I have Toy Story playing right now as I work and I just looked up and saw the writing credits. To my surprise, I see that Joss Whedon was the first writer credited. Joss Whedon of Firefly, Serenity, and Buffy fame. I would never have guessed that.

I just got Serenity on DVD and am watching it tonight. Even after all this time, it’s still hard to watch Wash die.

Well, that was not what I expected.

It was better.

So, a couple of honest admissions up front. First, I was really afraid that the movie was going to lose a lot of the charm of the series because it had to introduce the characters in the first 20 minutes. That took at least 3 hours of TV episodes in the series. Second, when I read the Salon review, I was pretty concerned about some of the particulars.

In the end, though, all those fears were unfounded. I think the film tilted a little in favor of fans of the series, meaning that some details about the characters won’t seem as authentic to newcomers. That’s a tough balancing act, but I think Whedon and company chose well. There were some noticeable differences in the characters which I won’t go into now. It all makes sense and not much will ruin this series if it ever comes back to the little screen (please, pretty please, someone pick it up!).

By the way, if you’ve been watching the previews or the sneak peeks on the Sci-Fi channel, they didn’t give away much. Most of the funny lines your remember from the previews happen in the first 20 minutes or so of the flick and the rest is fresh. So, keep watching the sneak previews and the trailers… you’re not getting the best of the film.

The Salon review also mentioned that one character’s death will hit regular fans of the series pretty hard. That’s an understatement. Seriously, my jaw was hanging half open for a good five minutes after. It’s not just who dies, but how. It’s good, though, that they’re not afraid to kill off key characters… it was probably the least predictable moment in the film.

Speaking of predictable, let’s move on to some of my criticisms. The movie is as predictable as a TV episode because, well, it has to be. I mean, beyond the unexpected death or two, the good guys prevail, they have some great luck, a crazy clever plan, and, oh yeah, River does something spectacular. It’s not ho hum, so much as it isn’t all that suspenseful. In fact, it’s the Whedon style that keeps the movie entertaining: the quips, the little twists, and skillful usage of the full cast. It’s basically like the old James Bond movies, if you know what I mean.

Overall, though, this is highly recommended. Even Heidi, who wasn’t a fan of the original series, enjoyed it. It’s not everything I was hoping for and had some small flaws, but I loved it. Go see it.

Rating: 7.5/10

Update: If you want to be scared off, check out the photos on Flickr from folks that attended the many premiere parties.

Ah, it’s finally arrived: Serenity.

Must. Go. See.

The review I linked to above is probably the best one that captures how fans of the series, like me, are looking at this film. It’s (finally) the next bit of the story we’ve desperately wanted to continue. I really want someone to pick up the series because it was just an awesome little show. Though, I’m a bit concerned about the movie:

So if “Serenity” is this good — and as a piece of filmmaking, I’m hard-pressed to find much fault with it — why am I still feeling the strong pull of those “Firefly” episodes? Whedon knows what he’s doing here: When he puts lines like “I got no rudder. Wind blows northerly, I go north” in Mal’s mouth, he does so for a reason. Everything in “Serenity,” including the delicate shorthand used to delineate the relationship between Wash and Zoe, who are husband and wife, is part of a meticulously worked-out plan, a way of cluing us in to the hearts and minds of these characters, fast.

But some “Firefly” characters, most notably Shepherd Book, are accounted for but get lost by the wayside. And when certain characters die, those deaths are likely to hit “Firefly” fans much harder than they do “Firefly” novices.

That’s understandable, but I still feel some anxiety that “Serenity” will be viewed by audiences unfamiliar with Whedon’s work as just another sci-fi-geek enthusiasm. My problem, I think, is that “Serenity” dredges up some of the same feelings I have when a movie adaptation of a book I love just doesn’t measure up. I’m so used to “reading” Whedon in the long form — so used to riding the rhythms of his television series, rhythms he sustains beautifully week after week, season after season — that “Serenity,” as carefully worked out as it is, feels a bit too compact, truncated. That’s less a failing on Whedon’s part than a recognition of the way TV, done right, can re-create for us the luxury of sinking into a good, long novel. I hope Whedon makes many more movies (and there’s the enticing possibility that “Serenity,” if it does well, will be the beginning of a franchise). Faced with a big screen, Whedon knows exactly what to do with it. But the small one needs him, too. Of all the pleasures TV watching has to offer, he has perhaps tapped the greatest one: that of waiting on the docks, anxious to find out what happens next.

We need the series back.