What a lovely afternoon....

Narnia

Deciding how to categorize this post was a bit difficult since it could go either under 'Books', or 'Television and Movies'......I chose the latter since it was the movie media that sparked this random rambling!

Anyone who has browsed through this blog, or who knows me at all will remember that I'm not a movie goer, typically.  Don't ask me if I've 'seen' stuff.  Because I haven't, generally.  I don't care for the theatre.....it's too hot, the seats are uncomfortable, and the habits of the other movie goers are often annoying.  Who knows, it may have something to do with being taken to a show as a small child and having two obnoxious little boys behind me spend the entire duration of the film (whatever the hell it was) throwing buttered popcorn into my hair. 

Now and then Dave and I will rent movies and watch them in the comfort of our own home, with the pause button there and ready for pee and snack breaks.  Or someone will lend us a film, and such was the case recently when my best friend lent me 'The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe', and 'Prince Caspian'.  I'm going to say right here that I've been actively avoiding these pictures, for a few different reasons.....never mind what all of them are.....the main two being that I tend to avoid anything Disney affiliated, and that I didn't see how these Narnia books by CS Lewis could possibly translate effectively into film.  The efforts I'd seen thus far on television did not impress. 

You see, the Narnia books hold a rare distinction of the sacred for me, irrevocably bound up with childhood memories of my mother reading the series to my sister and myself, of this incredible world of faith and fantasy unfolding page by page.  I remember in particular, one night after the nightly story-time had ended and I was lying in the darkness trying to go to sleep, my mind filled with images of fauns and centaurs and Aslan the lion......my mom came back to my room and put her head around the door.  'Do you get what's happening in the story?'  She whispered almost conspiratorially.  'It's a parallel, Aslan is supposed to be Christ, he was killed on the stone table just like Christ was supposed to have died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and then was resurrected.'  My parents were not affiliated with any particular known faith system and neither am I, our family were not 'churchy' in any way, shape or form.  But still this parallel fascinated her.  I do not classify myself as a Christian, yet these Christian allegorical Narnia stories still have the power to instill in me a sense of the sacred.   

But having finally given in and watched the movies, I was in fact impressed, in spite of myself.  In particular, 'The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe' was very, very good, keeping closely to the original story with only very minor changes.  It's amazing what they can do with special effects these days, and the various creatures with which these stories are populated actually look pretty amazing on film.  And the four Pevensie children who feature in the first and second books (and movies) are extremely well cast.  It's a bit weird but they are exactly how I always imagined them to look and act, which gives me a strange feeling, like coming face-to-face with old friends after many years apart.  And Aslan the lion almost makes me want to fall on my knees in awe, as the characters in the film do when he appears. 

I was a bit less enamoured of 'Prince Caspian'.  I found that the story was changed around a bit too much to suit me, although it stayed the same in it's very basic premise.  Again, the portrayal of the four Pevensie children was excellent, with the same four actors as in the first film, but just older enough to be convincing and in keeping with the passage of one year that is supposed to have occurred between their Narnian visits.  (At least, by their perspective.....in Narnia of course a thousand years has passed.)  I wasn't as impressed with Caspian; although I couldn't deny that he was a handsome young thing he wasn't at all how I imagined him, nor were any of the Telmarine race.  I thought the hint of a love interest between Susan and Caspian (which did not occur in the book) was a bit silly and it added nothing whatsoever to the story to my mind.  I remarked on a few occasions to Dave as we watched that if I hadn't read the book I would have no clue at all as to what was going on.  It didn't seem to make it perfectly clear in the beginning what was happening in Narnia at the time, which kind of resulted in the whole movie being a bit disjointed.  Never mind.....it had it's redeeming qualities in the form of Aslan and the other beings of Narnia being amazingly brought to life.  I imagine it's not easy to make a centaur look convincing, but they seem to pull it off. 

Now I hear that the movie adaptation of the third book in the series of seven, 'The Voyage of the Dawn Treader' is out in theatres.  In this story, Lucy and Edmund Pevensie and their cousin Eustace arrive in Narnia and join Caspian on a sea voyage to the eastern edge of the world.  This is the last book that includes any of the Pevensie children until they all reunite at the very end of the series.  Well, almost all of them.....in the books, Susan is the only one who is not present at that ending/beginning place, a fact that puzzles and bothers me now as much as it did when I was a child.  I'm not the only one who doesn't understand the exclusion of Susan at the end.  In the final Narnia book, 'The Last Battle', it's explained that Susan is no longer 'a friend of Narnia' and Lucy remarks that her older sister has forgotten about Narnia in favour of parties and make-up and playing at being 'grown-up'.  Is this a lesson that CS Lewis was trying to interject, that if you lose the faith you will not find salvation?  And will the detail of the loss of Susan make it into the movie version of The Last Battle? 

I've read that since the Prince Caspian movie did not do as well as expected at the box office, Disney has dropped the project (typical of them, I guess the more than 1 billion grossed by the first two films wasn't enough to keep them interested) and that 20th Century Fox has taken over as financial backer and distributor.  So when Dawn Treader comes out on Blu-ray I'll be renting, and watching.

 

 

 

TV....what is it good for?

I tell people I don't watch much TV, but this isn't actually true, especially when it's cold outside, dark by the time I get home from work, and dry centrally-heated air triggers the chronic sinus issues that are likely to plague me now until March.  I often read, but just as often after a busy day I find myself wanting some entertainment that requires almost zero effort to take in.  I'm not particularly proud admitting that, but there it is. 

So what do I watch?

The following is a brief round-up of my viewing preferences.  Click on any highlighted word for more info on what I'm talking about.  I'd include photos, since a posting with photos is more attractive to my mind (there, see how visually oriented I am??) but am opting instead for links to pictures, mindful of copyright laws.

 

Supernatural

Yes...I admit it's a little bit about the eye candy for women.  But it's also pretty interesting in and of itself.  In it's 6th season now, it's one of the few shows that I've actually followed all the way through.  Why?  Well, look here ; the reasons are pretty much the same now as when I wrote that post.  I still enjoy the unique and imaginative ways various supernatural beings are portrayed.   Death, one of the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse, enjoys Chicago deep-dish pizza, while angels attempt to understand humanity, sometimes hilariously.   The image of the angel Castiel watching porn while Dean says impatiently to his brother Sam 'Now he's got a boner!'  is going to amuse me for some time to come.  Demons, in the meantime seem to drift back and forth from being ally to enemy....Crowley, unleashing his pet (and invisible) hell hound to Dean's rescue makes you warm to the character....until you see him next season torturing various supernatual beings to establish exactly where purgatory lies.  The secondary characters in Supernatural have always been fascinating and I was sorry to see Crowley incinerated in the most recent episode.   Supernatural enjoys a pretty wide fan base these days, and during a brief excursion into that world  I was astonished to find that these fans don't merely watch their show...well....fanatically, and then debate it hotly on various internet sites, they raise money for charity as well!  So, here's your answer to my post's title, right here, at Support Supernatural.  This group raised 17.000 for  A Dog's Life Rescue last year, and has a goal to raise 30.000 more by the time 2010 ends!  That's pretty darn impressive. 

 

Ghost Hunters

Grant Wilson and Jason Hawes investigate haunted locations with a scientific approach.  There are alot of these reality paranormal shows out there now, and the reason I still enjoy Ghost Hunters is that it seems to have escaped the urge to become sensationalist.  There are no psychics sensing things unseen, nor will you see exorcisms...or anything much, sometimes.  Sometimes their investigations reveal some interesting results, sometimes they don't.  I should interject here that I have nothing against psychics and am not dissing their abilities, but I do find them annoying on TV much of the time.  My problem with Ghost Hunters is that, in the end, it's TV, and I seem to be genetically predisposed to not 100% believe anything I see on TV....but that is my problem, not G.H's!  Also, it comes on late, often they're walking around in the dark and talking in whispers, and I just fall asleep!  It's not because it's boring, it's just kind of has a somnolent vibe sometimes!  I get irritated with myself when I wake up and find I've missed the last 20 minutes. 

 

Destination Truth

Interesting and just plain fun alot of the time.  Who cares if they didn't catch an image of a ghost or find evidence of that alleged dinosaur that's rumored to still be alive in some remote area of somewhere or other when getting there is half the fun??  Come on, seeing Josh Gate's sunglasses get snatched off by a monkey is great!  All kidding aside, it involves cryto-zoology and paranormal stuff so of course I watch it.  You can learn about various mythical animals from around the world, even if the team don't necessarily find a whole lot to support the existence of these creatures.  And like I said, it's funny.  Memorable; the team has gathered, at the end of an investigation in heavy pouring rain, somewhere in the Amazon jungle.  It's raining so hard that their hair is plastered to their foreheads and water is running in rivulets down their faces.  They all look pretty glum until Josh Gates looks around the circle and says 'So did anyone get wet at all?'

 

Sherlock

Am expecting this may pan out to be quite interesting.  Starting with just a few episodes, more are expected next year.  I just wrote about this recently so look here if you want to know what it's all about.  Such is the mystique of the character of Sherlock Holmes that it just keeps on being reborn......maybe it's time to read the stories again........

 

Lost Girl

Am not sure I'm really on board with this one.  I've watched it a few times expecting to begin enjoying it, but it annoys me on some level.  It's possible because I keep wondering if they are trying to be Supernatural with 2 chicks instead of 2 dudes.  I do like the Fae element though and I'd like the give the series an honest try because the actors are all Canadians.  Gotta support the home team now and then!

Around these I fill in with re-runs of Seinfeld, Two and a Half Men, America's Funniest Home Videos, Pawn Stars, Cities of the Underworld and, yes, some Canadian TV in form of Daily Planet and The Nature of Things hosted by the totally awesome David Suzuki

 

Geez, I watch an awful lot of TV.........

More Sherlock.....

Since I seem unable to add comments to my own posts on my own blog from my own home computer, something I find both mystifying and irritating, I am having to make a whole new post to add some info to my recent ramblings about Sherlock Holmes.

It would seem there is a brand-new Sherlock Holmes series, courtesy the BBC, which places Holmes and Watson into the 21st  century, complete with computers, cell-phones and all the paraphernalia of modern times.  I caught an episode on Showcase the other night.  Being a pretty heavy advocate of Holmes and Watson staying where they belong in Victorian times, I approached this new effort with some trepidation.  If anything, my expectations were lower than they were when going into the recent Downy Jr./Law movie, but I came away from that entertained, as my recent post reveals, although I may be one of the few souls in Holmesdom that didn't completely hate it.  Also, I had run across this blog posting by someone who seems also to be a Holmes traditionalist but had given the new series a try and found it watchable.  The author, Rod Collins, raises a very good point - that after Jeremy Brett's definative version, there would be no use trying to do it again in the Victorian time-frame...it's been done, the end!   Incidentally, Collin's blog is very interesting for more reasons than Sherlock Holmes, and I visit there often now -

http://www.rodcollins.com/wordpress/sherlock-holmes-new-tv-series-good-or-bad

So, what were my impressions of the new Sherlock?  Well, I found it quite interesting!  The actor that plays Holmes is very good, I think he does a good job of creating a 2010 incarnation of the character.  The production is beautifully filmed, it has that sort of artistic, smooth quality, with an overlay of dark, moody shadow.  However, I kept on being oddly reminded of Dr. Who, something that mystified me until I found out that two of the creators of the new Sherlock also worked on Dr. Who.  I have followed Dr. Who on and off for years now...more off as of late, however.  Anyway, I think I may continue watching Sherlock to see where it goes.  For anyone interested, the below link tells a bit more about the show, (try and ignore the typos) and includes a video clip.

http://communities.canada.com/montrealgazette/blogs/insidethebox/archive/2010/09/09/series-debut-sherlock-friday-on-showcase.aspx

 

 

Sherlock Holmes on Screen and TV...a 'Holmesian's' Opinions.....

I'm generally several months behind when it comes to movies.  Best to not ask me 'have you seen (fill in blank)'  because the answer is mostly always no.  The last time I was at a theatre was to see one of the Lord of the Rings movies with a friend.....guess it would have been at least 4 years ago.   I do, however, get off my butt and rent a blu-ray once in a....well, a blu moon!  Last weekend was one of those times, and our choice was 'Sherlock Holmes', starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law.

I have to say at this early juncture that I am a bit of a Sherlock Holmes fanatic.  I was first introduced to the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle at around the age of 11 or 12 when my Mom picked up a book on sale in Coles or somewhere or other....it contained some of the more popular of the Sherlock Holmes short stories and was complete with the pen and ink drawings by Sidney Paget that had accompanied the first publication of the stories in the 'Strand Magazine' back in the earliest years of the 20th century.  I read the entire thing and quickly moved on to Volumes 1 and 2 of the entire collection.  I was hooked.......the time frame and geographical setting for the stories appealed to me for some reason, and it still does.  England, 1895......what is it about that place and era that just seems right and familiar to me?

Up until that point, Sherlock Holmes and side-kick Dr. Watson had been portrayed in the movies by a number of actors - arguably the most notable were Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce in the 1940s.  In the original Conan Doyle stories, which, since as we all should know Sherlock Holmes was not an actual historical figure, are all we have to go by for a description, Holmes was described as being tall, thin, neat and well-groomed with intense grey eyes and aquiline features.  The Paget illustrations reflect this -

 
 

 

Rathbone looked the part to a 'T', and his version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is actually quite good; being shot in black and white lent it a brooding, mysterious quality well in keeping with the story.  It also kept to the original storyline fairly faithfully.  Rathbone went on to star in more Holmes movies, but unfortunately most of them were moved from the proper Victorian time-frame into the 1940s.  The Rathbone efforts had one other downfall.....the portrayal of Dr. Watson as a buffoon, there mainly to provide comic relief.  The Dr. Watson of the original stories was far from being an idiot....he was a retired army surgeon, a writer, and an intelligent man. 

 
Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes

 

 
The Bruce/Rathbone version of Holmes and Watson

 

In the 1980s, Granada Television in Great Britain produced what are, to most 'Holmesians', myself included, the best filmed versions of the Sherlock Holmes stories to date.  They starred the late Jeremy Brett as Holmes, and first David Burke and then Edward Hardwicke as Watson.  The first 2 seasons of this remarkable TV series kept very faithfully to both the time-frame and to the original storylines.  Watching them is like looking back through time to the London of the 1890s, they are full of little details that all combine to make them outstanding productions of period TV; the costumes, the horse-drawn vehicles clopping and rattling past, the manure scattered in the streets, the beautiful old houses where many of the episodes were shot.  Brett really made this role his own, and it's what he's mostly known for today.  He was pretty adamant that the episodes be as close to the original stories as possible, and his interpretation of Holmes is ingenious.....he kept enough of the original character to be absolutely true to it, but at the same time injected just enough of his own unique flair which gave to Holmes  an extra fascinating dimension.  Watson, at last, was allowed to be the intelligent Watson of the original stories instead of  a clownish character stumbling along in Holmes's wake.  Edward Hardwicke's version of Watson in particular was of a refined, grounded, common sense individual who stood up for himself when necessary and was valuable to Holmes as a friend, sounding board, and when necessary, partner in combat. 

 
Jeremy Brett and David Burke as Holmes and Watson

 

 
Edward Hardwicke as Watson

 

Which brings us to our latest blu-ray rental and the most recent version of Holmes and Watson.

I think anyone approaching this movie with an expectation of its being an authentic version of Sherlock Holmes may be disappointed.  On the other hand, if you approach it without expectations, and just want to see how they've done it, you may find yourself enjoying it very much.  I did not have high hopes that it would top my beloved Granada series with Brett, Burke and Hardwicke, and it didn't, at least not to my mind.  However, it was a very entertaining effort and definitely not a waste of my time.  Robert Downey Jr.'s dark brown eyes and unkempt hair is not traditionally Holmesian, but he succeeds anyway with his own unique interpretation of the character; he brings out the erratic, eccentric side of Holmes rather well.  At times he was on the edge of being  bufoonish, and I'm glad he didn't take that facet of it any further because he definitely would have ruined his portrayal.  I liked how his character mentally sized up the resolution to a situation in a series of lightening-quick steps, and then just as quickly executed those steps in physical reality.  At times, I could almost hear Bretts sharp, edgey tone in the utterance of some of Downey's dialouge, as in the famous line lifted directly from one of Conan Doyle's stories, 'Data!  Data!  I can't make bricks without clay!'  I do wonder what Downey's influences were in the creation of his version of Holmes....it would be interesting to know.  I suppose if I surf enough on-line I would find them.....

If I liked Downey's Holmes, I loved Jude Law's Watson.  This Watson was no-nonsense and quick to act, with an edge of temper that I liked.  It was good to see Watson standing up for himself!  Law's Watson is as far from the bumbling clown of Nigel Bruce's interpretation as you can get, Watson has finally been fully vindicated!  Nice job, Jude Law, your Watson was very satisfying to watch!  I should interject here that I have nothing against Nigel Bruce as a person, obviously, I just hated his Watson.  I hear Bruce was a lovely person, and a fabulous actor. 

The storyline of the movie was OK.....interesting in a way and enough I guess to carry the characters along.  I realize, however, that I was less interested in the story than I was in the interpretations of Holmes and Watson.   No such plot line exists in any of the Conan Doyle stories, but that's OK, as I don't really think that the point of this movie was to stay absolutely true to 'canon'.  The point I think was to showcase new versions of the characters and provide an entertaining vehicle for them to play in.  The proper time-frame was adhered to (I'm sorry....I just have a problem with Holmes and Watson wearing 1940s-style fedoras and driving around in big black cars...) and a nice job was done in re-creating Victorian London.  All in all, I was definitely OK with this movie.  Holmesians - give it a try!

 
Jude Law and Robert D0wney Jr. as Watson and Holmes.

 

 

 

 

Supernatural

Those who know me well are aware that I watch very little television.  I half-heartedly follow a few shows......House (mainly for the brilliance of Hugh Laurie) Lost, Paranormal State, random sitcoms or documentaries depending on mood and on how bored I am.  Only a few TV shows hold the rare distinction of being memorable for me - Granada TV's adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes stories, starring the late, great Jeremy Brett, and ITV's Robin of Sherwood are examples.....and Supernatural.

Supernatural, for those of you who don't know, has recently completed it's 4th season, on quite the cliffhanger, I might add - and I'm looking forward to season 5.  The show is about the journey of two brothers, Sam and Dean Winchester, and as the title implies, has a huge Supernatural element, which is what drew me to the show in the first place.  I realize however that it would take a far more talented writer than I to summarize this show in one simple sentence. 

I don't want to get into a whole review of the show here, (although if I can tempt a few of you who aren't watching to give the show a try, then that's good!  It's an awesome ride, I tell you!) because there are already lots of folks doing reviews and critiques of the show, and for some of the best Supernatural re-caps and reviews on the net, in my opinion, please visit http://www.jesterz.net .  Rather, I just wanted to blather on a bit about the show and my own, somewhat random perceptions of it, (plus it's freezing outside and I'm stuck indoors nursing a horrendous sinus infection).  They're only opinions, so if you don't like them, well, I'm not saying they're wrong or right.  There are plenty of other places on the net where you can express your satisfaction with the show, or lack thereof, so go there if your intention is to start any kind of negative debate.  And by the way, if you're a spoilerphobe and haven't seen season 4 in it's entirety yet, then you'd best read no further.

Basically, the whole premise of this show is the bond between these two brothers, Sam and Dean Winchester.  Their mother was killed by a demonic force when Sam was a mere baby and Dean was 4 or 5.  Their father John then began a quest to track down the creature who killed his wife.  He raised his two boys to be hunters, in the sense of tracking and hunting down the evil forces that most of us only encounter in nightmares. 

Season 1 deals mostly with Sam and Dean hunting these types of creatures, while they search for their Dad who has disappeared.  They battle a Wendigo (remember Algernon Blackwood's short story, 'The Wendigo'?), ghosts, a Reaper, and many figures of urban legend, such as Bloody Mary, the Hook Man, and the Woman in White.  When I re-watch these season 1 episodes, one of the things that stands out for me is this exploration of the supernatural lore of my own continent - the Wendigo, for example - how much fun was that for me to see how this creature was portrayed - probably anyone who has camped in the North Woods of Canada has listened to Wendigo stories around the campfire!  And the Woman in White - there's a ghost story about her right here in my own town - a young girl was prevented from marrying her sweetheart, and on the day he married someone else, she put on her white wedding finery and walked across the fields, and drowned herself in Lake Ontario.  Her spirit, dressed in her white wedding dress, can still be seen, walking along the road, not 2 miles from where I live.  I've never seen her, but have talked to people who claim to have. 

I'm always struck too, in season 1, by the awesome classic rock soundtrack, music by Rush, the Stones, AC/DC and more. 

 

By Season 2, John Winchester has been found, although he dies in the first episode.  In this season, we begin to get a sense that there's more going on than 'hunting things and saving people', (Dean's words).  Something evil has had it's eyes on the Winchester family for possibly a long, long time.....but why?  It's hinted that Sam might have a dark destiny, which Dean is determined to save him from.  Thus we get deeper into the bond between these two, and by now we're invested enough in these characters for it to matter to us.  The creepy story lines continue however, with the brothers encountering a Rakshasa (aka evil clown - and I know an awful lot of people who dislike clowns or are outright afraid of them), Vampires, and a Djinn - the Djinn was cool, tattooed face with electric blue eyes, a very unique interpretation in my opinion, there's a picture of it below.  One of the elements of season 2 that struck me as cool is the revelation that there is this whole community of hunter folk like Sam and Dean, including Bobby Singer, Gordon Walker, and others.  We get more familiar with demons, too, and in fact, when Sam is killed in the finale, Dean makes a deal with one of these demons, his soul for Sam's life. 

 

As the seasons progress, the feel of the show gets darker, and more desperate, and in season 3, there is this whole thing with Dean having 1 year to live, after which he gets dragged off to hell, as a result of the deal he made to save Sam's life.  Will the brothers find a way out of this before the season ends?  Nope.  Season 3 ends on one of the most memorable cliffhangers ever - Dean, strung up in some unimaginably horrific landscape, screaming for someone to come and help him.  Prior to this shocker, we get to see the brothers dealing with a ghost ship that heralds death to those who see it, (another legend that strikes close to home for me - there's a ghost ship legend here in my home town too.   Watch for upcoming blog post - haunted Northumberland!) and a girl in a coma who can make fairy tales come true and not in a good way.  We also meet the notorious demon Ruby, who seems to take quite an interest in Sam.

  

Which brings us to season 4.  We get definite confirmation here that Sam and Dean's story indeed has it's origins long before either of them were born - turns out their mother, Mary Winchester, whose death precipitated their father John into becoming a hunter of evil, was such a hunter herself long before she even married John, as was her father.  Sam's dark destiny, hinted at in season 2 and further explored in season 3, was created because of her, making a deal with a demon to save John's life.  These Winchesters make alot of deals with demons!  Further, while Dean is enduring torture in hell for 4 months, (or for 40 years from Dean's perspective and over the summer vacation for the rest of us!) Sam, grief stricken over the loss of his brother, turns to Ruby and begins working with her to exact revenge on Lilith, the demon who dragged Dean off to hell.  This season introduces angels of the Lord, thus definitely settling the show into a Christian-centric myth arc.  The angel Castiel rescues Dean from hell, for reasons that aren't made perfectly clear, and the brothers are reunited.  But things aren't the same for them - their recent respective traumas have changed them, and there's an underlying sense of the gulf between them for the entire season.  The apocalypse is nigh, and the angels are gearing up to fight Lucifer, who is getting closer and closer to breaking free from Hell as the 66 seals are being broken.  If that doesn't make sense to you, all I can say is google Christian mythology and do some reading - I'm too lazy and congested to get into a whole explanation, and in addition am no expert......it's fascinating stuff though so your time will not be wasted!  In the finale we find out that Ruby and the demon that killed Mary Winchester had a plan all along to bring on the apocalypse, and involve the Winchesters, in particular Sam, the chosen child, who would break the last seal and set Lucifer free.  Sam did it unwittingly however, poked and prodded along the way by Ruby, who led Sam to believe that he was actually preventing the apocalypse by helping her.  His 'I'm sorry!' to Dean (who never trusted Ruby) when all is revealed at the very end of the finale episode, is kind of heartrending.  It's interesting to note that it was Dean who broke the first seal, while still in hell, and also unwittingly.  The finale ends with Dean and Sam killing Ruby and then watching in horror as Lucifer begins his ascent into the world in a blinding wall of light.

  

So why does a non-Christian (emphasizing that it's non, and NOT anti) enjoy a show so much that encompasses angels and demons and Heaven and Hell?  Because it's entertaining, it's fun, it's well done, with fantastic characters portrayed by some very talented actors.  I love the ghosts and supernatural creatures of season 1, the emotion of season 2, the emerging, all encompassing storyline of season 3, and season 4 for all of the above.  I love how some of the supernatural creatures are portrayed in unexpected ways, like the aforementioned Djinn, and the demons, who appear as plain ordinary humans until you see their completely black, white, yellow, or red, pupil-less eyes.  Since the demons (and the angels too) have to inhabit human bodies in order to interact in the world, there's that sense of not knowing exactly who the enemy is until you see this eye transformation, which is very creepy.  Castiel the angel wears a trench coat and looks as unlike a traditional angel as anything you could imagine, yet you get glimpses of his huge, black wingspan every now and again.  These angels don't give the impression that they've ever played a harp or cooked with Philly.  They come across as extremely deadly creatures. 

I'll be tuning in eagerly for season 5.