manual out, this isn't fair, therefore Inspector Sands
kevinmarks Aha, twice round gives enough momentum for me to play *San Jose Diridon*
LloydDavis @londonfilmgeek & @suw Oh, I knew we shouldn't have played on a Friday..
febake @LloydDavis sails past on a fast metroploitan bound for *Baker Street*
imajes @lloyd: no, MC is a strict rules-only game. one must adhere, it's the only way one can play safely. i bid 2 stickles in baron's court
Suw /calls on the Great Arbiter. In 1924, McCutchley-Spriggins held the Longhorn Manual as a fair move. Suck it up LFG. All Saints.
imajes @suw: all saints has been played. i suggest Amos Grove.
Suw Ah, the Baker at Baker Street - smooth! I play the Butcher at Heron Quays.
LloydDavis @imajes I'm not against rules, just suggesting we go along with the Winer Addendum which is much more appropriate to twitter
bowbrick Ladies who lunch sitting next to me are discussing that fact that their respective husbands are going to get iPhones for them...
bowbrick Mugs. Beak Street.
imajes @lloyddavis: if needs must... then i have no option but moving to close at Latimer Park
Suw Sidesteps both Latimer Park and San Jose Diridon with an Epping Swing.
LloydDavis time for a quick Semple's Surprise before I go to lunch - *Amersham*
febake Attempts the Cranbrook retreat and asks an American tourist how to reach *Aldwych*
LloydDavis now while I'm out, *nobody* touch my pieces...
kevinmarks well, depends on which Winer addendum, I'll take either *Oxford Circus* or *The Great Northern Hotel*, as that bridge is out in Minneapolis
londonfilmgeek *Finsbury Park* should stop @imajes in his tracks
LloydDavis @kevinmarks - ooh nicely done old chap
Suw Short and sweet. Kentish Town.
imajes depositing @lloyddavis in *Mill Hill East* whilst luncheoning myself
Suw Which sets me up really nicely for, and I'm sorry to say this as it pains my heart, Mornington Crescent.
imajes @londonfilmgeek the finsbury park play did in fact derail me. alas, @suw played the middle piece - the jigsaw is now complete.
dantekgeek Mornington Crescent! (I win, right? You brits are so silly)
plasticbagUK Does anyone know what the hell Suw is doing on Twitter? I'm completely puzzled.
Suw @dantekgeek: Sadly, you are too late as Mornington Crescent has already been played.
chrys @plasticbagUK http://tinyurl.com/7zz8a ,... and i'm not even a brit!
Suw @plasticbagUK: Sorry, got a bit carried away there. *giggles* shan't do it again, promise.
kevinmarks oh, neatly done, @Suw, very perspicacious use of Pilgrim's exegesis in the Universal Parser
Suw @Kevinmarks: your kindness, as always, warms my cockles. thank you for such kind words.
LloydDavis sneaking back in while nobody's looking with a quick *Mansion House* now lunch, really
Suw /pats LloydDavis on the head. Poor Lloyd. That's what you get for going to lunch at a crucial moment.
londonfilmgeek @suw I didn't see the erudite spaniard for the tress. Good Job!
bowbrick Dhhh. Didn't see that coming. Slick play @suw
Suw thank you, thank you. :) I can only thank my parents and the rest of my family, my MC mentor, my accupuncturist, my chiropractor, my frie...
rachelclarke I missed the game! @suw, @lloyddavis need to start it later next time ;) although @kevinmarks made it I see, must have never gone to bed
Remy @kevinmarks: Can I just note, witht the game is over, that I am still giggling that you dared to play the Winer addendum. That takes gall.
londonfilmgeek For the future i insist on the hastily drafted Twitter Compendium following the Clive Sinclair Manifesto http://tinyurl.com/24lldt
LloydDavis gasps. sulks. plots revenge...

Walden Media have changed the name of their abominable adaptation of The Dark Is Rising to "The Seeker: The Dark is Rising", and have reposted a new version of the trailer to YouTube. Conveniently, this gets rid of all the comments from the old one, so I suggest that if you're as unhappy about this movie as I am, go rate it low and leave a comment expressing your feelings.

Good to see that Neil's Official Web Elf has our best interests at heart, rather than his.

I don't think I've ever got so wound up by the film adaptation of a book that I've found myself struggling to express myself. But from what I've read today about David L Cunningham's adaptation of Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising, the second book in the eponymous sequence, well, I'm horrified almost to the point of muteness.

I first read The Dark is Rising sequence when I was about 19 or 20, introduced to them by someone I met at university. They didn't form a major part of my childhood (I was more into Asimov than CS Lewis), but as an adult I loved them. They are a series of books that I take great care not to read too often, because I like to try and forget them in between readings so that I'll experience the thrill of discovery each time. Of course that doesn't entirely work, but I try. And I only ever read them in winter - in an ideal world, I time it so that I'm reading The Dark is Rising in the run up to Christmas so that I can wring as much atmosphere out of it as possible.

Last year, through December and January, Kevin and I read the five books together, reading aloud to each other before bed. He loved them as much as I do, and it was just lovely to watch him experience the key revelations along the way - I'll never forget the moment he realised who Professor Merriman Lyon really is, or who Bran is.

And I'm not the only one who holds these books in high esteem. Cooper won the Newbery Medal in 1976 for The Grey King, and was the only recipient of the Newbery Honor in 1974 for The Dark is Rising. Indeed, Cooper has a quiet but loyal following, and it looks like most of us are utterly dismayed at the reports we're getting of what Cunningham and screenwriter John Hodge have done to these wonderful books.

Now, I'm not going to get into the whole thing about Cunningham's religion or attitude towards the truth, nor am I going to discuss his past films - none of which I have seen. I am going to admit to dismay at the thought that part of the reason why he might have butchered this adaptation is so that it fits in with his own religious beliefs, but that's as far as I'll go. Bellatrys does a good job of examining this over on LiveJournal, and I think she's better placed than I to comment.

I am surprised, though, that John Hodge should be involved in the adaptation of what are definitely children's books - or maybe we could say 'young adult' if you really want to get picky. This is a man better known for his work on edgy, disturbing and gritty films like Shallow Grave or Trainspotting, or the black comedy of A Life Less Ordinary. Hardly classic children's stories, unless you like scaring the bejeesus out of your children. Although I'm sure some would accuse him of being familiar with how to butcher an otherwise good book, The Beach. I've neither read the book nor seen the film, so I couldn't possibly say. Still, an odd choice.

What I find disturbing, from all of the stuff that I've read and the trailers that I've seen, is the total disregard for the source material. I understand very well that you need to change things to translate a book into a film. Books are very good for telling you what someone is thinking and feeling, but films need to show you. So sometimes you need change scenes from 'tell' to 'show' in order to make it work. Or maybe you need to cut out some of the less important scenes and some of the back story in order to keep the film to a reasonable length. All this I understand.

What I do not understand is why you would take a really gripping story, with sympathetic and well-developed characters, and which has some wonderful mythology underpinning it, and strip out all the stuff that makes it good.

If you haven't read The Dark is Rising (book), it's about an 11 year old English boy, Will, who suddenly discovers that he is the last of the Old Ones of the Light, and that he must find the Six Signs to help the Light in their battles against the Dark. (The battles span five books, so this is just a step on the way, not the final confrontation.) Will is helped by the oldest of the Old Ones, Merriman Lyon, and must deal with the Dark Rider, who tries at every turn to stop Will completing his quest. You've got lots of Arthurian stuff in there (including Merriman/Merlin and the Lady - possibly of the Lake, although that's never explicitly stated), lots of local British folklore, such as Herne the Hunter, Wayland Smith, and the idea of 'old ways' - roads as old as time and with magical properties.

Most importantly of all, is Will's character and background. A quiet, reflective boy who seems a lot older than his 11 years, Will is the seventh son of a seventh son. His family is big, but loving. His parents are kind, intelligent, fair-minded and thoughtful, and the family is painted as stable, supporting, and principled, but fun and rumbustious too. Will struggles to grasp the importance of his role, but he loves his family and when they are threatened, he goes all out to save them (oh, and the world).

This is all pretty much removed from the film. Will is a brattish blond American 13 year old, with "emotionally unavailable" parents, siblings who bully him, and a brother, Max, who's been corrupted by the Dark. Indeed, the family has been fucked up beyond all recognition - with Mary, Will's sister, becoming his mother, his older sister Gwen becoming his younger sister, his dad becoming Roger instead of John, and the introduction of a twin (I'm not sure where the twin comes into this - is the twin Max? There are twins in the original, but Will wasn't one of them). And all the Arthurian stuff has gone, along with the folklore, and suddenly the climactic battle is no long one fight in a longer war, but the final banishment of the Dark.

So instead of all the cool mythology, we've now got Will accused of shoplifting, blowing up a car, a big fight with snakes, a karate fight on a cart in a Viking village, a love interest... Oh, and I nearly forgot. There's a giant snow globe. Right, that'll help.

Authorblog has a comprehensive list of changes that have been made, as ascertained from clips, interviews and articles, and links to all the sources. Frankly, by the time I got to the end of the list - which is very long indeed - I had lost the heart to click on all the links.

If I could see any reason why those would improve on the book, I think I'd be ok with it. But they just don't. One otherwise dreadful article about the film says:

A joke among the journalists covering The Dark Is Rising set visit in Bucharest over the last couple of days was that the movie has only changed three things from the Newberry-winning novel on which it’s based: they’ve changed the lead kid’s nationality from English to American, they’ve changed the lead kid’s age from 11 to 14, and they’ve changed everything that happens in the story.

This isn't the end of it though. It seems that hardly any of the cast have bothered to read the original books, nor are they fussed that the books are being trashed. Ian McShane, who plays Merriman Lyon says:

Ian McShane: I don't think they've been very faithful to the book. I don't know how many of you've read the book. I know they sold a few copies, but I couldn't read it very well. It's really dense. It's from the 70s, you know? [...]

Where [sic] you familiar with the books before signing on to this?

Ian McShane: No, I never heard of them. I did try to read the book, but they were a little...I think...I don't know how...There's four of them apparently. Or five. Oh, god. That means I might have to do a sequel.

It's hard to tell how much of this is down to McShane being bad at doing interviews, or whether he genuinely couldn't give a rat's arse.

But let's just rewind a little. Ian McShane? No offence, but Merriman Lyon is supposed to be white-haired, hawk-nosed man, the eldest of the Old Ones, he has a timeless, ageless quality to him. He's Will's mentor, old and wise, but still fallible.

Ian McShane is short (5' 9"), black-haired, and about as timeless as a yesterday's Metro. Worse, to many Brits of the right age to be Dark is Rising fans, he's Lovejoy. A cheeky scamp of a dodgy wide-boy antiques dealer whose best mate was an alcoholic called Tinker. But let me be clear. It's not that I don't like McShane - he's great in what little Deadwood I've seen - but he's totally wrong for this part.

On the other hand, the choice of Christopher Eccleston as the Rider is a very good bit of casting. The rest of it, I'm not sure about.

I'm relieved to ay that it's not just me who's pissed off at this. Other fans are just as upset. Ragnell is unhappy:

So, the thoughtful, introverted youngest member of the Old Ones? Our gentle little hero who was loaded with ancient power despite all appearances to the contrary? The guy who was responsible and thoughtful and didn't waste his power in showy displays? Gone! Replaced by a Harry Potter clone!

Oh, but they changed all the surface stuff that would make people mistake him for Harry, but they went ahead and took Will's unique personality and exchanged it for the more popular boy's so they could clone Harry Potter but not be accused of cloning Harry Fucking Potter.

Fuckers.

You know, I hate to be one of those fans who gets mad whenever they change any little thing about a book I loved, but seriously, this sounds like mass-produced shit that's trying to capitalized on the Potter popularity. They're killing this book, dammit. Killing it (And yes, you can quote that for your fan entitlement rants, thank you very much.)

Soyo is too:

With everything I'm reading about The Dark is Rising, not much but the barest shreds of the book are left alive. Will is American instead of English, 14 instead of 11 (and not the youngest in his family!), an outcast instead of an alarmingly normal kid, worried about girls instead of... not seeming to notice girls exist. Also, he apparently has an evil twin. There's less emphasis on British folklore, almost no Arthurian elements left, and the magic's flashy instead of subtle. The Stantons don't get along as much as they do in the book, and Robin and Paul sound like Fred and George 2: Electric Boogaloo. There's some glowy teenage girl with eyeliner on the poster. There are also mentions of a scene with evil mall cops. Let me repeat that: EVIL MALL COPS. I just... what? Oh, and it's all modern.

The thing is, I can see changing almost any one of these things, or adding in any of these things that are... additiony... but altogether it gets to be a little much. No, really, just watch!

[...] In conclusion? It's like they were working with a copy of the book that had been mostly eaten by termites. Some of the names are the same, and that's about it. And what bothers me more than that they're changing so many things? It's the way they're taking every Hollywood cliche available and packing it into the spaces left.

The comments on MTV's Movies Blog are universally unhappy, as are many of the threads and comments over on Walden Media's forums, where we are treated to what appears to be a wonderful display of astroturfing (that is, faking grassroots approval). Oh, and here's the official site, which appears to include a name change to "The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising", like that'll do any good.

I can't imagine how on earth Susan Cooper could possibly be happy with what's been done to her creation, but sadly it doesn't matter if she's happy or not. Authors generally don't get to be involved in the process of turning their book into a film, and there's little to nothing one could do if they objected to what was happening.

Ah, there's so much more I could say about this, but I'm going to stop now before I plunge myself into chronic depression. Here's the trailer. Watch it and weep.

Technorati Tags: tdir, susan cooper, the dark is rising

At last! After gathering a sample of pretty much every shade of burgundy card available in London, I've finally found exactly the right one! Yes, I will admit that I've been on a bit of a mission, and yes, perhaps I've been a bit more rigourous than maybe I needed to be, but I am a perfectionist at heart, and I really had to find the right shade of burgundy card, to match the burgundy mulberry paper and the burgundy ribbon.

Of course, none of these burgundies are going to match exactly the colour of my dress, but you can't win 'em all. At least they will match each other, and it's not like anyone's going to bring the invitation to the wedding to double check. (Although this is the level of obsessive detail that I naturally think in... *winces*.)

I also managed to get the perfect shade of thin ivory card from the same place - Cass Art London, in Islington. Wow, what a fabulous shop! Three floors of art supplies and stationery. Heaven! It was pretty much all I could do to stop myself blowing a hideous amount of money on unnecessary note books, paper samples and art supplies.

I've also ordered all my other stationery requirements from WeddingsDIY, although they've run out of ivory mulberry paper, which is going to put a crimp on sending the invitations out. We're only doing the invitations to those living abroad at this juncture - usually you don't send them out this early but people have to book flights and stuff.

(I just had to double check with Kevin as to whether I am sad blogging this, but he says not. I think he's just being kind. But, well, brace yourself. There's a lot more where this came from.)

It's come! Finally! Yay!!!


Kevin brought home some bubbly, and cooked a lovely meal and, just when I was least expecting it, he came round to my side of the table, got down on one knee, and re-proposed! Of course, I re-accepted.

It's amazing to finally have the ring after so long. The stones are just so beautiful - now and again I catch them sparkling, and it surprises me every time. Kevin made such a good choice. And, of course, I can't help playing with it - it'll take a while to get used to wearing it, but it's just lovely.

I had such plans for today, including lunch plans, that all went for a Burton when I noticed at about 10.30 that I couldn't read. My heart sank. I hate migraines, and the first sign for me is that I lose the ability to see what's in the centre of my field of vision. Shortly after, I get visual disturbances, then if I'm lucky, it clears up. If not, I get the headache, and maybe the nausea. Got all three today, and spent three hours in bed, feeling crap and trying to sleep.

Eventually, hunger forced me out of bed and I'm trying not to go back again, despite the fact that it's several hours later and my head still hurts. It's that sort of dull ache behind the eyes, similar to the sort you get when you have eye strain.

I've not achieved anything useful today at all, and i don't feel particularly bright, certainly not bright enough to tackle any of the big important tasks I have to get on with. However, I'm hoping I feel better by 5pm as I have a call from America scheduled, and I have to be a bit intelligent for that.

What a waste of a day though.

In the autumn of 2005, I was out on a second date with a rather lovely American guy that I'd met a month or so before. That Sunday, we'd arranged to meet for lunch - which is always a fairly safe bet for a second date, given that one can make up an afternoon engagement if one needs to escape. But lunch went well, and we went for a wander around Covent Garden, had dinner, and finally found ourselves on Shaftesbury Avenue outside the Curzon Soho. Some Russian film called Night Watch (Nochnoi Dozor) was playing, about which I knew precisely nothing, other than that the poster looked quite cool. (Although, I suspect that, at that point, I would have agreed to see anything if I thought it meant I could spend more time with my American companion.) My companion knew only that it had vampires in it.

Now, truth be told, I was focusing a little more on the physical proximity of said American - the way that he held my hand, and the way I could hide my face in his clothes if a potentially scary bit came up - than I was the film. Yet, despite the distraction, we both really enjoyed Night Watch. I was struck by the cinematography, the fabulous subtitles, and the almost incomprehensible yet still entertaining plot.

Last week, my American and I were invited to a press screening of Day Watch (Dnevnoi Dozor), the sequel to Night Watch and second film of the trilogy that will be completed by Dusk Watch (Sumerechnyi Dozor) (listed on IMDb as 'Twilight Watch'). The films are adaptations of Sergei Lukyanenko and Vladimir Vasiliev's novels, are directed by Timur Bekmambetov.



Svetlana enters the 'gloom', the netherworld into which the Dark escape from the scenes of their crimes.

So... the Earth is a battleground for the forces of Light and Darkness, who are held in check since medieval times by a truce. The night is ruled by the powers of Darkness, but the Light's Night Watch is always there to ensure that the Dark doesn't overstep the mark. Similarly, the day is ruled by the forces of the Light, but their power is constrained by the Dark's Day Watch. The Others are people who live amongst us humans, but who have supernatural powers - psychics, vampires, witches and sorcerers. And thus Light Other and the Dark Others live in a fragile harmony.

SPOILER WARNING - There might be some... that's all I'm saying.

In Night Watch, we met Anton Gorodetsky (Konstantin Khabensky), an Other who comes to the attention of the Light after hiring a witch to terminate his ex-girlfriend's pregnancy by another man and make her love him again. Just before the witch completes her spell, members of the Night Watch burst in and stop her. Twelve years later, Anton meets Svetlana (Maria Poroshina), a woman with a sort of magic vortex that brings disaster to everyone around her. And then there is the boy Yegor (aka Egor in the press materials, Dima Martynov aka Dmitri Martynov), who could become a Great Other for either side, depending on who gets to him first.

By the time we get to Day Watch, Yegor has chosen to side with the Darkness and Sveta has turned out to be the Light's Great Other. Anton has fallen in love with Sveta but is, in typical bloke-ish manner, pretending he hasn't. Moscow, meantime, remains blissfully unaware that anything's going on at all.

But things take a turn for the worse when Anton is framed by the Day Watch for murder, and has to go into hiding, swapping bodies with Olga (Galina Tyunina). Sveta and Yegor are both getting stronger as they learn how to use their powers, but we're told that they can never meet, or the ages old truce would be broken, and war resumed. The only thing that can save the world from the Armageddon that would ensue is the Chalk of Fate, which can be used to rewrite history.

END SPOILER WARNING

Day Watch is just as beautifully shot as its predecessor and is rich with glorious cinematography and CGI. It has hints of The Matrix in it, and somehow manages to meld the best of the Hollywood action thriller with an international arthouse cult sensibility, never becomes as trite and vapid as Hollywood, nor as pretentious, worthy and miserable as arthouse cinema can be. Instead, Day Watch wraps you up in its reality, immersing you in this parallel Moscow and barrelling through the streets at dizzying speed.

I really loved both Night Watch and Day Watch - they really appeal to the vampire lover in me, although there's actually very little that's vampiric about the second film. Yegor has some fun with hollow needles, and Anton gets his drink spiked with blood, but that's about it. Nonetheless, the supernatural goings on are exciting anyway, particularly the one that sees Alisa (Zhanna Friske) drive a red Mazda up the side of a building, parking it neatly through a window on, I'd guess, the 16th floor.

The plot, though, does get a bit convoluted and confusing at times. I found this with Night Watch too, that I would have sudden moments where I'd suddenly think "Eh? What just happened?", but I had assumed that Kevin, my adorable American, had simply distracted me at a crucial moment and that I'd missed something. I was concentrating much harder in Day Watch, though, and still had moments where I wondered what on earth was going on. But the film moves fast enough that you're soon swept away again, even after the strange and incongruous Timotei ad-like sequence in the middle.

But you forgive all that for the fabulous finale. There are many ways that Armageddon could be brought about - flood, fire, earthquakes, alien invasion, killer cockroaches, rage-infected monkeys, a plague of boy bands that cause everyone who hears their insipid whinings to immediately commit suicide. The list is infinite. But I've never seen Armageddon brought on by a ________. Very, very impressive, and well worth the price of admission. (And no, I'm not going to tell you what. That really would be a spoiler!)

Again, the subtitles were a work of art. I remember being astonished at how much thought went into the subtitles for Night Watch - the text itself moves and changes colour and shape to emphasis certain words. In Day Watch, I thought that the subtitles seemed a bit more subdued than in Night Watch, but my friends told me afterwards that they weren't. Regardless, the subtitles actually add something to the film, they don't just give meaning to the Russian dialogue, they also add to the feel of the film, the style, the atmosphere.

Thus it is with horror that I see on IMDb that, because Fox Searchlight is co-financing Dusk Watch, it's going to be filmed in English. Please, don't do this to us, Fox. Ночной дозор and Дневной дозор are Russian films, that's why they have Russian names, and they are better for it - the characters have more complexity and nuance than some their equivalents in the West. I mean, I love The Matrix and all, but Neo has all the depth of a puddle. Don't ruin Dusk Watch by turning it into a formulaic Hollywood piece of shit summer blockbuster. Film it in Russian, give us the subtitles, and if you must, dub it for your multiplex audience, just don't ruin it for those of us who love to see films in their original language, just as their director intended.

Indeed, in the press pack, director Timur Bekmambetov says:

“Unlike in America, there were no fantasy movies shot in Russia before this one. But in reading the book, I suddenly realized Sergei had managed to distill magic and miracles, the transcendent and the supernatural, into our way of life. I found that the story really was something special because in it, fantasy not only meets reality – but Russian reality — and it’s the first Russian movie that has this unique point of view. The story takes place in the real world, in real Russian life, but it’s also fantastical."

Dusk Watch won't feel like real Russian life, it won't take place in the real world, if everyone's speaking English.

So... the trailer! (Note: subtitles are nothing like the ones in the film itself.)



Sadly, I haven't been able to find Day Watch listed at any cinemas in the UK, and it's unclear what the release date is - some sites say it came out on 1 June, but comments on YouTube indicate it's not out til 1 October here.

The release date is 5th October, and if you like your films dark, fantastical and with a wry sense of humour, then Day Watch is a fine way to spend a couple of hours. Do make sure that you've seen Night Watch first, though - Day Watch won't entirely make sense if you haven't. If you can't find a copy, then you could do worse than read the synopsis over on Moria, (although you have to scroll down past a bunch of annoying Google ads to get to it).

Fox Searchlight have put a ton of Day Watch-related stuff up on their official site, too, with a fair few number of photos, vidoes, reviews, etc. Not an awful site, I suppose, but no blog. Dear lord, why no blog? This is the sort of cult hit that really needs a blog! Plus there's quite a bit up on YouTube, so there's plenty to keep you occupied until Day Watch hits a cinema near you.