Issue 17 - My Totally Incomplete and Completely Useless Guide to This Summer's Blockbusters

It's no secret that I'm a BLOCKBUSTER ADVENTURE!! kinda gal. I was raised on Star Wars (the proper versions) and Indiana Jones (the ones without the bloody inter-dimensional alie– sorry, George, inter-dimensional beings) with healthy doses thrown in of Star Trek and Arnold Schwarzenegger blasting stuff to Kingdom Come.

I like big guns and fast cars and cool spaceships. I like it when the hero gets his princess. I like it when the good guys win.

I'm almost giddy at the thought of this summer's line-up of blockbusters. I'm like Michael Bay at a military hardware exhibition.

It's a real mish-mash: two interpretations of Snow White and the Any-Number-But-Seven Dwarfs (Disney owns the rights to the seven dwarfs), a British Spiderman, Hemsworths popping up all over the place, Men in Black III seeking to Flashy-Thingy our memories of Men in Black II, Chuck Norris, Lenny Kravitz and more Jeremy Renner than you can poke an arrow at. And let's not forget the Batman.

It's gonna be glorious.

THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN

The jury's still out on whether the world needed a Spiderman reboot so soon. Although it's been several lifetimes in the technological world, it's actually only 10 years since Toby Maguire first donned the Spandex and brought us cinema's most original smooch.

How often can you reboot something before the audience gets bored, or the fanboys start to panic about the state of their superhero's cannon?

Still, with a solid cast including Never Let Me Go's Andrew Garfield and the oh-so-watchable Emma Stone, and with 500 Days of Summer's Marc Webb (no, seriously, that's his name) calling the shots, it'll be an entirely different experience, and undoubtedly include the humour that was missing from the second and third Raimi instalments.

Here's hoping Garfield's American accent holds up to scrutiny, unlike the star of...

WRATH OF THE TITANS

I love Sam Worthington. I really do. But he's the first to admit that he finds the American accent a bit of a challenge. That's why it was so refreshing to watch 2010's Clash of the Titans – dreadful post-shoot 3D conversion and all – and hear him “talk normal”. (Sidebar Rant: I've never understood the need for actors to put on fake accents when doing pieces set in different times or places. If it's set in ancient or future times, we've no idea what their accents would sound like, anyway, and if it's set in a different country – well, if the character isn't actually speaking English with a Russian accent, there's no need for the dodgy Russian accent.)

Clash didn't take itself too seriously, and neither will Wrath. We're inexplicably missing Io, and Andromeda's gotten into the bleach and too much Xena: Warrior Princess, but we've got twice the number of monsters and the grand-daddy of all the gods, Kronos.

Epically ridiculous fun.

From Worthington's Perseus to Ridley Scott's secrecy-shrouded...

PROMETHEUS

If you're like me and watched all the Alien/Aliens sequels with horror – and not the good kind of horror – you might welcome the idea of Ridley Scott returning to steer the franchise back on course. Except that this won't. Because it's a prequel. And, although it's set in Ripley's universe, it doesn't really have anything to do with those aliens. Maybe. But it might explain the history of the so-called “Space Jockey” – the giant pilot whose ship became the xenomorphs' nest and the origin of poor John Hurt's chest-bursting doom. Or it might not.

At least, with an all-star cast of quality actors (including Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron and Guy Pearce), it'll be a bit harder to tell in which order the characters are going to die. If they do.

Speaking of all-star casts, get a load of this one for...

THE EXPENDABLES 2

Sylvester Stallone
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Chuck Norris
Bruce Willis
Jason Statham
Jet Li
Novak Djokovic (I assure you that's not a misprint)

...and Liam Hemsworth

Never heard of Liam Hemsworth? Chances are, if you ever come in contact with any teenage girls, you soon will. Aussie hunk (we Aussies are everywhere this year), long-term boyfriend of Miley Cyrus; he was almost Thor, but lost out by mere inches to his older brother Chris. Instead, he's landed the peachy role of Gale in The Hunger Games – but more on that later.

Staying with testosterone-fuelled action for the moment, it doesn't get much better than Bourne.

THE BOURNE LEGACY

While our beloved Matt Damon was off buying a zoo, someone decided it would be a good idea to make a new movie about some other dude's experiences in the wake of Jason Bourne's terminal re-assignment of the CIA's assassination squads.

Potentially awful? Milking the name of Bourne for all its worth? Well, yes, but considering that most of the original Bourne team is on board, and that they've had the good sense to cast Jeremy Renner, things may not be as dire as they at first seem.

Renner is coming off the back of an Oscar-nominated performance in The Hurt Locker and a highly-acclaimed performance in The Town. Most recently – and perhaps most significantly – he proved that he could hold his share of the screen against Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, and gave us a wise-cracking cameo as bow-and-arrow supremo Hawkeye in Thor, in anticipation of his greater role in Avengers Assemble.

I have high hopes.

In the comedy-action line, we've got a sequel to a classic and a new kid on the block. Well, sort of, considering the new kid is actually a kind of remake but not really...

Let me explain:

21 JUMP STREET

If the Twitterverse and the response of amateur critics so far is anything to go by (and I'm not saying it is), this could be the surprise hit of the season. Starring Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill as the delinquent cops assigned to go undercover as school students, it's a fair assumption this won't be quite the same as the original Johnny Depp TV series, but it seems to be hitting all the right notes with those lucky enough to score preview tickets. By all accounts it's genuinely funny and manages to avoid the usual “adults returning to school” clichés. Jonah Hill's recent Oscar nomination has undoubtedly given it an edge of legitimacy with the critics. So far, so good.

Then Empire magazine gave it 4 stars. Not too shabby at all.

So, you see, the fact that it's got Channing Tatum in it is in no way influencing my determination to go and see it. Nope. Not at all.

MEN IN BLACK III

It's been a while since we've seen Will Smith in full comedic flight, so we'll forgive Men in Black II's misdemeanours and welcome Agents J and K back with open arms. This time it's actually K², as a convoluted-sounding time-travel story involving Flight of the Conchords' Jemaine Clement takes Agent J back in time to save the life of Agent K (Josh Brolin as the younger version of Tommy Lee Jones).

Expect lots of jokes about 60s-era personalities being aliens in disguise and, hopefully, a catchy new song from Mr Smith.

Now, from men in black to snow white women.

MIRROR MIRROR and SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN

An unfortunate timing clash, perhaps, but two very different movies.

Mirror Mirror features Julia Roberts, Lily Collins, a dreadful trailer and some very tired “girl power” amendments to the story so that Snow White can kick some butt. It looks pretty luscious – the costumes will be a win – and amusing in places, but also terribly pretentious. Still, who knows? One should never judge a movie by its trailer.

Snow White and the Huntsman has a similar “girl power” theme, made easier to swallow by the fact that little innocent Snow (Kristen Stewart) is actually trained up first in the art of war, by the huntsman originally sent to kill her (Chris Hemsworth). The evil queen is played by Charlize Theron and Nick Frost is a dwarf. That'll be fun.

The story pinches ideas from Stardust, as the queen seeks to eat Snow White's heart, thereby making herself immortal, and the director (Rupert Sanders) is an unknown factor, but you get the feeling this one's more in keeping with a Grimm fairytale than a Disney cartoon, which bodes well.

And now:

THE BIG THREE FOR ME

3. THE HUNGER GAMES

With Twilight fading – even the most die-hard Twi-hards have always said that the story of the fourth book cannot possibly translate well to film (we'll find out this summer what director Bill Condon has managed to do with it, as Breaking Dawn Part 2 hits theatres) – and Harry Potter enjoying retirement from horcrux-hunting, there was a significant gap in the world of teen-aged money-sucking franchises.

Enter the best-selling trilogy by Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games.

And it's not what you think. When Stephen King calls your novel (as he did in his Entertainment Weekly review of the first book) “a violent, jarring speed-rap of a novel that generates nearly constant suspense and may also generate a fair amount of controversy”, you know you're on to something.

Set in a post-apocalyptic America, Katniss Everdeen and her best friend, Gale, risk execution every day to hunt illegally in the woods – just to keep their families alive in their poorest-of-the-poor mining district, known as District 12. Meanwhile, in the Capitol, which is also the capital city of excess, people are so bored they spend hours dyeing their hair in the latest colour trends and getting gold tattoos above their eyebrows. And each year, to remind the beaten-down District residents that any sort of uprising would be extremely inadvisable, they take a young boy and girl from each of the Districts (1 through 12) and force them to fight to the death for a reality TV show called The Hunger Games. Of course, Katniss' younger sister is chosen for the Games and, of course, Katniss volunteers to go in her place. Fortunately, she's good with a bow and arrow. Not so much the boy chosen from District 12, Peeta. He's good with words and cake-decorating, and he's strong, but that's about all he's got going for him. Apparently, his odds of survival aren't great, but if nothing else, he is determined that the Games won't take away his humanity.

It remains to be seen whether the necessary dulling-down of the violence for ratings purposes also dulls the story, but they've certainly got the casting right. Jennifer Lawrence is Katniss. Lawrence became the critics' darling after her turn in the hard-hitting Winter's Bone, and should be more than capable of making Katniss the gutsy, somewhat conflicted character that she is in the novels. The aforementioned Liam Hemsworth is Gale, whose role will increase in the second and third movies. It's a fairly easy ride for him – he's got the right physicality for Gale, and if he's anything like his older brother, he won't find the role particularly challenging. It's Josh Hutcherson, as Peeta, who is the unknown factor. To date, Hutcherson's biggest movie has been Adventure 2 The Mysterious Island, but we won't hold that against him. Peeta is one of the most original heroes around – but it could all go to pot in the wrong hands. He's a speaker, not a fighter, with the ability to manipulate an audience, but he's an honest soul; he's a baker, a cake-decorator and painter, and he spends half the movie being looked after by Katniss, but he's as brave as they come; he's the moral backbone, but he'll stop at nothing to keep Katniss alive. If Hutcherson pulls this one off, he'll deserve a huge round of applause.

The cast member I'm most excited about? Lenny Kravitz as Katniss' costume designer for the Games (and secret sympathiser), Cinna. Absolutely perfect casting. I hope he wears his wings.

2. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

WHAT?! Only number 2?!

Yes, indeedy. Batman has always been my most-beloved superhero (mostly because he is not, in fact, super), but I'm being completely truthful when I say there's still one movie I'm more excited about.

Every man and his guinea pig loved The Dark Knight, and I was no exception. I'm going to risk the wrath of all the internet-dwellers, though, by saying I enjoyed Batman Begins more. So I'm interested to see where this one sits in relation to the other two.

It's safe to say that it's the most-anticipated movie since Return of the Jedi, which immediately makes you wonder whether it will live up to expectations, but then...it's Christopher Nolan. And Christian Bale. And Gary Oldman. And Tom Hardy. And you can't say that's not awesome.

Will Nolan kill off Batman? Bruce has at least two formidable opponents this time – Bane (Hardy) and Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) – so he may well do. We will have to wait until July 20 to really know for sure.

1. AVENGERS ASSEMBLE

I. Can't. Wait.

I was already over-excited about the idea of an Avengers movie, where Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo – hell yes, Mark Ruffalo!!), Captain America (Chris Evans), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and various other Marvel characters team up to save the world from some evil genius – in this case, Thor's own brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston).

But then they announced that Joss Whedon would be writing and directing, and I nearly went into some kind of nerd-sugar coma.

Despite the inevitable jokes about this being the only Marvel movie to be canned half-way through filming (two of Whedon's TV series, Firefly and Dollhouse, were canned prematurely, only to become massive post-mortem hits; although in contrast, Buffy the Vampire Slayer ran for seven seasons), Whedon is definitely a safe choice here. His sharp pen and sensitive camera are exactly what this movie needs. The wrong tone could turn this kind of concept into a disaster of epic proportions, but Whedon's scripts don't pander to the audience – they are witty, intelligent and moving. So it's about darn time someone gave him something to work with. (Incidentally, Whedon has written another interesting-looking movie that's out this summer – The Cabin in the Woods...starring Chris Hemsworth. I told you the Hemsworths were everywhere, didn't I?)

Representing the female of the species, we've got good old Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). Natalie Portman's character, Jane, is still kicking about somewhere, but we'll have to wait until Thor 2 to see her again. Presumably, Thor can't make love and war at the same time.

We can expect some fun exchanges as giant egos clash and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) – and let's not forget Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson – has to control all those superpowers together in one room.

There are many unanswered questions: who gets on well with each other? who gets it on with Black Widow? who wants to kill who? who kills Loki? does the Hulk go mad and kill them all? who knows? All we do know is that Thor's contractually obliged to come back for two more movies...but that doesn't necessarily stop Whedon killing him off. He's tricky like that.

So there you have it – my totally incomplete and completely useless guide to this summer's (or winter's, if you're Down Under) blockbusters.

Enjoy.

Issue 14 - I Want To Believe

So many people mistake scepticism and cynicism for intelligence.

From the dawn of time, human beings have searched for truth, reality, knowledge—or have we?

We're a nosey bunch. There's no doubting that. Still, the general population will only explore as far as the wall of its comfort zone. Beyond that, scepticism is rife.

I've found that the vast majority of people will simply believe whatever they've been fed in the greatest quantity, without ever looking too deeply into it. "Because everybody knows that! David Attenborough said so on Blue Planet, so it must be a proven fact scientifically proven by science." And so the media and the internet trolls become the ultimate authorities on truth, while we spend our mental energy being sceptical of the things we're told to be sceptical of, instead of being sceptical of what we're being told.

So many times, belief becomes a Pick 'n' Mix. We take whatever bits of truth and lies we fancy and leave the rest for those weird people that eat Licorice All-Sorts. Actually, it's our tendency to take the stance that is most comfortable for us, the most accepted by popular opinion, where we don't have to be accountable to anyone or held responsible for anything. For example, these days it's OK to have “faith”, so long as we don't specify Who or What our faith is in—which, when you think about it, is the definition of stupidity.

We like to think that, in Western culture, we're accepting and tolerant of others' beliefs – so long as they don't hurt anyone – but go online and give, for example, the merest hint that you support the theory of creation over the theory of evolution and watch for the abuse that's hurled in your direction. Because belief in a creator God is unacceptable in "intelligent society". You'll be treated like Harry Potter, trying to convince people that Voldemort has come back from the dead: "It can't be true, because that would interrupt our cushy lives and mean we'd have to do something about it; therefore, you are an idiot."

It's partly an issue of pride. We'd hate to be seen as stupid and ignorant, or as a Muggle version of Luna Lovegood, wandering around looking for Nargles. [I'm seeing how many Harry Potter analogies I can fit into one Rant.] The more we criticise people who hold a belief in the supernatural, the more secure we feel in our belief that the Darwinian interpretation of scientific fact is the bottom line.

So, it seems we can't believe in an all-powerful God. Well, what about extra-terrestrial life? Stephen Hawking says They're Out There, so that's all right then, because he's, like, freaky-brainy and stuff. So we're justified in spending billions of dollars looking for intelligent life on other planets, instead of using that money to feed, clothe and educate the intelligent life on this one.

All too often, our death-grip on accepted scientific opinion lets plain old common sense slip through our fingers. What I mean is, we're perfectly willing to believe that little grey men with big eyes and anal probes are out there, somewhere, performing embarrassing exploratory surgery on unfortunate loners, but we don't wonder why an alien race that is sufficiently advanced to overcome the problem of infinite mass hasn't yet invented MRI.

(The funny thing is, ideas about alien life aren't exclusive to today's culture. Sure, it's now an acceptable proposition that super-advanced, powerful beings from another place – like us, but not like us – could interfere with our planet, probably with malicious intent, and change the course of the human race, but long ago the ancient Greeks and Romans believed the same thing. Only they called them the gods.

But that's getting a bit too Stargate for this post.)

It's not just UFOlogists who Pick 'n' Mix. The religious – man, that's become an ugly word lately – and/or spiritualists do it too. Your average Muslim will take the early teachings of the Koran about love and understanding and ignore (thankfully) the bits about killing the infidels to gain their heavenly rewards. The New Ager (and Church of Oprah member) will take the most lovey-dovey bits of every world religion and glue them together, ignoring the contradictions at their cores. Christians these days have a tendency to focus on Jesus meeting their needs and forget all the uncomfortable bits like, “You will be persecuted and killed because of Me.” Darwinists conveniently forget that natural selection and evolution are two very different beasts—the former observable and re-creatable in a laboratory; the latter unobserved and un-re-created.

So it would seem that the intelligent way to look at everything is to believe in the directly observable, and treat everything else with a heaping helping of scepticism, right?

Actually, that would be the most blinded, misinformed and ultimately destructive way to live.

And it's just about impossible to do.

To quote John Mayer (not something that should be done on a regular basis), “Everyone believes.” Whether you're an atheist or an agnostic, a Hari Krishna or a Hindu, a Muslim or a Mormon, a Jesus Freak or a Jedi, a member of the Church of Scientology or a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you believe in something.

Why?

Well, the simple answer is “because we want to”, or, more accurately, “because we need to”. We're built that way. We're wired up to think creatively, beyond the bounds of what we see, hear, taste, smell and touch. To attempt to deny this is to put common sense in the grave (something our society is already in danger of doing).

Ever have that feeling you're being watched, and turn around to find that you are? (Usually by your cat.) Ever look at someone you've never met and just know they're dodgy, five seconds before they start following you down the road? Ever have that uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach that says, “Don't sign that contract,” or, “Don't lend that person money,” or, “He's lying to you”? Soldiers will tell you that they rely on this sixth sense in combat. Musicians experience a similar thing when a song “writes itself”. You can talk to me all you want about the brain making inferences and calculations at an extraordinary rate based on training, past experiences, a reading of body language and the “evolutionary instinct for survival”, but ultimately there are things in life that you just can't attribute to spending too much time at Hogwarts.

Why do we believe what we believe? Is it because that's what we've been taught? Is it because our beliefs best line up with the evidence? Is it because we've seen it for ourselves? Is it because everybody with an ounce of intelligence knows that it's true? Or is it because we're afraid of the repercussions if we're wrong?

Yes, we should question things—not for the sake of being cynical, or proving our superior intelligence over someone else, but so that we can truly SEE. So that we don't operate out of ignorance and blindness.

To all you snotty internet commentators out there: isn't it time to stop regurgitating those so-called scientific facts you've been taught, lay down your sense of superiority and have an honest think about things? Try directing your cynicism down a different path and see what it comes up with. You might be surprised.

To those of us who do believe in a world beyond human explanation: please remember to keep off the Dirigible Plums.

Issue 11 - The Man or The Myth?

With all the Twilight-sparked Team Edward/Team Jacob debates still raging, I have caved in and am adding my entirely worthless contribution to the sub-culture (because, obviously, another opinion is needed): realistically, what would be the pros and cons of marrying a vampire or a werewolf – or something else entirely?

Throughout the history of their mythologies, it seems to me that the vampire always gets the girl and the werewolf always gets the rough end of the stick. (Sorry – lame joke. Woof.) I recently read the official sequel to Bram Stoker's Dracula (no, he didn't write it from beyond the grave; it was written by his great-nephew, Dacre Stoker, with Ian Holt), and even mean ol' Nosferatu got the girl, after all. I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about that...

Actually, I do know. Don't bother with it.

Moving on...

What about other mythical beings? Surely they must have their merits, as well. I mean, what if Bella had moved to Smallville, not Forks, and met Clark Kent? I guess we'd probably fall asleep from all the earnest wholesomeness if those two characters were together in the same movie.

In any case, here are my rough notes on the subject – in case you ever feel you may be falling in love with such a creature. We'll start with the two big guns: the vampire and the werewolf:

VAMPIRE

Pros:

Incredibly attractive. Never ages or loses his hair.
Rich; in possession of large house.
Intelligent, well-read, more than likely a good musician/dancer.

Cons:

Could accidentally kill you/turn you.
Will eventually look like your son, not your husband.
Summer holidays at the beach = difficult.
Must put up with occasional attacks from The Volturi or Van Helsing et al.

WEREWOLF

Pros:

Loyal, faithful.
More fun than vampires.
Cuddly. Makes good hot water bottle.
Good at finding kids if they wander off during family outing to the park.

Cons:

Could accidentally kill you/turn you.
Hefty clothing bill.
Have to give up wearing silver jewellery.
P.L.T. (Pre-Lunar Tension) = nasty.

BIGFOOT/SASQUATCH/HARRY

Pros:

Good bodyguard, but quite gentle.

Good with kids.

Cons:

Drains constantly blocked from all the hair.
Bit daft.

ZOMBIE

Pros:

Quiet.
Never an argument over the remote.
Great physique from protein-rich diet.
Keeps annoying house-callers away.

Cons:

Not a great conversationalist.
Clumsy.
Terrible personal hygiene.

ALF

Pros:

Genuinely caring beneath the cynicism.
Great sense of humour.

Cons:

Very short. Tom Cruise-short.
Cannot risk having a pet cat.

CLARK KENT/SUPERMAN

Pros:

Handsome – looks good in glasses.
Loving, dedicated.
Nice family.
Knows a good photographer – saves costs on weddings/parties.
Good at getting lids off jars.

Cons:

Too trusting of dodgy friends.
Constantly runs out on dates/anniversaries/important occasions.

Hmm...Considering all of these points, I think I'll stick with a bog-standard, typical, romantic-comedy type: sweet, handsome, witty, heroic, sensitive, totally in love with me – and just as mythical as the rest of them.

Issue 10 - Is This The Real Life?

I sat, momentarily frozen, staring at the remaining bite of my slice of apple pie.

Its vaguely triangular shape and the patterned crust around its outer edge gave it the appearance of some majestic monster's ridged head, but was it more like a triceratops or the Alien Queen? I couldn't decide.

Suddenly embarrassed by my own thought process, I brought my fork to my mouth and the monster was no more. Peeking surreptitiously from under my eyebrows to see if anyone had noticed my temporary lapse of sanity, I paid the bill and hurried off to the cinema to see.....a children's film.

The cinema was already darkened when I arrived and snuck into a seat. The previews began; one in particular inducing uproarious laughter from my fellow patrons. My eyes now adjusted to the dim light, I glanced around me, only to see a room full of grown adults. The trailer we were all laughing so hysterically at? Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. Yes, you read that right. Suddenly, my internal dinosaur/alien debate didn't seem quite so childish.

The main feature began. It was Planet 51 – a film so chock-full of jokey references and spoofs only adults would recognise (including an alien-shaped dog called, amusingly, “Ripley”), that I began to wonder what age group it was really made for.

Since that evening, a question has been bumping against the back of my brain, and I can no longer ignore it. The question is not, as it would seem, “At what point do we grow up and lose our imaginations?”, but, “Why do we grown-ups pretend that we have lost our imaginations?”

There was an advertisement running on TV throughout my entire childhood that had the slogan, “I don't wanna grow up; I'm a Toy World kid”. What nobody ever told me was that adults don't ever grow out of liking toys, they just buy more expensive ones, or pretend to buy them for their kids, instead.

You've only got to look at Pixar to see that fantastic things can come out of adults allowing their imaginations to run wild. (Where would the world of animation be without Toy Story?) The only difference is that, as adults, we have the ability, and therefore the added responsibility, of turning our imaginations into reality.

I recently saw Oprah interview Stephenie Meyer (author of the Twilight quadrilogy). When asked about her crazy imagination, Meyer commented that she had always “thought everybody was telling themselves stories all the time”. Oprah laughed and said that no, this was not normal. But I struggle to agree with Oprah. I truly believe we all have stories in our heads. Some of them get told – to others, to ourselves – but most of them are fated to float around up there for a little while and eventually be buried under a mountain of troubles. Or, more likely, boredom. Or paperwork.

Is it any wonder, then, that while we sleep, our brains have a little party of their own, off in Dreamland? Is it any wonder that, the more restricted and tedious our lives become, the more we watch TV? What is it that makes these things – Twilight, Harry Potter, The X-Factor, Star Wars, the trials and tribulations of Susan Boyle, even gaming, to a certain extent – so popular? Because they're about ordinary people getting to do something different. They are the classic tale of Cinderella re-told again and again for a world that is sick of being stuck behind a desk. (Huh. That just gave me a hilarious image of Louis Walsh as the Fairy Godmother.... Ahem. Moving right along...)

As a kid, I always felt slightly sorry for Peter Pan and the fact that he just didn't get it – he would never know what it was like to grow up, to experience life, to learn new things...But, what if he was the one that had it partly right? What if we've become too smug in our modern and professional existence to see that a bit of playfulness is good for us? Without meaning to go all John Lennon on you, what if we never bothered to imagine a better world? Where would we be? You can't get to Neverland without a bit of fairy dust.

As children, we all have that inner drive to play, to follow our dreams, but, as we get older, we push that aside and become embarrassed by our fantasies and random thoughts. Going back to the dreams can mean having to face ridicule and rejection because someone else doesn't buy into them, or see things in the same way we do. The fact is, some people can't see past the confines of their own, limited reality. They just see a piece of pie, and that's all they'll ever see.

We were never created to suppress our imaginations in adulthood; only to learn to use them for greater things. Every invention, every piece of engineering, every programme, every script, every charitable work, every book, every political ideal, begins with imagination. And imagination begins with a little freedom and a lot of humility.

Sometimes, it even begins with apple pie.