When I started this blog, I never intended for it to be solely reviews. Unfortunately it seems to have turned out that way, to the extent that I'm tentative about posting non-review blogging posts now. However, I've recently found a few things I wanted to write about, and seeing as that's what blogs are for... I might as well use the opportunity while it's there.
Two weeks ago, I was in Paris, visiting the touristy places in one of the best-known historic cities in Europe. I have a lot to say about a lot of things I saw there, but for now, I want to talk about the Arc de Triomphe.
The Arc de Triomphe stands at a junction between several big roads in Paris, the biggest being the Champs Elysées and the Avenue de la Grande Armée. It was built by Napoleon to honour his troops on their journey home. It can be seen from just about any point in Paris that stands above three stories high, but disappears surprisingly fast when you walk away from it at ground level.
An impressive white edifice, it stands proud and tall, with an ornamented but elegant design. The views from the top level are stunning. But the thing that really struck me when I was at the Arc, was not inside the giant structure at all.
Between two of the giant pillars there is a plain gravestone, with some flowers and a flame that is always lit.
“Ici repose un soldat Francais, mort pour la patrie.”
Here lies a French soldier who died for his country.
The tomb of the unknown soldier is a tradition I've known about for as long as I can remember, but until I stood there, under the arch, I didn't really understand it. I've never seen the soldier in Westminster Cathedral (a little closer to home), so I don't know if I would have been affected the same way there.
But as I stood there, surrounded by crowds, reading the signs that asked me to treat the site with the respect it deserved, I realised that it wasn't just the tomb of an unknown soldier. It was the tomb of every unknown soldier.
Here lies a man who fought and died for his country. Wrong or right, he took up arms to fight a force he believed needed to be fought. The Generals sat above him, somewhere, and directed him, but he was the one fighting. He was the one that faced the enemy on equal footing. And somewhere along the line, somehow, he was killed.
It happened to a lot of men. There are thousands upon thousands of graves, of those who died in two world wars. Some were recovered, named, buried. Their families knew and mourned properly.
But some just never came home.
Reality and fiction say a lot about how difficult it is to mourn properly when there is no closure. Burying a close loved-one, especially one who dies young, must be hard; I have been very sheltered in this in my life so far, but I can imagine something of what it would feel, even if my imagination could never truly harness the reality. It's even harder to imagine what it must be like to lose someone and never know what happened, to never be able to bury them.
So, when I stood beside the grave under the Arc de Triomphe, I think I realised just how much it must have meant. The symbolism behind the Unknown Soldier may have allowed people just a touch of what they needed. Perhaps they could imagine that their beloved lay underneath that well-loved grave; that buried in state is the man that they adored in their time. And while he was never named, he is still there, at rest.
It hit me with a cold wind, and I stared for a long moment.
Looking up, there is a lot of the Arc that is impressive, and important; a very powerful monument. It contains the names of many. But none of them meant anything to me; a name is just a name if it's someone you don't know and never will.
But an Unknown Person, unnamed... that could be anyone. And I think that will stay with me a lot longer than the views along the Champs Elysées.
Saturday, 24 October 2009
Review of Babel-17 by Samuel R. Delany
In the far future, humans have spread out among the stars, discovered alien life and is in the midst of a war. A series of catastrophic 'accidents' around the galaxy are preceded by communications in a language that no one understands. Rydra Wong, however, has an extremely keen linguistic mind, and starts to extract meaning from Babel-17. And with understanding, she sets out in search of whoever speaks the strange and remarkable tongue.
Babel-17 is another one of the sci-fi masterworks, so I had an inkling it would be good before I picked it up. As it was, though, I was still blown away by it. With a brilliant plot, a wonderful cast of characters and prose that I can only dream of writing, this stands rightly among the sci-fi masterworks.
Linguistics is a field I've always been interested in, but never had enough time to devote to it. Discovering a sci-fi novel, where the plot is based around linguistics is interesting, and it's always nice when a passive interest meets an active one. The linguistic explorations and Rydra's attempts to explain how things work make for very compelling and interesting reading. In addition, the other characters add a whole host of personas and interests to the plot. From the customs officer whose life is changed after spending one evening with Rydra, to the trio of navigators and the wonderful way they interact with each other... it all fits together seamlessly.
The world-building is fantastic, as well, I should say. The way the 'Transport' people work, and the way the society in general works is introduced gradually throughout the novel. There are one or two things that are introduced slightly too soon before they become plot-relevant, but in general, it all fits together. The world is beautiful, vibrant, and nearly completely believable. Even something of art and science in their world is described and painted beautifully.
Babel-17 is only a short book, so it's necessarily quite punchy and fast-paced. There are a few plot elements and 'decisions' that strike me as strange. And there are some scenes that the author seems to dwell on, when perhaps others may have seemed more plot-relevant. However, in the span of 200 or so pages, the author built a world and a cast of characters, and made me care for all of them. The ending seemed slightly rushed; there was a chapter that was only vaguely coherent, followed by a few that led the book to its end, but never really fully explained everything. On the whole, though, it was very well paced, and everything up to those last few chapters made me enjoy it all the more. At the end, I was left wanting more, so if that was the intention, Mr. Delany certainly achieved his objective.
One thing I found slightly strange is that the main character, Rydra Wong, and another character who is only present for a short time, are the only two convincing female characters... the others are slightly bland, and don't have as much stage-presence as the male characters. Another criticism I'd have is that there are the occasional bits that are hard to read; especially a three-page long sentence (not as bad as it sounds, and skilfully done, but even so; hard going).
In general, Babel-17 was an excellently crafted, easy-to-read 200 pages, with world and characters I didn't find it hard to love. I'd recommend it wholeheartedly to anyone who likes science fiction, especially, but not exclusively, if you also enjoy linguistics.
Babel-17 is another one of the sci-fi masterworks, so I had an inkling it would be good before I picked it up. As it was, though, I was still blown away by it. With a brilliant plot, a wonderful cast of characters and prose that I can only dream of writing, this stands rightly among the sci-fi masterworks.
Linguistics is a field I've always been interested in, but never had enough time to devote to it. Discovering a sci-fi novel, where the plot is based around linguistics is interesting, and it's always nice when a passive interest meets an active one. The linguistic explorations and Rydra's attempts to explain how things work make for very compelling and interesting reading. In addition, the other characters add a whole host of personas and interests to the plot. From the customs officer whose life is changed after spending one evening with Rydra, to the trio of navigators and the wonderful way they interact with each other... it all fits together seamlessly.
The world-building is fantastic, as well, I should say. The way the 'Transport' people work, and the way the society in general works is introduced gradually throughout the novel. There are one or two things that are introduced slightly too soon before they become plot-relevant, but in general, it all fits together. The world is beautiful, vibrant, and nearly completely believable. Even something of art and science in their world is described and painted beautifully.
Babel-17 is only a short book, so it's necessarily quite punchy and fast-paced. There are a few plot elements and 'decisions' that strike me as strange. And there are some scenes that the author seems to dwell on, when perhaps others may have seemed more plot-relevant. However, in the span of 200 or so pages, the author built a world and a cast of characters, and made me care for all of them. The ending seemed slightly rushed; there was a chapter that was only vaguely coherent, followed by a few that led the book to its end, but never really fully explained everything. On the whole, though, it was very well paced, and everything up to those last few chapters made me enjoy it all the more. At the end, I was left wanting more, so if that was the intention, Mr. Delany certainly achieved his objective.
One thing I found slightly strange is that the main character, Rydra Wong, and another character who is only present for a short time, are the only two convincing female characters... the others are slightly bland, and don't have as much stage-presence as the male characters. Another criticism I'd have is that there are the occasional bits that are hard to read; especially a three-page long sentence (not as bad as it sounds, and skilfully done, but even so; hard going).
In general, Babel-17 was an excellently crafted, easy-to-read 200 pages, with world and characters I didn't find it hard to love. I'd recommend it wholeheartedly to anyone who likes science fiction, especially, but not exclusively, if you also enjoy linguistics.
Review of the 2004 film 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow'
I'm discovering it's very difficult to review things... especially if I really enjoyed it. If I was to embark upon this properly, I'd have to pick films at random, rather than choosing films that I am fairly certain I'm going to enjoy. However, my intent was always to be an 'everyman' reviewer. Hopefully I can attempt to be balanced even when I enjoyed a film, and hopefully people can judge from my reviews whether they would enjoy something or not. I'm sure that professional reviewers quickly become jaded, so a film has to do something very special to stand out. Not so for me, as I like cheesy crazy action movies as much as the next guy.
However, sometimes I watch a film that I have lots of things to say about, positive and negative.
And so to my next review... Sky Captain.
Jude Law stars as Sky Captain, a mercenary crack pilot with almost the almost superhuman ability to fly through cities without destroying buildings (much). Gwyneth Paltrow plays a cut-throat journalist who will do just about anything to get a story. Together, they set out in search of the coordinator of a series of attacks involving highly technologically advanced giant robots and flying machines.
If it sounds steam-punk and cheesy, it is... but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There is a quite gripping and thrill-riding-ly entertaining plot, veneered with strong stilton. The plot held up to closer examination better than most other elements of the film. If you took for granted that the level of technology was possible in the supposed time period (the 50's I think), and that Sky Captain and his number-two tech expert Dex (Giovanni Ribisi) are as good as they are claimed to be, then everything else sort of works, in a silly way. There were some good action scenes, a good mystery element and some amusing twists. It came with comedy and drama and managed both pretty well.
My main problem with this film was that I didn't particularly like the characters. The Captain himself was arrogant in the way only crack pilots in film seem to be, but he was good enough to pull it off. Dex had enough screen presence to stand up, but he didn't really stand out, or have enough screen time to make me really like him. Angelina Jolie's character had enough charm to actually make me like Angelina for possibly the first time ever... but again, she had limited screen time, so it wasn't enough to redeem the movie.
And then, trailing notably behind these characters in my estimation, I hated Gwyneth Paltrow's character. I didn't actively hate her in the way that you'd hate a well-done bad guy. I hated her in the sense that it was a terrible character, and I didn't find the portrayal good enough to rescue it. In the vein of journalistic stereotypes, Polly Perkins, puts herself in harms way and almost gets killed several times in her determination to get a story and a few pictures. Far from brave and ambitious, I found her irritating and stupid, and I wanted to slap her face on more than one occasion. She was worse than useless in aiding the plot, and spent a lot of time fretting about her beloved camera in a way I found vexing.
Leaving my ire behind though, let's move on to the filming. While the special effects would not be considered ground-breaking, they were adequate, and the filming style covered that a lot; the film user a lot of sepia and blue-filters, which I think dulled the difference between real and CG. However, aside from this notable benefit, I didn't particularly like the sepia. I found it hard to watch (as in, odd glares and shadows, rather than the this-film-is-too-frustrating sense). I can cope with blue filters, though, so for those bits of the film I wasn't squinting at the TV quite as much.
I should add a note that this film had a brilliant soundtrack, which added greatly to the atmosphere of the film. Reminiscent of some of John Williams better works, Edward Shearmur does a brilliant job of backing this film and adding a pinch of what's needed to every scene.
So, let's balance up: pretty good, quite gripping plot, with some good characters and one supremely irritating one who gets a lot of screen-time. Filming techniques that I half-liked and half-disliked. Reasonable acting and adequate special effects. But for a film I watched on a lazy Saturday and had hardly heard of before, it wasn't a bad couple of hour's entertainment.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a fairly good film, but it's not quite the epic it could have been. It's not going to top my list of favourites, and it won't be high on my list of things to re-watch soon, but it might be worth giving it a go, if you like that sort of thing.
However, sometimes I watch a film that I have lots of things to say about, positive and negative.
And so to my next review... Sky Captain.
Jude Law stars as Sky Captain, a mercenary crack pilot with almost the almost superhuman ability to fly through cities without destroying buildings (much). Gwyneth Paltrow plays a cut-throat journalist who will do just about anything to get a story. Together, they set out in search of the coordinator of a series of attacks involving highly technologically advanced giant robots and flying machines.
If it sounds steam-punk and cheesy, it is... but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There is a quite gripping and thrill-riding-ly entertaining plot, veneered with strong stilton. The plot held up to closer examination better than most other elements of the film. If you took for granted that the level of technology was possible in the supposed time period (the 50's I think), and that Sky Captain and his number-two tech expert Dex (Giovanni Ribisi) are as good as they are claimed to be, then everything else sort of works, in a silly way. There were some good action scenes, a good mystery element and some amusing twists. It came with comedy and drama and managed both pretty well.
My main problem with this film was that I didn't particularly like the characters. The Captain himself was arrogant in the way only crack pilots in film seem to be, but he was good enough to pull it off. Dex had enough screen presence to stand up, but he didn't really stand out, or have enough screen time to make me really like him. Angelina Jolie's character had enough charm to actually make me like Angelina for possibly the first time ever... but again, she had limited screen time, so it wasn't enough to redeem the movie.
And then, trailing notably behind these characters in my estimation, I hated Gwyneth Paltrow's character. I didn't actively hate her in the way that you'd hate a well-done bad guy. I hated her in the sense that it was a terrible character, and I didn't find the portrayal good enough to rescue it. In the vein of journalistic stereotypes, Polly Perkins, puts herself in harms way and almost gets killed several times in her determination to get a story and a few pictures. Far from brave and ambitious, I found her irritating and stupid, and I wanted to slap her face on more than one occasion. She was worse than useless in aiding the plot, and spent a lot of time fretting about her beloved camera in a way I found vexing.
Leaving my ire behind though, let's move on to the filming. While the special effects would not be considered ground-breaking, they were adequate, and the filming style covered that a lot; the film user a lot of sepia and blue-filters, which I think dulled the difference between real and CG. However, aside from this notable benefit, I didn't particularly like the sepia. I found it hard to watch (as in, odd glares and shadows, rather than the this-film-is-too-frustrating sense). I can cope with blue filters, though, so for those bits of the film I wasn't squinting at the TV quite as much.
I should add a note that this film had a brilliant soundtrack, which added greatly to the atmosphere of the film. Reminiscent of some of John Williams better works, Edward Shearmur does a brilliant job of backing this film and adding a pinch of what's needed to every scene.
So, let's balance up: pretty good, quite gripping plot, with some good characters and one supremely irritating one who gets a lot of screen-time. Filming techniques that I half-liked and half-disliked. Reasonable acting and adequate special effects. But for a film I watched on a lazy Saturday and had hardly heard of before, it wasn't a bad couple of hour's entertainment.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a fairly good film, but it's not quite the epic it could have been. It's not going to top my list of favourites, and it won't be high on my list of things to re-watch soon, but it might be worth giving it a go, if you like that sort of thing.
Review of the 2007 film 'Bridge to Terabithia'
I knew nothing about Bridge to Terabithia before watching it. Reading this review will somewhat deprive you of that opportunity. I recommend approaching this film with your mind open, so if you want to see it before reading this... know only that I recommend you watch it. I had trouble even deciding whether to post this review. However...
For those that would rather know more...
Bridge to Terabithia affected me in ways that only a couple of other films ever have. It was incredibly effective, and for many reasons really got to me. It's hard to review it without spoiling it, but I'll do my best.
Josh Hutcherson is a preteen with the usual trials of the kid who isn't quite in the cool crowd. When Leslie Burke starts at the school, the pair initially start off on the wrong foot, but soon become friends. Leslie has many of the same problems as Josh, but she is much better at letting things wash over her. She has a strong personality, and some wisdom far beyond her years, with the imagination and playfulness of youth. Together, they create a world of their own, Terabithia, driven by imagination and escapism.
I don't know what I was expecting when I sat down to watch this film; I think I expected something far more fanciful and fantastical than what I got. Perhaps I thought it would a fantasy similar to 'City of Ember'. I thought it was a kid's film, and I thought it would be the kind of hollywood kid's film cheese I've come to expect. As it was, though, I got something that took me back to my own experiences of youth; my own attempts to use imagination and fictional worlds to escape from the world of today. I was incredibly sympathetic towards the characters, which made it easy to enjoy the highs, and to feel the lows even more distinctly.
The acting in this film is brilliant, by children and adults alike. Even Zooey Deschanel, who I normally find annoying, was good in this film (though her part was thankfully reasonably small). Everything meshes together perfectly.
On the other side, there were a few things I liked less about this film... some of the characters didn't fit quite as well as others, and nothing much is ever made of two of Josh's sisters. In one or two places, there were ideas that not everyone will agree with, but as it was all presented as children's ideas, I think it was easier to swallow.
The visual effects are pretty average, and the plotline is fairly simplistic. But, this is not an epic storyline about children discovering a Narnia-like fantasy world. This is about children and the power of imagination. It reminded me of a lot of things I had thought gone, and evoked a churn of new emotions (to get overly poetical).
I think Bridge to Terabithia has wound its way rightfully up into my favourite films. There's something about it that I think, and hope, will stay with me. It's something I think I could watch again and again, and each time love it anew, even if the twists and turns have less punch than the first time.
In a way, I'm glad I knew nothing about the film before seeing it. It caught me and immersed me in a way that few films I have seen ever have. I loved every moment, even the saddest moments. And I hope that if and when you see it, you enjoy it on as many levels as I did.
For those that would rather know more...
Bridge to Terabithia affected me in ways that only a couple of other films ever have. It was incredibly effective, and for many reasons really got to me. It's hard to review it without spoiling it, but I'll do my best.
Josh Hutcherson is a preteen with the usual trials of the kid who isn't quite in the cool crowd. When Leslie Burke starts at the school, the pair initially start off on the wrong foot, but soon become friends. Leslie has many of the same problems as Josh, but she is much better at letting things wash over her. She has a strong personality, and some wisdom far beyond her years, with the imagination and playfulness of youth. Together, they create a world of their own, Terabithia, driven by imagination and escapism.
I don't know what I was expecting when I sat down to watch this film; I think I expected something far more fanciful and fantastical than what I got. Perhaps I thought it would a fantasy similar to 'City of Ember'. I thought it was a kid's film, and I thought it would be the kind of hollywood kid's film cheese I've come to expect. As it was, though, I got something that took me back to my own experiences of youth; my own attempts to use imagination and fictional worlds to escape from the world of today. I was incredibly sympathetic towards the characters, which made it easy to enjoy the highs, and to feel the lows even more distinctly.
The acting in this film is brilliant, by children and adults alike. Even Zooey Deschanel, who I normally find annoying, was good in this film (though her part was thankfully reasonably small). Everything meshes together perfectly.
On the other side, there were a few things I liked less about this film... some of the characters didn't fit quite as well as others, and nothing much is ever made of two of Josh's sisters. In one or two places, there were ideas that not everyone will agree with, but as it was all presented as children's ideas, I think it was easier to swallow.
The visual effects are pretty average, and the plotline is fairly simplistic. But, this is not an epic storyline about children discovering a Narnia-like fantasy world. This is about children and the power of imagination. It reminded me of a lot of things I had thought gone, and evoked a churn of new emotions (to get overly poetical).
I think Bridge to Terabithia has wound its way rightfully up into my favourite films. There's something about it that I think, and hope, will stay with me. It's something I think I could watch again and again, and each time love it anew, even if the twists and turns have less punch than the first time.
In a way, I'm glad I knew nothing about the film before seeing it. It caught me and immersed me in a way that few films I have seen ever have. I loved every moment, even the saddest moments. And I hope that if and when you see it, you enjoy it on as many levels as I did.
Review of the 2006 film 'A Scanner Darkly'
A Scanner Darkly is a story about the dangers of drugs. In the future, a drug known as 'substance D' is the current bane of civilisation. The narcotics police send undercover agents out to try and infiltrate groups of addicts, to find and bring down those who are distributing the drugs. Keanu Reeves plays a narcotics known by codename 'Fred'. His undercover guise is as Bob Arctor, living in a house with two other Substance D addicted men.
Having never read the book, I cannot tell you how true it is to Philip K Dick's original creation, but I can say that as a film, this stood up very well. There was some brilliant acting from all of the cast, especially Robert Downey Jr, who is fast becoming one of my favourite actors. The film is shown as cell-shaded live action. You can tell that the cast are real, but the unreality of the overlaying colour accentuates the drug-haze that its characters are living in. There are some interesting effects as well. When not undercover, the narcotics officers wear suits that hide their identity, showing images of switching faces, flashing a series of strange and different images.
The plot thread that the majority of the film follows is relatively simple. It is mostly following Bob and his group, and watching him as he tries to discover more about the drug network. Throughout there are a series of interactions that show the life that they are living, listening in on their 'trippy' conversations. It is an interesting sketch. The ending of the film, however, shows what everything else has been leading up to, and it impressed me greatly.
At times the mood of the film is relatively comic, as you watch the characters having conversations that most level-headed people would never have. At these points, I found myself wondering if they were based off actual conversations that Philip K Dick had had. Often the film is a lot darker, as Bob becomes more drug addicted and starts losing his faculties.
The film held my interest throughout, and made me think about what it was trying to achieve. As well as good acting, and a very good script, it captured a variety of moods. From the opening scene of watching a drug-addicted man imagine that he is covered in insects, to the final conclusion, there is a lot of good story-telling, and a wonderful variety of characters. As science fiction it is squarely within the realms of possibility, perhaps making the film that little bit more plausible and unnerving.
This isn't a light-hearted film, but I enjoyed it very much as a film to watch and get my teeth into. I think it would have a lot of appeal to many people, and definitely not one just for science fiction fans.
Having never read the book, I cannot tell you how true it is to Philip K Dick's original creation, but I can say that as a film, this stood up very well. There was some brilliant acting from all of the cast, especially Robert Downey Jr, who is fast becoming one of my favourite actors. The film is shown as cell-shaded live action. You can tell that the cast are real, but the unreality of the overlaying colour accentuates the drug-haze that its characters are living in. There are some interesting effects as well. When not undercover, the narcotics officers wear suits that hide their identity, showing images of switching faces, flashing a series of strange and different images.
The plot thread that the majority of the film follows is relatively simple. It is mostly following Bob and his group, and watching him as he tries to discover more about the drug network. Throughout there are a series of interactions that show the life that they are living, listening in on their 'trippy' conversations. It is an interesting sketch. The ending of the film, however, shows what everything else has been leading up to, and it impressed me greatly.
At times the mood of the film is relatively comic, as you watch the characters having conversations that most level-headed people would never have. At these points, I found myself wondering if they were based off actual conversations that Philip K Dick had had. Often the film is a lot darker, as Bob becomes more drug addicted and starts losing his faculties.
The film held my interest throughout, and made me think about what it was trying to achieve. As well as good acting, and a very good script, it captured a variety of moods. From the opening scene of watching a drug-addicted man imagine that he is covered in insects, to the final conclusion, there is a lot of good story-telling, and a wonderful variety of characters. As science fiction it is squarely within the realms of possibility, perhaps making the film that little bit more plausible and unnerving.
This isn't a light-hearted film, but I enjoyed it very much as a film to watch and get my teeth into. I think it would have a lot of appeal to many people, and definitely not one just for science fiction fans.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Review of the 2009 film 'Up'
The Pixar film series have included many that are brilliant, and Up is no exception. I thoroughly recommend this film, so you should go out and see it now... and then come back and read the rest of my review.
Up follows the story of Carl Frederickson, an elderly man who is living alone in a house he has known since childhood. Then there is Russell, a young 'wilderness explorer' looking to get his Helping the Elderly badge. Karl sends him off on a fake errand, but Russell ends up on Mr Frederickson's house, when Carl launches the house with an enormous bunch of helium balloons and sets off to South America.
With poignancy, adventure, comedy and sadness all rolled into one film, it's hard not to find something to like in Up. I liked everything. The action sequences were clever and exciting, without being overdone. I found the comical elements and characters hilarious. There were also some surprisingly hard-hitting emotional moments that made me think; this is still Disney, so it wasn't exactly a tear-jerker, but it was still quite special.
Likewise, the characters in this story are wonderful. Carl is a grumpy old man, with a life-story that I could really relate to, and I felt for him even in his most crotchety moment. Russell, while overeager, has a lot of admirable and amusing character traits. Even at his most annoying, he is a nice character. The other side-kicks and the antagonist are likewise amusing.
Up also comes with an incredible soundtrack by Michael Giacchino. The main theme is catchy and brilliant; adaptable for all highs and lows and beautiful. I've been humming it for the last two days, and I'm going to attempt to learn it on the piano. It really adds something to the film to make it extra special.
For a balanced review, I should try and say some things that don't make Up to be perfection incarnate, because it isn't. There are some moments where the plot is a little predictable, and there are perhaps a few too many scenes showing the house floating amongst the clouds, with no good reason. I also found there were moments where characters were rather more sprightly than is generally possible for their age.
However, my overall feeling is overwhelmingly positive. This was a highly entertaining children's film, with a considerable amount to keep the adults amused as well.
As a final note, I should say that I watched Up in 3D at the cinema. The last (and so far only other) film I saw in 3D (Coraline), seemed to use 3D as a gimmick to have lots of things jumping out of the screen. I didn't like this. Up, however, used it to give much more depth to the shot, and had hardly any needless things jumping out of the screen at you. It made good use of the 3D, and it was far less annoying and distracting than I think it would be for many things.
Up follows the story of Carl Frederickson, an elderly man who is living alone in a house he has known since childhood. Then there is Russell, a young 'wilderness explorer' looking to get his Helping the Elderly badge. Karl sends him off on a fake errand, but Russell ends up on Mr Frederickson's house, when Carl launches the house with an enormous bunch of helium balloons and sets off to South America.
With poignancy, adventure, comedy and sadness all rolled into one film, it's hard not to find something to like in Up. I liked everything. The action sequences were clever and exciting, without being overdone. I found the comical elements and characters hilarious. There were also some surprisingly hard-hitting emotional moments that made me think; this is still Disney, so it wasn't exactly a tear-jerker, but it was still quite special.
Likewise, the characters in this story are wonderful. Carl is a grumpy old man, with a life-story that I could really relate to, and I felt for him even in his most crotchety moment. Russell, while overeager, has a lot of admirable and amusing character traits. Even at his most annoying, he is a nice character. The other side-kicks and the antagonist are likewise amusing.
Up also comes with an incredible soundtrack by Michael Giacchino. The main theme is catchy and brilliant; adaptable for all highs and lows and beautiful. I've been humming it for the last two days, and I'm going to attempt to learn it on the piano. It really adds something to the film to make it extra special.
For a balanced review, I should try and say some things that don't make Up to be perfection incarnate, because it isn't. There are some moments where the plot is a little predictable, and there are perhaps a few too many scenes showing the house floating amongst the clouds, with no good reason. I also found there were moments where characters were rather more sprightly than is generally possible for their age.
However, my overall feeling is overwhelmingly positive. This was a highly entertaining children's film, with a considerable amount to keep the adults amused as well.
As a final note, I should say that I watched Up in 3D at the cinema. The last (and so far only other) film I saw in 3D (Coraline), seemed to use 3D as a gimmick to have lots of things jumping out of the screen. I didn't like this. Up, however, used it to give much more depth to the shot, and had hardly any needless things jumping out of the screen at you. It made good use of the 3D, and it was far less annoying and distracting than I think it would be for many things.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
Review of the 2008 film 'Cloverfield'
In Manhattan, a small group of friends are throwing a farewell party in honour of Rob (Michael Stahl-David). His best friend Hud (T.J Miller) is going around the party collecting farewell messages using Rob's handheld video recorder. When an earthquake shocks the city and all hell breaks loose, Hud keeps hold of the camera and documents the progress of a small group of his friends as they attempt to escape the havoc.
I'm not sure how to describe my experience of this film. In some ways I thought it was brilliant, in other ways I was slightly disappointed. However, when I think of some of the things that disappointed me, I wonder if it would have been better had it been done differently, and I am uncertain.
I'll start with the characters. Quite quickly, I got an idea of what all the characters were like, and enough of their backstory to give them the shade of realism required. And so, I found that I cared about what happened to them. As the film progressed, those attachments were used well in the plot to shock and scare, and worry and interest. It kept me watching. It was well acted and throughout I had a good impression of the character's fear and their real-world heroism as they suffered their ordeal.
What plot was there was designed to keep the characters in the city for long enough to show off all that was happening. There were some visually interesting moments and some (slightly) scary ones. As none of the characters that the film was following really knew what was going on in the larger picture, the viewer didn't really know what was going on either. There were bits of subplot revealed through snatches of the tape that was being overwritten. As the characters make their way through the city, there are some excellent monster-shots and some spectacular displays of destruction and death. What can be described as the main plot thread, following friends going to rescue another friend who is trapped, was a little bit weak, and a little too cheesy, but it was covered well enough by good acting and some superb action sequences.
Telling the story through a camcorder was an interesting choice. In some ways, it turned what could have been a fairly run-of-the-mill monster flick into a good film. It kept you with the action, at ground level with a small group of people you could relate to. As they ran and screamed and attempted to work out what was going on, the camcorder shooting made it a little bit more realistic. The snatches of monster-footage were very interesting, and didn't give enough information to form a cohesive picture of the alien/monster to start picking too many holes in it.
In other ways, I didn't like the camcorder approach. There were moments where I wanted to tell the cameraman to put the camera down and act like a sensible human being. The camera was nearly always at head-height, even when its holder was running, screaming, fighting, climbing and falling. It felt more like a story being told from first-person perspective than a film told through a camcorder. Where most people would have dropped the camera to protect themselves, even temporarily, the camera always showed enough of the action. And no one seemed to mind the camera; they didn't mind bearing their souls in front of it, or the fact that Hud had at least one hand always glued to it.
On balance, I think Cloverfield was a good film. I did enjoy it, but I won't be adding it to my top-ten any time soon. There was a great monster-movie hidden somewhere within an interesting method of story-telling and while I enjoyed it, I was slightly dissatisfied with many of the choices taken through the film. I found the plot on the cheesy-side, and the ending frustrating, but I enjoyed the concept and feel of the movie. If you get a chance, I think it's worth seeing once.
I'm not sure how to describe my experience of this film. In some ways I thought it was brilliant, in other ways I was slightly disappointed. However, when I think of some of the things that disappointed me, I wonder if it would have been better had it been done differently, and I am uncertain.
I'll start with the characters. Quite quickly, I got an idea of what all the characters were like, and enough of their backstory to give them the shade of realism required. And so, I found that I cared about what happened to them. As the film progressed, those attachments were used well in the plot to shock and scare, and worry and interest. It kept me watching. It was well acted and throughout I had a good impression of the character's fear and their real-world heroism as they suffered their ordeal.
What plot was there was designed to keep the characters in the city for long enough to show off all that was happening. There were some visually interesting moments and some (slightly) scary ones. As none of the characters that the film was following really knew what was going on in the larger picture, the viewer didn't really know what was going on either. There were bits of subplot revealed through snatches of the tape that was being overwritten. As the characters make their way through the city, there are some excellent monster-shots and some spectacular displays of destruction and death. What can be described as the main plot thread, following friends going to rescue another friend who is trapped, was a little bit weak, and a little too cheesy, but it was covered well enough by good acting and some superb action sequences.
Telling the story through a camcorder was an interesting choice. In some ways, it turned what could have been a fairly run-of-the-mill monster flick into a good film. It kept you with the action, at ground level with a small group of people you could relate to. As they ran and screamed and attempted to work out what was going on, the camcorder shooting made it a little bit more realistic. The snatches of monster-footage were very interesting, and didn't give enough information to form a cohesive picture of the alien/monster to start picking too many holes in it.
In other ways, I didn't like the camcorder approach. There were moments where I wanted to tell the cameraman to put the camera down and act like a sensible human being. The camera was nearly always at head-height, even when its holder was running, screaming, fighting, climbing and falling. It felt more like a story being told from first-person perspective than a film told through a camcorder. Where most people would have dropped the camera to protect themselves, even temporarily, the camera always showed enough of the action. And no one seemed to mind the camera; they didn't mind bearing their souls in front of it, or the fact that Hud had at least one hand always glued to it.
On balance, I think Cloverfield was a good film. I did enjoy it, but I won't be adding it to my top-ten any time soon. There was a great monster-movie hidden somewhere within an interesting method of story-telling and while I enjoyed it, I was slightly dissatisfied with many of the choices taken through the film. I found the plot on the cheesy-side, and the ending frustrating, but I enjoyed the concept and feel of the movie. If you get a chance, I think it's worth seeing once.
Review of the 2008 film 'City of Ember'
When disaster threatens the world, people survive in the City of Ember, deep underground and powered by a generator that gives light and heat to the city. The first Mayor of Ember is entrusted with a box, that contains instructions about what to do when 200 years are over, and Ember is reaching the end of its intended life. However, the box is lost, and over 200 years since Ember was founded, the people are beginning to run out of stored food, and the generator is dying.
I found the concept behind the film very interesting; Ember itself and the story behind it is a very nice idea. In mood, it reminded me of a cross between two of my favourite children's books. Visually, the make-do-and-mend feel was put across very well. The characters are often wearing threadbare or worn clothes, and all the machinery and buildings look like they are two-hundred years old, run by a society that doesn't have the expertise or resources to maintain them.
In addition, the feel of the society seemed about right. When the children come of age and leave school, they have an 'assignment day' where they do not choose jobs, but rather pick them randomly from a bag. There seems to be a strong community spirit, and for the most part the people seem to band together to make things work in the city. However, there is the normal kind of conflict that you'd expect with people living in close quarters. As a world, I found it worked very well.
The story follows Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan), a messenger, and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway), a pipeworker. When Lina finds the box and realises that they contain instructions about how to leave Ember, she and Doon try to put the torn instructions back together in order to save the people of their city.
Once you get past the stunning visuals, and interesting underlying concepts and society, however, I found City of Ember to be a fun film, but not as special as everything else might have implied. There were a lot of great actors (including Bill Murray, Tim Robbins and Martin Landau), and a lot of good acting, but the main characters didn't hold the plot together as well as I thought they should. Ronan and Treadaway did a very good job of getting the plot across, but I felt they were a little too much the all-American teen to really carry off the steam-punk style film.
The plot was a little thin, and at times predictable. I think the film was aimed at children much younger than I am, and having children as the main character tends to enforce this opinion. I would hope, though, that a film with as much conceptual promise as this one would give a little more to its adult viewers. It seemed to use every conceivable plot 'trick' to get the characters through to the film's conclusion.
Having said that, I did enjoy the film. It was a pleasant, easily watchable film and it was a fun plot, even if I felt it did not quite live up to the brilliant concepts and world. If you have an hour and a half and want something fun to watch, I'd recommend this film, but I wouldn't go into it with your expectations set too high. Although it's visually brilliant, it's a little on the shallow side, and it is probably much better when viewed by people under the age of fourteen.
I found the concept behind the film very interesting; Ember itself and the story behind it is a very nice idea. In mood, it reminded me of a cross between two of my favourite children's books. Visually, the make-do-and-mend feel was put across very well. The characters are often wearing threadbare or worn clothes, and all the machinery and buildings look like they are two-hundred years old, run by a society that doesn't have the expertise or resources to maintain them.
In addition, the feel of the society seemed about right. When the children come of age and leave school, they have an 'assignment day' where they do not choose jobs, but rather pick them randomly from a bag. There seems to be a strong community spirit, and for the most part the people seem to band together to make things work in the city. However, there is the normal kind of conflict that you'd expect with people living in close quarters. As a world, I found it worked very well.
The story follows Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan), a messenger, and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway), a pipeworker. When Lina finds the box and realises that they contain instructions about how to leave Ember, she and Doon try to put the torn instructions back together in order to save the people of their city.
Once you get past the stunning visuals, and interesting underlying concepts and society, however, I found City of Ember to be a fun film, but not as special as everything else might have implied. There were a lot of great actors (including Bill Murray, Tim Robbins and Martin Landau), and a lot of good acting, but the main characters didn't hold the plot together as well as I thought they should. Ronan and Treadaway did a very good job of getting the plot across, but I felt they were a little too much the all-American teen to really carry off the steam-punk style film.
The plot was a little thin, and at times predictable. I think the film was aimed at children much younger than I am, and having children as the main character tends to enforce this opinion. I would hope, though, that a film with as much conceptual promise as this one would give a little more to its adult viewers. It seemed to use every conceivable plot 'trick' to get the characters through to the film's conclusion.
Having said that, I did enjoy the film. It was a pleasant, easily watchable film and it was a fun plot, even if I felt it did not quite live up to the brilliant concepts and world. If you have an hour and a half and want something fun to watch, I'd recommend this film, but I wouldn't go into it with your expectations set too high. Although it's visually brilliant, it's a little on the shallow side, and it is probably much better when viewed by people under the age of fourteen.
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Review of the 2009 film 'District 9'
Set in Johannesburg, either in the present day or the not too distant future, District 9 is about the aftermath of the arrival of aliens. The race, known as the prawns, arrived on Earth in a mothership, which came to a stop over Johannesburg and stayed there, without moving, for three months until the ship was cut open to reveal a large number of malnourished, leaderless aliens. The aliens were given a temporary home, which became a shanty town for the aliens. Gangs seized on the opportunities that arose, creating new crime, and people became more and more scared of the aliens, until eventually it is decided that they must be relocated outside of Johannesburg. While searching one of the shacks for illegal weapons, Wikus van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley), finds a device, which sprays him with a strange black fluid. Not long after he starts noticing some strange effects, as alien DNA starts to transform him.
There are a lot of things I could say about this film, and it's difficult to know where to start. Firstly, the film is a good science fiction movie. It doesn't explain any of the technology, but while some of it seems outlandish, none of it seems completely implausible. Often the most difficult thing to believe is that the aliens could have made their technology on Earth with their obviously limited resources, and with what is known (or at least assumed) about their societal structure. The aliens are sufficiently alien to seem different and almost terrifying to us. However, they are bipedal humanoids with a similar facial structure, so they have enough in common to be sympathetic characters when the plot requires it.
One of the things I liked, from the science fiction points of view, is that the aliens cannot speak English, and the humans cannot speak their language; both have learned to understand the other, but they lack the vocal devices to produce the alien sounds.
At times the film leaves science fiction in all but weaponry and make-up and becomes an excellent action movie. It is often very gory. In a way this makes it more effective on a visceral level, but in other ways I found it unpleasant and at times it made watching difficult. I wouldn't recommend this films for the faint-hearted, and as one of my friends warned me, I wouldn't take snacks. There are some very good action sequences and fight scenes. The character of Wikus gradually grows throughout the film from slightly gawky bureaucrat to the action hero victim and there is some brilliant acting along the way. The difference between the man that laughs as he finds and aborts a nest of alien eggs, and the person he becomes at the end of the film is marked, and each step of the transition is very well performed.
The film also has a significant social message. It carries many themes, the most noticeable being xenophobia. Setting this film in South Africa was quite brave, almost providing commentary on some of the actual events that occurred in that part of the world. The film manages to evoke considerable sympathy for the aliens, while in places still revealing an understandable human point of view. The message was thought-provoking, but I don't think it over-laboured its points, and it was all the more powerful because it didn't spoon on its social messages. They are there, but the plot is more important, which allows the film to be an entertaining science-fiction/horror movie whilst still exploring some difficult issues.
From start to finish, I think District 9 was a very good film. It was gory, which might put me off watching it again in the immediate future, but it was also very interesting. The science-fiction elements were not as well conceived as some of the societal themes, but it was still a very good science fiction movie. I am not sure I could call it a brilliant movie, but it is a film I might recommend everyone (with a sufficiently strong stomach) see at least once.
There are a lot of things I could say about this film, and it's difficult to know where to start. Firstly, the film is a good science fiction movie. It doesn't explain any of the technology, but while some of it seems outlandish, none of it seems completely implausible. Often the most difficult thing to believe is that the aliens could have made their technology on Earth with their obviously limited resources, and with what is known (or at least assumed) about their societal structure. The aliens are sufficiently alien to seem different and almost terrifying to us. However, they are bipedal humanoids with a similar facial structure, so they have enough in common to be sympathetic characters when the plot requires it.
One of the things I liked, from the science fiction points of view, is that the aliens cannot speak English, and the humans cannot speak their language; both have learned to understand the other, but they lack the vocal devices to produce the alien sounds.
At times the film leaves science fiction in all but weaponry and make-up and becomes an excellent action movie. It is often very gory. In a way this makes it more effective on a visceral level, but in other ways I found it unpleasant and at times it made watching difficult. I wouldn't recommend this films for the faint-hearted, and as one of my friends warned me, I wouldn't take snacks. There are some very good action sequences and fight scenes. The character of Wikus gradually grows throughout the film from slightly gawky bureaucrat to the action hero victim and there is some brilliant acting along the way. The difference between the man that laughs as he finds and aborts a nest of alien eggs, and the person he becomes at the end of the film is marked, and each step of the transition is very well performed.
The film also has a significant social message. It carries many themes, the most noticeable being xenophobia. Setting this film in South Africa was quite brave, almost providing commentary on some of the actual events that occurred in that part of the world. The film manages to evoke considerable sympathy for the aliens, while in places still revealing an understandable human point of view. The message was thought-provoking, but I don't think it over-laboured its points, and it was all the more powerful because it didn't spoon on its social messages. They are there, but the plot is more important, which allows the film to be an entertaining science-fiction/horror movie whilst still exploring some difficult issues.
From start to finish, I think District 9 was a very good film. It was gory, which might put me off watching it again in the immediate future, but it was also very interesting. The science-fiction elements were not as well conceived as some of the societal themes, but it was still a very good science fiction movie. I am not sure I could call it a brilliant movie, but it is a film I might recommend everyone (with a sufficiently strong stomach) see at least once.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Review of 'Inversions' by Iain M Banks
When I struggled through 'Excession' by the same author, a friend who had similarly found Excession difficult, recommended to me that I read Inversions. I am glad I listened to his recommendation. Inversions was a very enjoyable read.
Where other Iain M Banks novels suffer from lack of characterisation, over-verbosity and too much love of AI, Inversions is almost the opposite. To the uninitiated, it would read as a curious fantasy story of mysterious and seemingly unrelated events across two kingdoms. To those in the know, it is a novel about the Culture, in disguise. Told from the point of view of the affected, the meddled-with, Inversions tells two stories. One narrator is apprentice to a Doctor who brings medical knowledge far in advance of what is known at the time. The other tells the story of the bodyguard to another leader of a different regime on the same world.
Usually I am most impressed with Iain M Bank's aliens, and while there was a hint of this in his world-building, all the people in it were very much people. His characterisation was stronger in this novel than I've seen in any of his other science fiction, with the possible exception of 'Consider Phlebas'. The apprentice, Oelph tells his story as loyal servant, loyal apprentice, and as a man who has a great deal of affection for the subject of his narrations. Doctor Vosill herself has a great deal of character; she brings progress and change and controvesial opinions as she acts as physician to the king.
On the other side of the sea, the bodyguard DeWar and the cast of characters in his story, are likewise well-rounded and developed as people. DeWar struck me as a conflicted and fervently loyal man. As his story unfolds, he tells a series of stories that sound remarkably familiar to anyone who knows anything about the Culture. The concubine Perrund, the Protector and his son, all have their own strong personalities, in many different ways. It was easy to follow their stories, and to care about the outcome.
Telling the story from the perspective of those who are being manipulated is an interesting twist, and provided me with the viewpoint of the Culture that I enjoyed from Consider Phlebas. In the earlier work, the Culture was the enemy and it was never made clear whether they were the force for good or evil. Inversions returns to that ambiguity, and allows the knowing reader to enjoy the thought experiments that Vosill and DeWar present.
The characters, the story-telling and the interesting plot intersections and parallels made Inversions a compelling read. It was a lot easier to digest than some of Banks' other stories, and because it was primarily about small groups of people rather than whole civilisations I found myself able to really enjoy it as a science-fiction fantasy crossover story. It wasn't trying so hard to be clever that it forgot to be good, and it wasn't striving so hard for moral discussion that it forgot to be interesting. These things all conspired to make Inversions a brilliant book, with enough depth and plot-interest to keep attention throughout its pages.
Where other Iain M Banks novels suffer from lack of characterisation, over-verbosity and too much love of AI, Inversions is almost the opposite. To the uninitiated, it would read as a curious fantasy story of mysterious and seemingly unrelated events across two kingdoms. To those in the know, it is a novel about the Culture, in disguise. Told from the point of view of the affected, the meddled-with, Inversions tells two stories. One narrator is apprentice to a Doctor who brings medical knowledge far in advance of what is known at the time. The other tells the story of the bodyguard to another leader of a different regime on the same world.
Usually I am most impressed with Iain M Bank's aliens, and while there was a hint of this in his world-building, all the people in it were very much people. His characterisation was stronger in this novel than I've seen in any of his other science fiction, with the possible exception of 'Consider Phlebas'. The apprentice, Oelph tells his story as loyal servant, loyal apprentice, and as a man who has a great deal of affection for the subject of his narrations. Doctor Vosill herself has a great deal of character; she brings progress and change and controvesial opinions as she acts as physician to the king.
On the other side of the sea, the bodyguard DeWar and the cast of characters in his story, are likewise well-rounded and developed as people. DeWar struck me as a conflicted and fervently loyal man. As his story unfolds, he tells a series of stories that sound remarkably familiar to anyone who knows anything about the Culture. The concubine Perrund, the Protector and his son, all have their own strong personalities, in many different ways. It was easy to follow their stories, and to care about the outcome.
Telling the story from the perspective of those who are being manipulated is an interesting twist, and provided me with the viewpoint of the Culture that I enjoyed from Consider Phlebas. In the earlier work, the Culture was the enemy and it was never made clear whether they were the force for good or evil. Inversions returns to that ambiguity, and allows the knowing reader to enjoy the thought experiments that Vosill and DeWar present.
The characters, the story-telling and the interesting plot intersections and parallels made Inversions a compelling read. It was a lot easier to digest than some of Banks' other stories, and because it was primarily about small groups of people rather than whole civilisations I found myself able to really enjoy it as a science-fiction fantasy crossover story. It wasn't trying so hard to be clever that it forgot to be good, and it wasn't striving so hard for moral discussion that it forgot to be interesting. These things all conspired to make Inversions a brilliant book, with enough depth and plot-interest to keep attention throughout its pages.
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
Review of the 2009 film 'Public Enemies'
Public Enemies tells the story of the notorious bank robber, John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and his associates as they win their illicit gains in Chicago in the 30's. At the same time, J. Edgar Hoover is looking for blood, and places Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) in charge of catching Dillinger and his friends.
While I know little of the history surrounding the true story of Dillinger and Purvis, this film had the 'ring of truth' about it, that made me believe in it. There are scenes showing expertly planned jailbreaks, bank robberies, charming villains enjoying their down-time and smooth policemen. It all looked and felt like everything I know of 1930's America, and I'd be happy to believe there is enough of the real history in there that any changes were within poetic license.
From very early on in the film, I found myself rooting for Dillinger, although in essence he was the 'bad guy'. In a way, I was also rooting for Purvis, though I knew that in order for the film to be good cinema, only one of them could win. With each event, I worried, wondering if the end was coming for Dillinger's crime wave. He was a bank robber, and he used people as human shields... but as he did so, he offered a cold hostage his coat, and sang to another hostage in the getaway car.
Johnny Depp has proven to me time and time again that he is a versatile and brilliant actor. His performance as Dillinger did not disappoint me at all. With each turn of events, you could see every facet of the character played out. While he was a violent man, there were also ways in which he was gentlemanly, and Johnny Depp brings both of these sides of the character out with confidence and surety. He especially excelled in showing Dillinger's love for Billie Freschette, but also his carefree attitude, never thinking ahead.
On the other side of the screen, Christian Bale pleasantly surprised me. I have often being underwhelmed by his performances on the big screen, but in Public Enemies he plays the polished policeman well. Playing a character somewhere between the emotionless cleric John Preston of Equilibrium and the vigilante superhero Batman, Bale portrays the single-minded, practical Purvis with keen insight. While grieving for a dead colleague, or staring down the barrel of a gun, Purvis had great screen-presence, and was a believable leader.
Aside from these two stars, there was an excellent supporting cast, which made the whole film immensely watchable and entertaining. All in all, a very well filmed and put-together show.
If I had to make any criticism, it would be that the large cast made it occasionally difficult to follow who was who, especially amongst the people that Dillinger found himself working for. However, this can be said of many films that set out to mirror real-life, which has its own extensive cast. And although I was occasionally lost in the supporting cast, the leading roles strung everything together well enough that in most parts it didn't really matter.
As a welcome break from mediocre action movies and overly depressing dramas, I thoroughly enjoyed Public Enemies.
While I know little of the history surrounding the true story of Dillinger and Purvis, this film had the 'ring of truth' about it, that made me believe in it. There are scenes showing expertly planned jailbreaks, bank robberies, charming villains enjoying their down-time and smooth policemen. It all looked and felt like everything I know of 1930's America, and I'd be happy to believe there is enough of the real history in there that any changes were within poetic license.
From very early on in the film, I found myself rooting for Dillinger, although in essence he was the 'bad guy'. In a way, I was also rooting for Purvis, though I knew that in order for the film to be good cinema, only one of them could win. With each event, I worried, wondering if the end was coming for Dillinger's crime wave. He was a bank robber, and he used people as human shields... but as he did so, he offered a cold hostage his coat, and sang to another hostage in the getaway car.
Johnny Depp has proven to me time and time again that he is a versatile and brilliant actor. His performance as Dillinger did not disappoint me at all. With each turn of events, you could see every facet of the character played out. While he was a violent man, there were also ways in which he was gentlemanly, and Johnny Depp brings both of these sides of the character out with confidence and surety. He especially excelled in showing Dillinger's love for Billie Freschette, but also his carefree attitude, never thinking ahead.
On the other side of the screen, Christian Bale pleasantly surprised me. I have often being underwhelmed by his performances on the big screen, but in Public Enemies he plays the polished policeman well. Playing a character somewhere between the emotionless cleric John Preston of Equilibrium and the vigilante superhero Batman, Bale portrays the single-minded, practical Purvis with keen insight. While grieving for a dead colleague, or staring down the barrel of a gun, Purvis had great screen-presence, and was a believable leader.
Aside from these two stars, there was an excellent supporting cast, which made the whole film immensely watchable and entertaining. All in all, a very well filmed and put-together show.
If I had to make any criticism, it would be that the large cast made it occasionally difficult to follow who was who, especially amongst the people that Dillinger found himself working for. However, this can be said of many films that set out to mirror real-life, which has its own extensive cast. And although I was occasionally lost in the supporting cast, the leading roles strung everything together well enough that in most parts it didn't really matter.
As a welcome break from mediocre action movies and overly depressing dramas, I thoroughly enjoyed Public Enemies.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Review of 'The Handmaid's Tale' by Margaret Atwood
I didn't take English A level myself, but many of my friends did. Through most of the AS year, there were copies of The Handmaid's Tale kicking around the sixth-form common room, and I was always intrigued. Occasionally I'd overhear conversations about the book, scholarly discussions, and the kind of in-depth analysis that put me off English Literature as a subject in the first place. But it sounded interesting, and so I promised to read it on its own terms.
The Handmaid's Tale is a science fiction story, but science fiction is an almost incidental affectation. The book is good science fiction, because the world in which the main character lives is essential to her story. Otherwise, it is purely about the character, who she is, what happens to her, and why she made the choices that she did. The story is set in a future that seems bleak and dark. Women have been segregated into functions, and Offred is a Handmaid; her function is produce offspring for married couples that are otherwise unable. Stripped of her individuality and even her original name, Offred must struggle with her memories and with her knowledge, and with her emotions.
As science fiction, The Handmaid's Tale is a very interesting exercise. The world is so different from that of today, that it is almost inconceivable how it could come about from the current United States. However, as the story progresses this becomes believable, even inevitable. It is a future well told. The narrator reveals snippets of information, very gradually throughout the story. Very little is exposed at any one point, but gradually I got a picture of the world, of the character, of the past that had led to this future.
As Offred is not in a position of knowledge or power, not everything is revealed. This is both brilliant and slightly frustrating. I was devouring each snippet of knowledge, wishing for more. I wanted to know what was going on in the world as a whole; what was happening outside Offred's home city. Throughout, I got the feeling that the author knew and just wasn't telling me... but this in its way is brilliant. The world is so thoroughly conceived that I was convinced that these details existed, but a first-person tale would have to have had a very different narrator to gather all of those details, and then it wouldn't have been a Handmaid's tale at all.
The story follows a character's development, so it doesn't have a single consistent plot stream. The most I could say is that it's a story of Offred's posting with one particular Commander. At some points it seems like a particular story thread is going to open up new opportunities, but while there are many interesting occurrences, there is nothing world-changing in her story. She is there to tell it how it is, living and dealing with a heavily oppressive regime. She is not there to change the world.
I have to say that I was slightly unsure about the ending, or rather the fact that it does not end. Offred's story just stops, and the epilogue explains nothing of what happened to her. In some ways, I find this frustrating. I wanted to know what happened to her, and what became of her. In other ways, the ending would perhaps have been less powerful if it had been more neat. I am unsure. However, in most cases, I think I would prefer a more complete ending, with a little less ambiguity.
Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed The Handmaid's Tale. It was compulsively readable, very easy to read and very well written. I found pages slipping by without effort, which is a very refreshing feeling. Every emotion is conveyed skilfully and powerfully, and at times I felt like I was totally immersed in Offred's world. While I classify it as science fiction, I would by no means limit its readership to science fiction fans. This book is very accessible to all kinds of readers. In fact, it might appeal to non science fiction readers more, because of the way the story is about a single person, in an unremarkable position, struggling in a cruel world.
There is only one novel that I have still loved after tearing it apart and reading it numerous times at school. I would tentatively say that, if I had continued, I would still have loved The Handmaid's Tale. While not my usual kind of ripping yarn, it was a powerful story, brilliantly told. It is definitely added to a list of highly recommended texts.
The Handmaid's Tale is a science fiction story, but science fiction is an almost incidental affectation. The book is good science fiction, because the world in which the main character lives is essential to her story. Otherwise, it is purely about the character, who she is, what happens to her, and why she made the choices that she did. The story is set in a future that seems bleak and dark. Women have been segregated into functions, and Offred is a Handmaid; her function is produce offspring for married couples that are otherwise unable. Stripped of her individuality and even her original name, Offred must struggle with her memories and with her knowledge, and with her emotions.
As science fiction, The Handmaid's Tale is a very interesting exercise. The world is so different from that of today, that it is almost inconceivable how it could come about from the current United States. However, as the story progresses this becomes believable, even inevitable. It is a future well told. The narrator reveals snippets of information, very gradually throughout the story. Very little is exposed at any one point, but gradually I got a picture of the world, of the character, of the past that had led to this future.
As Offred is not in a position of knowledge or power, not everything is revealed. This is both brilliant and slightly frustrating. I was devouring each snippet of knowledge, wishing for more. I wanted to know what was going on in the world as a whole; what was happening outside Offred's home city. Throughout, I got the feeling that the author knew and just wasn't telling me... but this in its way is brilliant. The world is so thoroughly conceived that I was convinced that these details existed, but a first-person tale would have to have had a very different narrator to gather all of those details, and then it wouldn't have been a Handmaid's tale at all.
The story follows a character's development, so it doesn't have a single consistent plot stream. The most I could say is that it's a story of Offred's posting with one particular Commander. At some points it seems like a particular story thread is going to open up new opportunities, but while there are many interesting occurrences, there is nothing world-changing in her story. She is there to tell it how it is, living and dealing with a heavily oppressive regime. She is not there to change the world.
I have to say that I was slightly unsure about the ending, or rather the fact that it does not end. Offred's story just stops, and the epilogue explains nothing of what happened to her. In some ways, I find this frustrating. I wanted to know what happened to her, and what became of her. In other ways, the ending would perhaps have been less powerful if it had been more neat. I am unsure. However, in most cases, I think I would prefer a more complete ending, with a little less ambiguity.
Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed The Handmaid's Tale. It was compulsively readable, very easy to read and very well written. I found pages slipping by without effort, which is a very refreshing feeling. Every emotion is conveyed skilfully and powerfully, and at times I felt like I was totally immersed in Offred's world. While I classify it as science fiction, I would by no means limit its readership to science fiction fans. This book is very accessible to all kinds of readers. In fact, it might appeal to non science fiction readers more, because of the way the story is about a single person, in an unremarkable position, struggling in a cruel world.
There is only one novel that I have still loved after tearing it apart and reading it numerous times at school. I would tentatively say that, if I had continued, I would still have loved The Handmaid's Tale. While not my usual kind of ripping yarn, it was a powerful story, brilliantly told. It is definitely added to a list of highly recommended texts.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Review of 'Stranger in a Strange Land' by Robert Heinlein
It's difficult to say how far into the future this is set, and Heinlein cleverly avoids mentioning dates (almost certainly a wise move). In some ways his world is far beyond ours; interplanetary travel, hovering cars, and grass carpets some of the things we can expect. Socially, perhaps, Heinlein is half a step behind our current progression, but it is not so far behind that it rankled. In this future, an exploratory manned mission is sent to Mars with several couples aboard. However, after arriving on Mars they are never heard from again. Many years later, a follow-up expedition is sent to find out what happened to them. Once there they discover the Martians, and they discover the only survivor of the original expedition; a baby born soon after the original crew's arrival on Mars, raised by Martians.
Stranger in a Strange Land is compulsively written, beautifully descriptive and incredibly well-paced. Heinlein reveals his future Earth piece by piece, and unravels his ideas about the Martians and Mike's upbringing equally carefully and gradually. The characters are all believable, from Mike himself as he struggles to understand people, to the people that become his guardians and friends. Everything about the book is incredibly well put together, and has many elements that give it the air of realism that makes it very easy to fully immerse yourself in the book.
The plot seems to split the book into two main sections. The first half sees Mike's arrival from Earth and escape from the confines he is originally found in, into the care of nurse Jill Boardman and lawyer-doctor-writer Jubal Harshaw. They try to teach Mike about the world and the human way, at the same time learning a lot about the Martian way. I thoroughly enjoyed this half of the book, smiling and laughing and feeling along with the characters. The plot was at times intense, at other times carefree, and always expertly crafted.
In the second half, Mike undergoes a (sharp, by human standards) transition into adulthood and the story follows him as he attempts to find his way in the wider world, and show others the Martian way. In this half, Heinlein gets a lot more political, struggling through Mike with religion and world politics. To me, this half felt a little odd; I did not fully comprehend the point of view being put forward, so I found it difficult to roll along with it. As Mike would say, I did not 'grok its fullness'. While it was still very well written, the plot became less intense and more thought-provoking, while the subject matter became a lot more controversial. I began to see why people at the time had sought to suppress the novel.
Part of me thinks that the novel would have been complete had it finished at the end of the first half, but in another way it needed it. Either way, the sudden change in mood and energy half way through left me lurching slightly. I was not entirely comfortable with the subject matter in the second half of the book, which made it more difficult to enjoy. However, throughout, it remains well-written and everything is excellently described. Only the ending seemed a little short, with a couple of loose ends not quite tied up as I would have liked.
All of the characters grow and change throughout the novel, especially Mike, and his friends. The only character that doesn't seem to change dramatically between start and finish is Jubal Harshaw, who is already old, set in his ways, and wise. For me he was a brilliant character, able to play devils advocate for any position and understand things always from all points of view. This quality is something I strive for (and usually fail) for myself, so seeing it so well-done in a character on the page was wonderful. Jubal's point of view made it easier to enter into the story more fully, and for that I loved him.
Stranger in a Strange land is a long book. It took me a very long time to read, mostly because of limited time available for me to devote to it. However, I think it was worth all the time it took to read it. Perhaps not for the faint-hearted, but definitely a good read. I've heard that others of Heinlein's books are better, and I am looking forward to reading these enthusiastically, because if they are as good throughout as the first half of Stranger, I feel I will begin to fully grok how Heinlein worked his way into the ranks of science fiction masters, controversial political opinions and all.
Stranger in a Strange Land is compulsively written, beautifully descriptive and incredibly well-paced. Heinlein reveals his future Earth piece by piece, and unravels his ideas about the Martians and Mike's upbringing equally carefully and gradually. The characters are all believable, from Mike himself as he struggles to understand people, to the people that become his guardians and friends. Everything about the book is incredibly well put together, and has many elements that give it the air of realism that makes it very easy to fully immerse yourself in the book.
The plot seems to split the book into two main sections. The first half sees Mike's arrival from Earth and escape from the confines he is originally found in, into the care of nurse Jill Boardman and lawyer-doctor-writer Jubal Harshaw. They try to teach Mike about the world and the human way, at the same time learning a lot about the Martian way. I thoroughly enjoyed this half of the book, smiling and laughing and feeling along with the characters. The plot was at times intense, at other times carefree, and always expertly crafted.
In the second half, Mike undergoes a (sharp, by human standards) transition into adulthood and the story follows him as he attempts to find his way in the wider world, and show others the Martian way. In this half, Heinlein gets a lot more political, struggling through Mike with religion and world politics. To me, this half felt a little odd; I did not fully comprehend the point of view being put forward, so I found it difficult to roll along with it. As Mike would say, I did not 'grok its fullness'. While it was still very well written, the plot became less intense and more thought-provoking, while the subject matter became a lot more controversial. I began to see why people at the time had sought to suppress the novel.
Part of me thinks that the novel would have been complete had it finished at the end of the first half, but in another way it needed it. Either way, the sudden change in mood and energy half way through left me lurching slightly. I was not entirely comfortable with the subject matter in the second half of the book, which made it more difficult to enjoy. However, throughout, it remains well-written and everything is excellently described. Only the ending seemed a little short, with a couple of loose ends not quite tied up as I would have liked.
All of the characters grow and change throughout the novel, especially Mike, and his friends. The only character that doesn't seem to change dramatically between start and finish is Jubal Harshaw, who is already old, set in his ways, and wise. For me he was a brilliant character, able to play devils advocate for any position and understand things always from all points of view. This quality is something I strive for (and usually fail) for myself, so seeing it so well-done in a character on the page was wonderful. Jubal's point of view made it easier to enter into the story more fully, and for that I loved him.
Stranger in a Strange land is a long book. It took me a very long time to read, mostly because of limited time available for me to devote to it. However, I think it was worth all the time it took to read it. Perhaps not for the faint-hearted, but definitely a good read. I've heard that others of Heinlein's books are better, and I am looking forward to reading these enthusiastically, because if they are as good throughout as the first half of Stranger, I feel I will begin to fully grok how Heinlein worked his way into the ranks of science fiction masters, controversial political opinions and all.
Saturday, 6 June 2009
Review of the 2009 film 'Coraline'
It seems I'm developing a habit for mainly seeing Neil Gaiman's works on screen. Aside from Stardust and the first of the Sandman comics, I have read very little of the author's works... but this is the second of his films that I have seen at the cinema. It seems his works lend themselves well to the big screen.
I saw Coraline in 3D... so I'll talk about that, once I examine the film on its merits.
On moving to a new house in the country, Coraline Jones feels she will not like it much. In her neighbours she finds some amusement and eccentricity, but the only child her age she finds annoying, and her parents are too busy to entertain. In a search of the house, however, she comes across a small door in the wall. Behind is apparently bricked up, until she is led back there in the middle of the night and finds herself in another version of her house, with her Other Mother and Other Father, and exciting wonders created for her. It all seems amazing, but as you might expect there is more to it than meets the eye and it's all a bit too good to be true.
I was intrigued by the plot and swept along by it as I watched. I was not surprised to hear later that the book on which this film was based has often been compared to Alice In Wonderland (my initial thoughts were Through the Looking Glass, but the point stands). Many of the same themes were in the film as Coraline explores the new world and tries to find her way home when she discovers the truth. However, Coraline is a lot darker than Alice, and while Coraline even has her own version of the Cheshire cat, the darkness in the other world, and the threat that the Other Mother eventually possesses is quite different to Alice's own travails. The plot was rich and interesting. The themes covered many of the problems that children might face after a move; loneliness and looking for adventure and new friends, as well as some of the more general emotional troubles a child with busy parents might face. As Coraline learns and grows through the film, I grew to really care for her character, and it was a very nice progression.
In pacing the film slipped somewhat. The main part is wonderful for creating interest and suspense, while the latter part the film feels somewhat rushed, with the ending reached all too soon. It felt almost like a mini-adventure tacked on the end, except for the way in which it resolved the plot.
The film was brought to life in brilliant stop-motion animation. It was very pretty, although stylistically I felt it was trying a little to hard to mimic Tim Burton's unique style of animation and modelling, which it did not quite achieve. However, it was still beautiful and an interesting and quirky style that brought the surreal plot and characters to life.
As a film and as a story I would very much recommend Coraline to viewers of all ages as an occasionally creepy, ever-so-slightly scary, very entertaining film.
To the 3D aspect of the film, then...
Well, to be honest, if I could have found a showing in 2D I would have seen that instead. The 3D thing, while interesting, strikes me as a bit of a gimmick and doesn't really add anything to the film itself. I'm glad I went to see one film in 3D, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it. Some people have said they found the 3D disorienting. While I did, I did find some of the more gratuitous 3D shots a little strange. There were lots of shots of things done purely to make the most of 3D filming, whereas for the majority of the film the extra depth did very little. I'll be interested to see how the 3D thing goes, and as the technology improves I expect it'll become even more common. However, I was not particularly impressed by it, except from the position of scientific interest.
I saw Coraline in 3D... so I'll talk about that, once I examine the film on its merits.
On moving to a new house in the country, Coraline Jones feels she will not like it much. In her neighbours she finds some amusement and eccentricity, but the only child her age she finds annoying, and her parents are too busy to entertain. In a search of the house, however, she comes across a small door in the wall. Behind is apparently bricked up, until she is led back there in the middle of the night and finds herself in another version of her house, with her Other Mother and Other Father, and exciting wonders created for her. It all seems amazing, but as you might expect there is more to it than meets the eye and it's all a bit too good to be true.
I was intrigued by the plot and swept along by it as I watched. I was not surprised to hear later that the book on which this film was based has often been compared to Alice In Wonderland (my initial thoughts were Through the Looking Glass, but the point stands). Many of the same themes were in the film as Coraline explores the new world and tries to find her way home when she discovers the truth. However, Coraline is a lot darker than Alice, and while Coraline even has her own version of the Cheshire cat, the darkness in the other world, and the threat that the Other Mother eventually possesses is quite different to Alice's own travails. The plot was rich and interesting. The themes covered many of the problems that children might face after a move; loneliness and looking for adventure and new friends, as well as some of the more general emotional troubles a child with busy parents might face. As Coraline learns and grows through the film, I grew to really care for her character, and it was a very nice progression.
In pacing the film slipped somewhat. The main part is wonderful for creating interest and suspense, while the latter part the film feels somewhat rushed, with the ending reached all too soon. It felt almost like a mini-adventure tacked on the end, except for the way in which it resolved the plot.
The film was brought to life in brilliant stop-motion animation. It was very pretty, although stylistically I felt it was trying a little to hard to mimic Tim Burton's unique style of animation and modelling, which it did not quite achieve. However, it was still beautiful and an interesting and quirky style that brought the surreal plot and characters to life.
As a film and as a story I would very much recommend Coraline to viewers of all ages as an occasionally creepy, ever-so-slightly scary, very entertaining film.
To the 3D aspect of the film, then...
Well, to be honest, if I could have found a showing in 2D I would have seen that instead. The 3D thing, while interesting, strikes me as a bit of a gimmick and doesn't really add anything to the film itself. I'm glad I went to see one film in 3D, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it. Some people have said they found the 3D disorienting. While I did, I did find some of the more gratuitous 3D shots a little strange. There were lots of shots of things done purely to make the most of 3D filming, whereas for the majority of the film the extra depth did very little. I'll be interested to see how the 3D thing goes, and as the technology improves I expect it'll become even more common. However, I was not particularly impressed by it, except from the position of scientific interest.
Review of the 2009 film 'Star Trek'
It was obvious from the start of this film that it wasn't the same Star Trek that I grew up with. If I'm honest, when I saw the trailer I thought that they had made Star Trek into something alien and wrong, and just given the characters the same names.
I wasn't entirely incorrect in this, but I wasn't entirely right either. There was lots of hat-tipping towards the fans of the original series (some would say too much), but in many other ways the characters and people were completely different than their original counter-parts. Perhaps they were striving hard to find a balance, and in some ways they made it, in other ways they did not.
The plot of the film follows Kirk and the other characters from the original Star Trek series as they end their time at the Star Fleet academy and arrive on the Enterprise under Captain Pike, ready to embark on a rescue mission. Kirk finds himself up against many hardships, including the logical, by-the-book Spock as he fights to forge a name for himself.
While the plot spans the boundary between action-adventure and science fiction, it seemed to me that it was veering a little more towards action, with the science fiction played down except in as far as the technology available acted as a useful plot-device. There was some overuse of the 'Character Shield' however, and from quite early on you could begin to see which character was going to survive the story.
As far as the characters go, I felt that some of them captured the essence better than others. Kirk had much of the same fearless attitude as his original counter-part, and he certainly had the same approach to hand-to-hand combat. He had a lot of the cocky youth about him, but he also had the air of the effortless genius, which I think was what they were aiming for with the impassioned Kirk. His relationship with Bones McCoy was beautiful from the start, and there was very good onscreen chemistry between the two. Bones himself did a very good job of straddling the boundary between the old character and the new. He had the same variable temperament, and I loved his portrayal. I believe Bones actually captured something very important and developed on it from the original character. While he had relatively less screen-time than Spock or Kirk, I loved every minute of it.
The start of Spock's shaky relationship with Kirk was an interesting twist on the original version of events. While, as I have said, the film-makers made it very obvious from the start that they were moving away from the original canon, the Spock-Kirk relationship had to be strong, and it was. Starting antagonistically, the two have to come around to the mutual respect and admiration that was present in the series, regardless of canon. Both actors managed this admirably.
With Uhura they tried to improve the original character by making it clear that she had a well-defined job role and necessary skills. However, in many ways, she was still the bridge-ornament that the original character had been, and was the only candidate for the shoe-horned romance, which made her a weaker character in my opinion. In many ways she was even more lacking than Nichelle Nicholls' Uhura, because the original character was a black woman was appearing in a position of command on a television program in the sixties. In those days, any presence was an improvement on what had gone before. Nowadays, I think they could have gone a little further. While she was a very good actor, and portrayed the character she was given very well, I was somewhat disappointed by the conventional Uhura. The shoe-horned romance also annoyed me for several reasons, but I'm attempting not to spoil the details for those who have not yet had a chance to see the film.
Scotty was played by Simon Pegg. He captured the humorous side of the original scotsman very well, but in some ways seemed to miss some of the original's professionalism and scottish darkness; in many ways Pegg's performance turned Scotty into something of a pastiche, and while his comic relief was well-received, I cannot say I was one-hundred percent convinced by it. Chekov and Sulu were both brilliantly acted, but as with Uhura I felt that while the original characters did a lot for multiculturalism, the new characters almost held it back. Chekov's accent is made a source of comedy, although the character is brilliantly intelligent and stands out despite his relatively minor role. At another point, I was very disappointed that in a combat situation Sulu pulled out a sword to use, both because it stereotyped the character, and because in the future I'd expect some other weapon to be far more effective.
Overall, however, Star Trek was a good action movie, and a fair Space Opera. It was not the original Star Trek, and separated itself both in canon and mood, but it was an entertaining film. It had enough to keep the older fans amused and also to encourage a new audience, and as such I will recommend it. I will be interested to see if this is kept up in any future sequels, if future sequels occur.
I wasn't entirely incorrect in this, but I wasn't entirely right either. There was lots of hat-tipping towards the fans of the original series (some would say too much), but in many other ways the characters and people were completely different than their original counter-parts. Perhaps they were striving hard to find a balance, and in some ways they made it, in other ways they did not.
The plot of the film follows Kirk and the other characters from the original Star Trek series as they end their time at the Star Fleet academy and arrive on the Enterprise under Captain Pike, ready to embark on a rescue mission. Kirk finds himself up against many hardships, including the logical, by-the-book Spock as he fights to forge a name for himself.
While the plot spans the boundary between action-adventure and science fiction, it seemed to me that it was veering a little more towards action, with the science fiction played down except in as far as the technology available acted as a useful plot-device. There was some overuse of the 'Character Shield' however, and from quite early on you could begin to see which character was going to survive the story.
As far as the characters go, I felt that some of them captured the essence better than others. Kirk had much of the same fearless attitude as his original counter-part, and he certainly had the same approach to hand-to-hand combat. He had a lot of the cocky youth about him, but he also had the air of the effortless genius, which I think was what they were aiming for with the impassioned Kirk. His relationship with Bones McCoy was beautiful from the start, and there was very good onscreen chemistry between the two. Bones himself did a very good job of straddling the boundary between the old character and the new. He had the same variable temperament, and I loved his portrayal. I believe Bones actually captured something very important and developed on it from the original character. While he had relatively less screen-time than Spock or Kirk, I loved every minute of it.
The start of Spock's shaky relationship with Kirk was an interesting twist on the original version of events. While, as I have said, the film-makers made it very obvious from the start that they were moving away from the original canon, the Spock-Kirk relationship had to be strong, and it was. Starting antagonistically, the two have to come around to the mutual respect and admiration that was present in the series, regardless of canon. Both actors managed this admirably.
With Uhura they tried to improve the original character by making it clear that she had a well-defined job role and necessary skills. However, in many ways, she was still the bridge-ornament that the original character had been, and was the only candidate for the shoe-horned romance, which made her a weaker character in my opinion. In many ways she was even more lacking than Nichelle Nicholls' Uhura, because the original character was a black woman was appearing in a position of command on a television program in the sixties. In those days, any presence was an improvement on what had gone before. Nowadays, I think they could have gone a little further. While she was a very good actor, and portrayed the character she was given very well, I was somewhat disappointed by the conventional Uhura. The shoe-horned romance also annoyed me for several reasons, but I'm attempting not to spoil the details for those who have not yet had a chance to see the film.
Scotty was played by Simon Pegg. He captured the humorous side of the original scotsman very well, but in some ways seemed to miss some of the original's professionalism and scottish darkness; in many ways Pegg's performance turned Scotty into something of a pastiche, and while his comic relief was well-received, I cannot say I was one-hundred percent convinced by it. Chekov and Sulu were both brilliantly acted, but as with Uhura I felt that while the original characters did a lot for multiculturalism, the new characters almost held it back. Chekov's accent is made a source of comedy, although the character is brilliantly intelligent and stands out despite his relatively minor role. At another point, I was very disappointed that in a combat situation Sulu pulled out a sword to use, both because it stereotyped the character, and because in the future I'd expect some other weapon to be far more effective.
Overall, however, Star Trek was a good action movie, and a fair Space Opera. It was not the original Star Trek, and separated itself both in canon and mood, but it was an entertaining film. It had enough to keep the older fans amused and also to encourage a new audience, and as such I will recommend it. I will be interested to see if this is kept up in any future sequels, if future sequels occur.
Review of the 2007 film '300'.
The Persians are threatening the Roman empire, and the oracles refuse to condone war against them. In defiance, King Leonidus leads 300 of his best Spartans to face them in battle, hoping that their skill will prove superior to the enemies much greater numbers.
I have no idea about the voracity of the events of this film, but I suspect that it was only loosely grounded in the facts of the time. Stylistically and cinematically, however, I immensely enjoyed this film, and would recommend it to anyone that likes action films.
The acting is strong throughout, and they make the warlike attitude of the Spartans completely believable. I have never understood how anyone can find war glorious or wonderful, but somehow the actors in this film made me feel it. King Leonidus (Gerard Butler) was a brilliant character, defiant in the face of tradition and proud. However, his confidence and hope in his men was not completely misplaced. He felt his small army was the best hope for Sparta, and he was prepared to risk death alongside them. More importantly, if the screens were to be believed, they were proud and willing to fight alongside him.
Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) was, for me, one of the most interesting characters in this film. She was a proud Spartan woman, keenly intelligent and strong, like her husband. The story following the queen showed a woman that loves him fiercely, but accepts their way of life whole-heartedly. The actress gets across the pain of parting, without showing a moment of weakness. This felt like one of the most realistic portrayals in the film.
In plot, the film is mostly a long sequence of battles and politics. There is a lot of attention paid to action sequences, with plenty of gore to please the more bloodthirsty viewer. The subtleties of the plot are few, and politics mostly come down to explaining why the King is still fighting with only 300 men.
I was not quite so keen on the slightly over-exposed film, but it was at least stylistically fitting. There was not much colour in the film, which I think brought across the Spartan way of life quite well.
If you like large-scale action movies, I would recommend 300. If you enjoyed Troy, you will definitely enjoy 300, because it is a similar vein, but done better (albeit with less famous actors). However, even if you didn't enjoy Troy, I wouldn't rule out 300, because it was a very enjoyable film quite separate from the other. I connect them only as films about a similar era, with a similar attitude to historical fact; that it should never be stuck to so rigidly that it gets in the way of an entertaining film.
I have no idea about the voracity of the events of this film, but I suspect that it was only loosely grounded in the facts of the time. Stylistically and cinematically, however, I immensely enjoyed this film, and would recommend it to anyone that likes action films.
The acting is strong throughout, and they make the warlike attitude of the Spartans completely believable. I have never understood how anyone can find war glorious or wonderful, but somehow the actors in this film made me feel it. King Leonidus (Gerard Butler) was a brilliant character, defiant in the face of tradition and proud. However, his confidence and hope in his men was not completely misplaced. He felt his small army was the best hope for Sparta, and he was prepared to risk death alongside them. More importantly, if the screens were to be believed, they were proud and willing to fight alongside him.
Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) was, for me, one of the most interesting characters in this film. She was a proud Spartan woman, keenly intelligent and strong, like her husband. The story following the queen showed a woman that loves him fiercely, but accepts their way of life whole-heartedly. The actress gets across the pain of parting, without showing a moment of weakness. This felt like one of the most realistic portrayals in the film.
In plot, the film is mostly a long sequence of battles and politics. There is a lot of attention paid to action sequences, with plenty of gore to please the more bloodthirsty viewer. The subtleties of the plot are few, and politics mostly come down to explaining why the King is still fighting with only 300 men.
I was not quite so keen on the slightly over-exposed film, but it was at least stylistically fitting. There was not much colour in the film, which I think brought across the Spartan way of life quite well.
If you like large-scale action movies, I would recommend 300. If you enjoyed Troy, you will definitely enjoy 300, because it is a similar vein, but done better (albeit with less famous actors). However, even if you didn't enjoy Troy, I wouldn't rule out 300, because it was a very enjoyable film quite separate from the other. I connect them only as films about a similar era, with a similar attitude to historical fact; that it should never be stuck to so rigidly that it gets in the way of an entertaining film.
Review of the 1998 film 'What Dreams May Come'
In this film, Robin William's plays Chris Nielson, a devoted husband and father of two. In a tragic accident, both of his children are killed, and a while later, he too follows in another accident. He is transported to heaven, where he is led through the first stages of coming to terms with his own death by a friend from his past. As he is learning to love the afterlife that he is granted, he finds out that his wife, his soul-mate, has committed suicide, and her own despair has condemned her to hell.
There are many beautiful themes in this film, with a lot of very effective imagery. Death is bitter-sweet, with knowledge of the people that are left behind, but also joy as they realise that everything can be exactly as it should be. The darker parts of the film deal with despair and the agonies that humans can put each other through just as well.
Visually, the film is quite stunning. The scenes carry splendour and serenity all in one, as the characters forge their own worlds in which to come to terms with death. In particular, there is a fabulous scene when Chris first comes to heaven. He finds his solace using a rendering of a painting his wife had made for them. At first, the world is literally painted and Williams is paddling through the painting, covering himself with splots of all different colours. It was very well done, and a wonderful image that helped me to really immerse in Chris' journey.
The plot, while relatively simple, is very well paced. The beginning and end have a kind of symmetry that made me smile, and everything in between seems to go through, dealing with events in their own time without rushing or lingering.
The acting was consistent and very good throughout the film. Robin Williams always manages happiness and sadness with equal strength, as Chris tries to be light and happy through dark times and as he struggles to deal with his own losses. Chris' guides in the afterlife play teacher and friend, and are believable in each role. The characters' emotions are portrayed wonderfully by all of the actors, from the happiness in normal life, through to the anguish of loss, and the confusion of death.
My main criticism of this film is that sometimes it seems a little too dark, and a little too monotone. While there is a clear difference in the emotions that are being conveyed at different times, sometimes the overall mood and atmosphere does not seem to change enough to really capture this. There is always a sense of loss throughout the film. Perhaps this is a strength, rather than a weakness. However, it felt that at the times when Chris is trying to be happy and preparing to wait for his wife to join him there should be more of a lift. And when he receives the bad news, and the explanation of his wife's death, there should be more of a dip in the mood.
However, in general this film was warm and thought-provoking, getting across many interesting ideas about death and people and souls. Conceptually, it is a very good film, and I thoroughly enjoyed the way it portrayed its chosen slant, regardless of whether I completely agree with its choices or not. What Dreams May Come is definitely a film for those that like quiet, thought-provoking entertainment, and as such I believe it succeeds in its aims.
There are many beautiful themes in this film, with a lot of very effective imagery. Death is bitter-sweet, with knowledge of the people that are left behind, but also joy as they realise that everything can be exactly as it should be. The darker parts of the film deal with despair and the agonies that humans can put each other through just as well.
Visually, the film is quite stunning. The scenes carry splendour and serenity all in one, as the characters forge their own worlds in which to come to terms with death. In particular, there is a fabulous scene when Chris first comes to heaven. He finds his solace using a rendering of a painting his wife had made for them. At first, the world is literally painted and Williams is paddling through the painting, covering himself with splots of all different colours. It was very well done, and a wonderful image that helped me to really immerse in Chris' journey.
The plot, while relatively simple, is very well paced. The beginning and end have a kind of symmetry that made me smile, and everything in between seems to go through, dealing with events in their own time without rushing or lingering.
The acting was consistent and very good throughout the film. Robin Williams always manages happiness and sadness with equal strength, as Chris tries to be light and happy through dark times and as he struggles to deal with his own losses. Chris' guides in the afterlife play teacher and friend, and are believable in each role. The characters' emotions are portrayed wonderfully by all of the actors, from the happiness in normal life, through to the anguish of loss, and the confusion of death.
My main criticism of this film is that sometimes it seems a little too dark, and a little too monotone. While there is a clear difference in the emotions that are being conveyed at different times, sometimes the overall mood and atmosphere does not seem to change enough to really capture this. There is always a sense of loss throughout the film. Perhaps this is a strength, rather than a weakness. However, it felt that at the times when Chris is trying to be happy and preparing to wait for his wife to join him there should be more of a lift. And when he receives the bad news, and the explanation of his wife's death, there should be more of a dip in the mood.
However, in general this film was warm and thought-provoking, getting across many interesting ideas about death and people and souls. Conceptually, it is a very good film, and I thoroughly enjoyed the way it portrayed its chosen slant, regardless of whether I completely agree with its choices or not. What Dreams May Come is definitely a film for those that like quiet, thought-provoking entertainment, and as such I believe it succeeds in its aims.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
Review of 'Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency' by Douglas Adams
Douglas Adams' outlandish and slightly surreal sense of humour is brought to bear on the detective genre in fantastic style with this book. The story follows Richard MacDuff, Cambridge graduate and software engineer working with Gordon Way at WayForward industries. After an evening dining with a Professor at his old Cambridge college, a series of unusual occurrences lead Richard into the services of Dirk. As a detective, Dirk Gently firmly believes in the fundamental interconnectedness of all things; somehow there is a connection between a sofa stuck in a stairwell, a conjuring trick and a mysterious murder, and he is determined to find out what it is.
The plot of this story is a beautiful example of the kind of forward planning that I have never found myself quite capable of. It opens a series of strings, then brings them all back together seamlessly by the end of the book. There is no rushing, no unnecessary detail, and the yarn is spun extremely well. Anything that is important is mentioned at its first occurrence as commonplace, then brought up later as extraordinary. The story is compelling and never boring, and the suspense is kept up until the last few pages where the reader is let down just slowly enough to avoid the ending feeling rushed.
The characters in this book were all brilliant. They each seemed rich and real, despite everything that was going on. Richard is a good example of a computer scientist obsessed with strange ideas and given enough freedom to explore them. The Professor of Chronology was only a slight fantasy caricature of the Cambridge Don stereotype, and within it he was believable and real. Even Dirk, eccentric as he is, has an air of reality that is carried through the book. As well as starting out good characters, I felt that there was excellent consistency throughout.
In terms of comedy, I don't know if Douglas Adams' humour is for all; it is often off-the-wall and odd, but for me that was one of it's greatest charms. This book wasn't often laugh-out-loud funny, but it was consistently amusing, and I had a smile on my face for much of the reading. At each turn the strange events fit perfectly with what is known of the world we have been introduced to.
Generally, this was a very entertaining read, well written and very well composed. This is another to add to my list of recommendations of a very enjoyable, if slightly odd and irreverent science fiction comedy.
The plot of this story is a beautiful example of the kind of forward planning that I have never found myself quite capable of. It opens a series of strings, then brings them all back together seamlessly by the end of the book. There is no rushing, no unnecessary detail, and the yarn is spun extremely well. Anything that is important is mentioned at its first occurrence as commonplace, then brought up later as extraordinary. The story is compelling and never boring, and the suspense is kept up until the last few pages where the reader is let down just slowly enough to avoid the ending feeling rushed.
The characters in this book were all brilliant. They each seemed rich and real, despite everything that was going on. Richard is a good example of a computer scientist obsessed with strange ideas and given enough freedom to explore them. The Professor of Chronology was only a slight fantasy caricature of the Cambridge Don stereotype, and within it he was believable and real. Even Dirk, eccentric as he is, has an air of reality that is carried through the book. As well as starting out good characters, I felt that there was excellent consistency throughout.
In terms of comedy, I don't know if Douglas Adams' humour is for all; it is often off-the-wall and odd, but for me that was one of it's greatest charms. This book wasn't often laugh-out-loud funny, but it was consistently amusing, and I had a smile on my face for much of the reading. At each turn the strange events fit perfectly with what is known of the world we have been introduced to.
Generally, this was a very entertaining read, well written and very well composed. This is another to add to my list of recommendations of a very enjoyable, if slightly odd and irreverent science fiction comedy.
Friday, 10 April 2009
Review of 'Broken' by Martina Cole
Broken sees the return of Kate Burrows and Patrick Kelly from 'The LadyKiller' in a new story. Young children are being taken from their mothers and left in peril. Most are rescued from harm, but then the body of a small child is discovered... Kate is on the investigation. In the mean time, Patrick gets into trouble with some very dangerous individuals.
Despite my continuing tirade against Martina Cole, I have to say this wasn't that bad. It was an entertaining read with a good plot and some good characters. Perhaps I started the book with such low expectations that anything would have seemed good, but as I read I found myself forgetting how much the style annoyed me for large swathes, and I was actually quite keen to find out what would happen.
As the plot unfolds, Cole hints at things that are to come with excellent pacing, and I was actually genuinely surprised by some of the revelations. Despite Cole's continuing attempts to undermine her characters by spelling out their traits and thought processes, I found myself quite liking Kate Burrows, even though at times I couldn't believe in her. While I couldn't understand or relate to the bad guys or the unfortunates that Cole is writing about, I did for the most part accept them enough to get into the story, which was a huge improvement over some of the things I've read. For the first time in a long while I glimpsed something of what has made Martina Cole quite so popular.
However, while the elation I feel at never having to read another of Martina Cole's novels has left me with a propensity to be magnanimous, I feel I must also mention some of the major criticisms that occasionally reminded me why I disliked the previous books. For one thing, certain characters were undergoing regular personality-transplants which grates on the reader a little at times, especially when it is drawn attention to by some of Martina's stock phrases.
Which brings me to my main criticism of all the books: I don't understand why all her characters talk and think in the same annoying cockney accents. I'm sick of rhyming slang. I'm sick of people loving each other 'in their own way' as opposed to the normal, healthy way. I'm sick of Kate 'feeling the pull' of Patrick: yes, she's hot for him, I get that... please, move on. I'm sick of characters telling me that people are 'a touch'. A touch of what? Plague? All of these would be fine if they appeared a couple of times, but the fact that I noticed them means that they are used far too regularly, and as Martina's characters are so fond of saying: it got on my wick.
I'm harsh, by now... as I bought these books, I had to read them. If I had bought them all consecutively rather than in a batch, I would have read perhaps three or four before growing tired and not bothering. So they were entertaining reads, once upon a time, and I don't believe for a second that the ones I read first were just inherently better. So, as I have said before, you may well enjoy Martina Cole. As an experienced hand, I believe this is one of her best books, and certainly one of the most interesting plots that she has written. It could have done with being half the length, but it was not as mind-numbing as other things I've read.
In conclusion, while I tentatively put 'Broken' forward as a good read in comparison with other Martina Cole novels, I am still very glad I do not have any more such books waiting on my shelf.
Despite my continuing tirade against Martina Cole, I have to say this wasn't that bad. It was an entertaining read with a good plot and some good characters. Perhaps I started the book with such low expectations that anything would have seemed good, but as I read I found myself forgetting how much the style annoyed me for large swathes, and I was actually quite keen to find out what would happen.
As the plot unfolds, Cole hints at things that are to come with excellent pacing, and I was actually genuinely surprised by some of the revelations. Despite Cole's continuing attempts to undermine her characters by spelling out their traits and thought processes, I found myself quite liking Kate Burrows, even though at times I couldn't believe in her. While I couldn't understand or relate to the bad guys or the unfortunates that Cole is writing about, I did for the most part accept them enough to get into the story, which was a huge improvement over some of the things I've read. For the first time in a long while I glimpsed something of what has made Martina Cole quite so popular.
However, while the elation I feel at never having to read another of Martina Cole's novels has left me with a propensity to be magnanimous, I feel I must also mention some of the major criticisms that occasionally reminded me why I disliked the previous books. For one thing, certain characters were undergoing regular personality-transplants which grates on the reader a little at times, especially when it is drawn attention to by some of Martina's stock phrases.
Which brings me to my main criticism of all the books: I don't understand why all her characters talk and think in the same annoying cockney accents. I'm sick of rhyming slang. I'm sick of people loving each other 'in their own way' as opposed to the normal, healthy way. I'm sick of Kate 'feeling the pull' of Patrick: yes, she's hot for him, I get that... please, move on. I'm sick of characters telling me that people are 'a touch'. A touch of what? Plague? All of these would be fine if they appeared a couple of times, but the fact that I noticed them means that they are used far too regularly, and as Martina's characters are so fond of saying: it got on my wick.
I'm harsh, by now... as I bought these books, I had to read them. If I had bought them all consecutively rather than in a batch, I would have read perhaps three or four before growing tired and not bothering. So they were entertaining reads, once upon a time, and I don't believe for a second that the ones I read first were just inherently better. So, as I have said before, you may well enjoy Martina Cole. As an experienced hand, I believe this is one of her best books, and certainly one of the most interesting plots that she has written. It could have done with being half the length, but it was not as mind-numbing as other things I've read.
In conclusion, while I tentatively put 'Broken' forward as a good read in comparison with other Martina Cole novels, I am still very glad I do not have any more such books waiting on my shelf.
Monday, 23 March 2009
Review of “2001: A Space Odyssey” by Arthur C Clarke
If I had realised that the book was based on the film, I probably would have seen the film first. However, now that I have read the book, I will review it. Even if it is now a few years out of date (dating sci-fi is always a dangerous thing to do).
In the far distant past, a tribe of mankind's ancestors are affected by a strange alien crystal monolith, which gives evolution a nudge in a certain direction. In the (for the sake of argument) near future, a black monolith is uncovered on the moon. Two years after this, a ship is sent on a mission to fly-by Jupiter, using it as a sling-shot to grant it the extra momentum required to reach its target; Saturn.
This is a story told in three parts, and two of them, at least, I found interesting. The first section, following Moon-Watcher the man-ape as his tribe is affected by the monolith was interesting enough to keep me reading eagerly to find out what happened. It was perhaps a little slow, containing a lot of unnecessary detail, but it was not bogged down by them, and it got its points across very well. The second was more fast-paced, more intriguing and had a character I found it easier to relate to as he was swept away from Earth to a mission on the moon. The suspense as he made his way to the moon was very well done, and the pacing such that I didn't get bored before anything happened.
The third and final section, though, following David Bowman and life on the ship Discovery, I found quite boring. Dave himself didn't have much character, and the story of his life onboard ship I found dull and unnecessary: I have seen writers give much clearer and better descriptions with much less text and the story would have been better if this had been cut back. Perhaps the dull tone was there to be in keeping with the monotony of life on the ship; but it also has to tell a story, and for a long while nothing happened.
When finally things did start to happen (as I stuck with it knowing that they must) I found the attempts at suspense crude and obvious, the pacing (again) flawed and slow, and the peril did not feel real enough for me to be at all disturbed by it. When the famous scenes with Hal and Dave came about, I was reading dispassionately, and I wasn't particularly interested in the fate of Dave, Hal or any of the other characters. The ending, at least, redeemed the book a little, but even then it was a bit too surreal and strange for me to really get behind it. Perhaps it would have worked better on screen, but from what people have told me, they didn't get that far in the film... I have to wonder if anything actually happened in this movie.
All in all, I was not overwhelmed by 2001 a Space Odyssey. It was bland, quite interesting in parts, but not the science fiction classic that the film's cult following would have led me to believe.
In the far distant past, a tribe of mankind's ancestors are affected by a strange alien crystal monolith, which gives evolution a nudge in a certain direction. In the (for the sake of argument) near future, a black monolith is uncovered on the moon. Two years after this, a ship is sent on a mission to fly-by Jupiter, using it as a sling-shot to grant it the extra momentum required to reach its target; Saturn.
This is a story told in three parts, and two of them, at least, I found interesting. The first section, following Moon-Watcher the man-ape as his tribe is affected by the monolith was interesting enough to keep me reading eagerly to find out what happened. It was perhaps a little slow, containing a lot of unnecessary detail, but it was not bogged down by them, and it got its points across very well. The second was more fast-paced, more intriguing and had a character I found it easier to relate to as he was swept away from Earth to a mission on the moon. The suspense as he made his way to the moon was very well done, and the pacing such that I didn't get bored before anything happened.
The third and final section, though, following David Bowman and life on the ship Discovery, I found quite boring. Dave himself didn't have much character, and the story of his life onboard ship I found dull and unnecessary: I have seen writers give much clearer and better descriptions with much less text and the story would have been better if this had been cut back. Perhaps the dull tone was there to be in keeping with the monotony of life on the ship; but it also has to tell a story, and for a long while nothing happened.
When finally things did start to happen (as I stuck with it knowing that they must) I found the attempts at suspense crude and obvious, the pacing (again) flawed and slow, and the peril did not feel real enough for me to be at all disturbed by it. When the famous scenes with Hal and Dave came about, I was reading dispassionately, and I wasn't particularly interested in the fate of Dave, Hal or any of the other characters. The ending, at least, redeemed the book a little, but even then it was a bit too surreal and strange for me to really get behind it. Perhaps it would have worked better on screen, but from what people have told me, they didn't get that far in the film... I have to wonder if anything actually happened in this movie.
All in all, I was not overwhelmed by 2001 a Space Odyssey. It was bland, quite interesting in parts, but not the science fiction classic that the film's cult following would have led me to believe.
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Review of the 2009 film 'Watchmen'
My first cinema trip of the year (it's been a slow starter, to be sure) was to see Watchmen, yet another superhero flick. I have to say that after watching it, it became immediately obvious where some of the inspiration for the Pixar superhero spoof The Incredibles (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705) came from. I should also say that I have never read the graphic novel, so my opinions might be different to those of someone that had.
The 'masks' started as a way of fighting back against masked gangs, but they became a superhero group. None of them, bar one, had any actual super powers; aside from intense physical training, fight-skill and gadgetry, these are supposed to be normal people taking on the masks. But they fought crime, delivered their own brand of vigilante justice, and the masked heroes became the expected day-savers. Later, though, as the second generation of masks came to fame, the public grew angry at the vigilantes, and eventually the masks were outlawed and the heroes went into retirement. The plot begins when one of the first generation of masks is murdered, and Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), the only mask who never revealed his true identity to the other masks, investigates in the belief that someone is seeking out masks. All this on the background of the cold war, with the doomsday clock sweeping ever closer to midnight...
This was an incredibly well-produced and well-directed film. Everything in it fitted together supremely well, and the filming was exemplary. The special effects were brilliantly done, and while some of it documented unrealistic events, they didn't overshadow the importance of plot or characters. Equally, the costumes were all wonderful, and very much of the time; the 'classic' costumes belonging to the first-generation masks looked like they were made in the 50s, while the later costumes were better produced and looked more like they belonged in their own timezone. There was a lot of comic-book violence, with a lot of gory scenes in various places around the movie... all looked extremely realistic, terrifying and sickening. All in all, not a film for children.
The film also did a very good of mixing the fantastical elements with the realistic. Aside from Doctor Manhatten (Billy Crudup), a superman explained by a freak accident in a physics laboratory, there is very little that could not fit into the world as we know it. Night Owl's (Patrick Wilson) flyer (Archie) and glasses, and Rorschach's mask all stretch the limits of what was possible then, and indeed now, but there was a surprising amount of realism about it all.
What I found to be the best thing in this film, though, were the characters; all of the actors seemed comfortable in the roles, and while they were given limited space for back story, each of them appeared to have a real past, even if it was never explored. While Rorschach, Silk Spectre and Doctor Manhatten were given a reasonable amount of flashbacks, telling of their relevant past, the other characters all seemed to have just as much depth, complicated emotions, human reactions and thought processes... they were all very real, down to the slightly self-conscious, humorous slant they put on their being masked superheroes.
While I could accept Doctor Manhatten's super-powers as they were given a reason, albeit an implausible one, I was very conscious that the other characters were not supposed to have any innate abilities. Their strength and speed was supposedly the result of training and confidence... however, at various times throughout the movie I found the superheroes tipping over into super-human. I can forgive a lot in the name of plot, and in the end I forgave this as well, but I feel that the makers of this film should have chosen either to have outright super-powers, or kept the abilities of these heroes to within the normal tolerances of very fit and well-trained humans.
All I can say about the ending is that I felt it let the film down a bit. There was some very pretty filming sequences, but of all the film the conflict the characters were supposedly going through seemed to have the least effect; when it should have had most. Only Rorschach's outbursts had the same punch.
Overall, though, Watchmen was a brilliant film and I would heartily recommend it as both an excellent example of a superhero drama, and as an excellent example of the transition from graphic novel to screen.
The 'masks' started as a way of fighting back against masked gangs, but they became a superhero group. None of them, bar one, had any actual super powers; aside from intense physical training, fight-skill and gadgetry, these are supposed to be normal people taking on the masks. But they fought crime, delivered their own brand of vigilante justice, and the masked heroes became the expected day-savers. Later, though, as the second generation of masks came to fame, the public grew angry at the vigilantes, and eventually the masks were outlawed and the heroes went into retirement. The plot begins when one of the first generation of masks is murdered, and Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), the only mask who never revealed his true identity to the other masks, investigates in the belief that someone is seeking out masks. All this on the background of the cold war, with the doomsday clock sweeping ever closer to midnight...
This was an incredibly well-produced and well-directed film. Everything in it fitted together supremely well, and the filming was exemplary. The special effects were brilliantly done, and while some of it documented unrealistic events, they didn't overshadow the importance of plot or characters. Equally, the costumes were all wonderful, and very much of the time; the 'classic' costumes belonging to the first-generation masks looked like they were made in the 50s, while the later costumes were better produced and looked more like they belonged in their own timezone. There was a lot of comic-book violence, with a lot of gory scenes in various places around the movie... all looked extremely realistic, terrifying and sickening. All in all, not a film for children.
The film also did a very good of mixing the fantastical elements with the realistic. Aside from Doctor Manhatten (Billy Crudup), a superman explained by a freak accident in a physics laboratory, there is very little that could not fit into the world as we know it. Night Owl's (Patrick Wilson) flyer (Archie) and glasses, and Rorschach's mask all stretch the limits of what was possible then, and indeed now, but there was a surprising amount of realism about it all.
What I found to be the best thing in this film, though, were the characters; all of the actors seemed comfortable in the roles, and while they were given limited space for back story, each of them appeared to have a real past, even if it was never explored. While Rorschach, Silk Spectre and Doctor Manhatten were given a reasonable amount of flashbacks, telling of their relevant past, the other characters all seemed to have just as much depth, complicated emotions, human reactions and thought processes... they were all very real, down to the slightly self-conscious, humorous slant they put on their being masked superheroes.
While I could accept Doctor Manhatten's super-powers as they were given a reason, albeit an implausible one, I was very conscious that the other characters were not supposed to have any innate abilities. Their strength and speed was supposedly the result of training and confidence... however, at various times throughout the movie I found the superheroes tipping over into super-human. I can forgive a lot in the name of plot, and in the end I forgave this as well, but I feel that the makers of this film should have chosen either to have outright super-powers, or kept the abilities of these heroes to within the normal tolerances of very fit and well-trained humans.
All I can say about the ending is that I felt it let the film down a bit. There was some very pretty filming sequences, but of all the film the conflict the characters were supposedly going through seemed to have the least effect; when it should have had most. Only Rorschach's outbursts had the same punch.
Overall, though, Watchmen was a brilliant film and I would heartily recommend it as both an excellent example of a superhero drama, and as an excellent example of the transition from graphic novel to screen.
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Review of 'Chocky' by John Wyndham
I am a few years older than the target demographic for Chocky, but a mark of a good children's book is accessibility to adults. My mum had spoken highly of it, as had one of my best friends, so I sat down to read it. As a children's book, it is an incredibly easy read... the narrative flow is simple and comprehensible, and the book is quite short. However, it was very accessible to me as a sometimes-adult reader, and it was another book that made up for my struggling through the Martina Cole at the beginning of the year.
When Matthew starts talking to himself and asking unusual questions, his parents think it is a phase he is going through. When he reveals the existence of Chocky, at first they think that it is an imaginary friend... an unusual phase for an eleven year old boy, but still something reasonable, explainable and above all fictional. Eventually, however, they have to face the possibility that Chocky is something else entirely, as Matthew demonstrates skills and abilities that no child of his age could easily pick up, and that no one has taught him.
The science fiction in this story is very subtle, and discovered only gradually over the course of the story. This made incredibly easy to immerse in the world, and meant that all the elements of strangeness, while quiet, stood out quite clearly as the narrative progressed. The main character, Matthew's father has a very down-to-earth attitude, which makes it very easy to follow his trains of thought and it is very easy to relate to his point of view. It is also very easy to relate to the character of Matthew; a sensitive, intelligent and above-all quite normal boy... with Matthew, John Wyndham has bypassed many of the usual pitfalls of adults writing about children, and Matthew comes across as a very real representation of an eleven year old boy.
As usual, I find it a struggle to come up with a balanced review; if I have enjoyed a book, its bad points fall behind... if I did not enjoy it, its good points usually escape me. The problems I might be able to pick out of this book all amount to the fact that it was written a few years ago, and times have changed. I find it quite easy to step my thinking back in time, but others might not. A feminist review might find the mother character a little irrational and annoying (in a sixties sit-com way), but from looking at my own mother (who would be about the same age at the time the book was written), I can see how the attitudes and thoughts of the time could have bred a woman (and family) that acted very much this way. A physicist or theoretical mathematician might question the logistics of the science fiction elements, but it's a children's books and the characters and story take precedence, so this doesn't really bother me.
In short, Chocky is a very good children's science fiction, and adults will also find it an easy and entertaining read. If you never enjoy anything that you construe to be 'dated' then you might want to give it a miss, but otherwise, I would recommend this to nearly anyone, even if they usually don't enjoy science fiction.
When Matthew starts talking to himself and asking unusual questions, his parents think it is a phase he is going through. When he reveals the existence of Chocky, at first they think that it is an imaginary friend... an unusual phase for an eleven year old boy, but still something reasonable, explainable and above all fictional. Eventually, however, they have to face the possibility that Chocky is something else entirely, as Matthew demonstrates skills and abilities that no child of his age could easily pick up, and that no one has taught him.
The science fiction in this story is very subtle, and discovered only gradually over the course of the story. This made incredibly easy to immerse in the world, and meant that all the elements of strangeness, while quiet, stood out quite clearly as the narrative progressed. The main character, Matthew's father has a very down-to-earth attitude, which makes it very easy to follow his trains of thought and it is very easy to relate to his point of view. It is also very easy to relate to the character of Matthew; a sensitive, intelligent and above-all quite normal boy... with Matthew, John Wyndham has bypassed many of the usual pitfalls of adults writing about children, and Matthew comes across as a very real representation of an eleven year old boy.
As usual, I find it a struggle to come up with a balanced review; if I have enjoyed a book, its bad points fall behind... if I did not enjoy it, its good points usually escape me. The problems I might be able to pick out of this book all amount to the fact that it was written a few years ago, and times have changed. I find it quite easy to step my thinking back in time, but others might not. A feminist review might find the mother character a little irrational and annoying (in a sixties sit-com way), but from looking at my own mother (who would be about the same age at the time the book was written), I can see how the attitudes and thoughts of the time could have bred a woman (and family) that acted very much this way. A physicist or theoretical mathematician might question the logistics of the science fiction elements, but it's a children's books and the characters and story take precedence, so this doesn't really bother me.
In short, Chocky is a very good children's science fiction, and adults will also find it an easy and entertaining read. If you never enjoy anything that you construe to be 'dated' then you might want to give it a miss, but otherwise, I would recommend this to nearly anyone, even if they usually don't enjoy science fiction.
Review of 'Axiomatic' by Greg Egan
Axiomatic is a book of short stories, so reviewing it becomes very difficult; do I sit down and review each story in turn, pick out a few favoured or disfavoured stories or do I just review the book as a collection? I choose to take a path somewhere between the latter two options.
Axiomatic is a very fine collection. Greg Egan is obviously very skilled in the art of the short story. Before I read Diaspora, I read the first short story in this book, and I really enjoyed it. It instantly hooked, explained events and the world over the course of the story and finished neatly in the course of the few pages allotted. This proved to be characteristic; with each story, Egan introduces his cast, world-builds and gives a plot to follow, each ending satisfactorily in a few thousand words.
While the title of the book might give the impression of a series of stories similarly structured and paced, the actual stories follow varying patterns, all of them interesting. The characters vary considerably, but all of them impress a strong sense of self within a page of reading them, and appear entirely self-consistent within their world. The worlds vary, and the topics vary. Egan explores many fields of science. He has a tendency towards hard SF, but he deals with it as well as he did in Disapora, and does not waste time explaining scientific detail over page-long expositions when the medium does not allow it. Character-driven hard SF takes complicated ideas back into the realm of the possible, and Egan did stunningly well in this for both Diaspora, and in this collection.
His characters vary from normal people in extraordinary situations, normal people in situations that are normal for their time (but nearly inconceivable in ours) to extraordinary people dealing with normal and extraordinary events. They are good, bad and neutral, they all feel very real and they all fit perfectly within their setting.
Obviously some of the stories are better than others, but people might disagree over which were the best. There is some continuity of narrative style, but that probably just proves that Egan wrote all of them in a smallish time-span, and is neither a negative nor positive point. Occasionally the stories deal with controversial viewpoints, or things that just didn't sit quite well with my own experience and upbringing. Again, though, I cannot fault the collection for this because I was made to think about my own world-view and experience, and that in itself is a valuable thing, and probably marks a good writer (even if I did not always agree with the conclusions).
Now to short-review a few of my favourites.
The Infinite Assassin follows a character walking into a strange disturbance of parallel worlds. The story starts in confusion, and gradually everything is explained until the plot rises to a brilliant climax and finished equally brilliantly. It was a thoroughly excellent and impelling read.
Eugene deals with a revolution in made-to-order babies and an attempt by one scientist to create the most intelligent child ever born. While the story itself is fairly slow-paced and descriptive, giving a lot of back-story into the characters and discussing their moral standpoints, the ending is intriguing, almost funny in its insight, but also very thought-provoking.
The Safe-Deposit Box deals with an altogether stranger topic; a man exists who wakes up each morning in a new host body, and attempts to carve out a life and his own personality while spending each day with different people, unable to have anything that is truly his own. It is a fascinating look at the adaptability of consciousness, and a very interesting world-view.
Into Darkness introduces a future world where a wormhole has become unstuck, and appears almost at random on the surface of the Earth. The wormhole goes one-way through time; from past to a few minutes in the future, and within the limits of the wormhole's area of effect, you can only travel one way. It becomes very easy to become trapped against a wall, and crushed by the inexorable pressure to move forward. The Runners go in to try and help who they can; to save children and other vulnerable people that are moving through the wormhole. The idea itself is fascinating, and the conclusion of the story almost frightening. This story really shows off Greg Egan's talent for making hard SF accessible to the world.
The stories I didn't enjoy as much dealt more with the concept of consciousness; implants to affect viewpoint, jewels that completely mimic the brain until a switch is made so that the jewel takes over. I did very much enjoy these stories, and they were definitely very skilfully told, but my own preferences tended towards the physical sciences, rather than the stories that discussed the 'magic' of consciousness. This is entirely just personal preference, though, so I would encourage other readers to give each story a chance. They are all brilliant in their way.
Being a book of short stories, Axiomatic was incredibly easy to read. Each little episode was terribly difficult to put down, and I found myself hungry for more after each story. If you want some excellent SF short stories to read, you could do much worse than Axiomatic.
Axiomatic is a very fine collection. Greg Egan is obviously very skilled in the art of the short story. Before I read Diaspora, I read the first short story in this book, and I really enjoyed it. It instantly hooked, explained events and the world over the course of the story and finished neatly in the course of the few pages allotted. This proved to be characteristic; with each story, Egan introduces his cast, world-builds and gives a plot to follow, each ending satisfactorily in a few thousand words.
While the title of the book might give the impression of a series of stories similarly structured and paced, the actual stories follow varying patterns, all of them interesting. The characters vary considerably, but all of them impress a strong sense of self within a page of reading them, and appear entirely self-consistent within their world. The worlds vary, and the topics vary. Egan explores many fields of science. He has a tendency towards hard SF, but he deals with it as well as he did in Disapora, and does not waste time explaining scientific detail over page-long expositions when the medium does not allow it. Character-driven hard SF takes complicated ideas back into the realm of the possible, and Egan did stunningly well in this for both Diaspora, and in this collection.
His characters vary from normal people in extraordinary situations, normal people in situations that are normal for their time (but nearly inconceivable in ours) to extraordinary people dealing with normal and extraordinary events. They are good, bad and neutral, they all feel very real and they all fit perfectly within their setting.
Obviously some of the stories are better than others, but people might disagree over which were the best. There is some continuity of narrative style, but that probably just proves that Egan wrote all of them in a smallish time-span, and is neither a negative nor positive point. Occasionally the stories deal with controversial viewpoints, or things that just didn't sit quite well with my own experience and upbringing. Again, though, I cannot fault the collection for this because I was made to think about my own world-view and experience, and that in itself is a valuable thing, and probably marks a good writer (even if I did not always agree with the conclusions).
Now to short-review a few of my favourites.
The Infinite Assassin follows a character walking into a strange disturbance of parallel worlds. The story starts in confusion, and gradually everything is explained until the plot rises to a brilliant climax and finished equally brilliantly. It was a thoroughly excellent and impelling read.
Eugene deals with a revolution in made-to-order babies and an attempt by one scientist to create the most intelligent child ever born. While the story itself is fairly slow-paced and descriptive, giving a lot of back-story into the characters and discussing their moral standpoints, the ending is intriguing, almost funny in its insight, but also very thought-provoking.
The Safe-Deposit Box deals with an altogether stranger topic; a man exists who wakes up each morning in a new host body, and attempts to carve out a life and his own personality while spending each day with different people, unable to have anything that is truly his own. It is a fascinating look at the adaptability of consciousness, and a very interesting world-view.
Into Darkness introduces a future world where a wormhole has become unstuck, and appears almost at random on the surface of the Earth. The wormhole goes one-way through time; from past to a few minutes in the future, and within the limits of the wormhole's area of effect, you can only travel one way. It becomes very easy to become trapped against a wall, and crushed by the inexorable pressure to move forward. The Runners go in to try and help who they can; to save children and other vulnerable people that are moving through the wormhole. The idea itself is fascinating, and the conclusion of the story almost frightening. This story really shows off Greg Egan's talent for making hard SF accessible to the world.
The stories I didn't enjoy as much dealt more with the concept of consciousness; implants to affect viewpoint, jewels that completely mimic the brain until a switch is made so that the jewel takes over. I did very much enjoy these stories, and they were definitely very skilfully told, but my own preferences tended towards the physical sciences, rather than the stories that discussed the 'magic' of consciousness. This is entirely just personal preference, though, so I would encourage other readers to give each story a chance. They are all brilliant in their way.
Being a book of short stories, Axiomatic was incredibly easy to read. Each little episode was terribly difficult to put down, and I found myself hungry for more after each story. If you want some excellent SF short stories to read, you could do much worse than Axiomatic.
Review of The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov
After a prolonged absence in which I was mostly writing for my novel and getting caught up with the 'real world stuff', I return to my review blog to tell you all about what I've been reading recently. Starting with this...
The Foundation Trilogy was always one of those pieces of classic science fiction I was told I had to read from an early age. I never quite got around to it until about two months ago, when I borrowed the trilogy from my mum and started devouring them page by page. They deserve every bit of praise they ever receive, even if the first book starts quite slowly.
A very long time into the future, Hari Seldon develops the field of psychohistory; an interesting social science, which uses statistics and implied complex mathematics to predict, with startling accuracy, trends in culture and probable future courses. Asimov explains this science as well as is possible without it actually existing; he always explains that it wouldn't be possible in a population of millions, or even billions... but with the galactic population numbering in the multi-trillions, it becomes possible to predict mob mentalities. And thus, Hari Seldon predicts the fall of the Empire, and thirty thousand years of chaos and barbarism before the rise of the next. In an effort to reduce the length of this barbaric period, Seldon sets up two foundations... plotting out the course of their future with a series of crises they must overcome on their inexorable rise to the beginning of the next Empire. The novels follow the story of the first Foundation, set up on a small planet at the edge of the galaxy called Terminus.
The first book, as I have said starts slowly. Perhaps this is not quite fair; the very beginning is as instantly intriguing and interesting as one could expect from any novel, and it draws the reader into the world of psychohistory. However, the first book is a slow progression, waiting for the Foundation to overcome the inevitable crises with equal inevitability; it's just a question of seeing what happens and how it is resolved. This is not a weakness, because the results are always interesting, but it does lend a certain security for the reader, which is not perhaps as powerful as a plot where events are assumed to be random and unpredictable.
Another minor issue I had with the first book was that it was very episodic. Each section follows a different character and just as you are becoming accustomed to one character, another takes his place as the lead role, and the story moves on. However, this is probably a limitation of telling a story that spans 300 years, and so I can forgive it.
The second book follows two crisis stages. In the first, a strong general has appeared in the Empire, under the last strong Emperor, set on conquest of the Foundation. In the second crisis, it begins to look as though Seldon was not as omniscient as he appeared through the first book and a half. Psychohistory is a tool for predicting the behaviour of civilisations, moves and movements, and motives of entire cultures; when it comes to individuals, the tool is much less effective. And so, when a rather singular and completely unpredictable individual known only as 'The Mule' appears, the Seldon plan is set off course by some degrees, and it becomes impossible to tell what will happen next. Suddenly, the actions of individuals are important again.
This turn in the book means that the story keeps on getting more and more interesting. From the relatively small victories and stories in the first book, the first tale in the second book is considerably more epic, following a wider cast of characters. In the second tale, the characters are suddenly more than just tools of the wider plot and the whole story becomes easier to relate to, and a whole lot more interesting. The twists and turns in the plot are the work of a real master story-teller, and at the end of the book I was left in awe of the way everything was set up so quietly and perfectly.
The third book continues in form, with intriguing and intense plot lines and increasing excitement. With the longer plots, there is more time to grow to like the cast for each of the sections, and they remain prominent for longer than in the first novel.
The conclusion of the last book completes the trilogy very nicely, although I can see why many fans, and Asimov himself, considered it unfinished. In some ways, I would have been happy had he stopped there, but the book does not complete the thousand year's interregnum, so the reader is left with a sense of the yawning time gap ahead.
Plot and storyline is definitely the huge strength of these books. However, the individual characters that are involved are also very strong, and each and every one of them was incredibly likeable – or dislikeable- in their own way. While some of the cultural trends and attitudes may seem very dated now, for its time it also had some very progressive elements. As long as the reader is prepared to accept that the writer belonged to a slightly different time (as one does when reading Shakespeare, or Jane Austen, or Dickens) then none of these things should interfere with the enjoyment of the rich and well-woven world that Asimov has created for this story.
The Foundation Trilogy rightfully takes its place among the science fiction classics, and I look forward to reading more Asimov in the future. I recommend this to any science fiction fan who has not yet read it.
The Foundation Trilogy was always one of those pieces of classic science fiction I was told I had to read from an early age. I never quite got around to it until about two months ago, when I borrowed the trilogy from my mum and started devouring them page by page. They deserve every bit of praise they ever receive, even if the first book starts quite slowly.
A very long time into the future, Hari Seldon develops the field of psychohistory; an interesting social science, which uses statistics and implied complex mathematics to predict, with startling accuracy, trends in culture and probable future courses. Asimov explains this science as well as is possible without it actually existing; he always explains that it wouldn't be possible in a population of millions, or even billions... but with the galactic population numbering in the multi-trillions, it becomes possible to predict mob mentalities. And thus, Hari Seldon predicts the fall of the Empire, and thirty thousand years of chaos and barbarism before the rise of the next. In an effort to reduce the length of this barbaric period, Seldon sets up two foundations... plotting out the course of their future with a series of crises they must overcome on their inexorable rise to the beginning of the next Empire. The novels follow the story of the first Foundation, set up on a small planet at the edge of the galaxy called Terminus.
The first book, as I have said starts slowly. Perhaps this is not quite fair; the very beginning is as instantly intriguing and interesting as one could expect from any novel, and it draws the reader into the world of psychohistory. However, the first book is a slow progression, waiting for the Foundation to overcome the inevitable crises with equal inevitability; it's just a question of seeing what happens and how it is resolved. This is not a weakness, because the results are always interesting, but it does lend a certain security for the reader, which is not perhaps as powerful as a plot where events are assumed to be random and unpredictable.
Another minor issue I had with the first book was that it was very episodic. Each section follows a different character and just as you are becoming accustomed to one character, another takes his place as the lead role, and the story moves on. However, this is probably a limitation of telling a story that spans 300 years, and so I can forgive it.
The second book follows two crisis stages. In the first, a strong general has appeared in the Empire, under the last strong Emperor, set on conquest of the Foundation. In the second crisis, it begins to look as though Seldon was not as omniscient as he appeared through the first book and a half. Psychohistory is a tool for predicting the behaviour of civilisations, moves and movements, and motives of entire cultures; when it comes to individuals, the tool is much less effective. And so, when a rather singular and completely unpredictable individual known only as 'The Mule' appears, the Seldon plan is set off course by some degrees, and it becomes impossible to tell what will happen next. Suddenly, the actions of individuals are important again.
This turn in the book means that the story keeps on getting more and more interesting. From the relatively small victories and stories in the first book, the first tale in the second book is considerably more epic, following a wider cast of characters. In the second tale, the characters are suddenly more than just tools of the wider plot and the whole story becomes easier to relate to, and a whole lot more interesting. The twists and turns in the plot are the work of a real master story-teller, and at the end of the book I was left in awe of the way everything was set up so quietly and perfectly.
The third book continues in form, with intriguing and intense plot lines and increasing excitement. With the longer plots, there is more time to grow to like the cast for each of the sections, and they remain prominent for longer than in the first novel.
The conclusion of the last book completes the trilogy very nicely, although I can see why many fans, and Asimov himself, considered it unfinished. In some ways, I would have been happy had he stopped there, but the book does not complete the thousand year's interregnum, so the reader is left with a sense of the yawning time gap ahead.
Plot and storyline is definitely the huge strength of these books. However, the individual characters that are involved are also very strong, and each and every one of them was incredibly likeable – or dislikeable- in their own way. While some of the cultural trends and attitudes may seem very dated now, for its time it also had some very progressive elements. As long as the reader is prepared to accept that the writer belonged to a slightly different time (as one does when reading Shakespeare, or Jane Austen, or Dickens) then none of these things should interfere with the enjoyment of the rich and well-woven world that Asimov has created for this story.
The Foundation Trilogy rightfully takes its place among the science fiction classics, and I look forward to reading more Asimov in the future. I recommend this to any science fiction fan who has not yet read it.
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Review of 'The LadyKiller' by Martina Cole
Since I started writing reviews, Martina Cole keeps coming back into the frame, because of the collection I bought all those years ago. I cannot in good faith give them away until I have read each book. Now I come to the penultimate book in the original set that I bought, and I find myself in the position again of reviewing a book I didn't enjoy, and trying to review it as objectively as possible. So here goes.
George Markham is a seriously disturbed man that starts out looking at BDSM pornography and ends up roaming the streets raping and murdering a string of young women. Kate Burrows is the detective inspector trying to find him. Patrick Kelly is a local hard-man, and father of one of the victims of Markham's killing spree. Patrick and Kate meet in the course of the case and start to fall in love over the background of tragedy, but love between a borderline villain and a senior police officer would be paved with troubles, even if there wasn't a vicious murderer on the loose.
The pacing of this novel is much better than of any other Martina Cole novel I have read. Rather than a biographical life story of a character embroiled in crime, this is a police investigation drama, where the reader has the advantage of knowing from the start who did it. The tension of the investigation mounts steadily over the course of the novel, as the police resort to more and more drastic methods of finding their man.
George Markham should be an interesting character, but aside from feeling a distaste for his views about women, I couldn't find him at all hateful or sympathetic. He wasn't real enough; he was another bland character brought to the pages. I couldn't believe in him, even as a psychopath. It was very disappointing. Cole tries to make him sympathetic by telling some of backstory and childhood, with his overbearing, controlling mother, but I couldn't believe in the mother either, so I didn't feel sorry for him... I didn't feel very much at all.
Psychologically, Cole's serial killer was slightly off. Markham starts out by watching snuff films, and acting as a peeping tom. Peeping toms do sometimes turn into rapists, but they usually do so by breaking into houses. Markham's first victim is killed in the woods near her house. Admittedly not many people will know the psychology of serial killers when reading these books, but often the devil is in the detail and here I was let down.
Detective Inspector Kate Burrows is a better character to me; she is a single mother living with her daughter and mother, trying to make ends meet. She loves her job, and has strict moral values. Theoretically she should be quite likeable in her actions as well; she has to deal with some sexism in the workplace, and keep a professional attitude when her home life is falling apart. However, again, Cole's writing style puts me off all of her characters. Cole states outright the character traits she thinks her characters have, without letting the reader come to any of their own conclusions.
Kate's relationship with Patrick Kelly is almost believable, but they both have fiery tempers, and start monologuing at each other at the drop of a hat. The constant repetition of arguments and heart-to-hearts and soul-seeking on the part of both of these characters gets very irritating, and with every rehash of a sentence to the effect of “no matter what he did, Kate still wanted him,” makes me lose respect for the character and the author in the same moment.
All or most of my gripes with Martina Cole come to her writing style. She switches point-of-view repeatedly in the middle of scenes, and she tells detailed stories about characters that will only be in the book for one scene in an attempt to make you feel sorry for them when their ends befall them. Why not let you feel sympathy through the family that have been left behind? Cole leaves very little about her characters to the imagination, but an awful lot about the places and rooms.
As before, I am finding a lot to criticise about this book, and little to compliment. However, after reading eight Martina Cole novels, I find myself still unable to enjoy them. If you can, then you will probably enjoy 'The LadyKiller' but I did not. I'm afraid I have failed in objectivity.
George Markham is a seriously disturbed man that starts out looking at BDSM pornography and ends up roaming the streets raping and murdering a string of young women. Kate Burrows is the detective inspector trying to find him. Patrick Kelly is a local hard-man, and father of one of the victims of Markham's killing spree. Patrick and Kate meet in the course of the case and start to fall in love over the background of tragedy, but love between a borderline villain and a senior police officer would be paved with troubles, even if there wasn't a vicious murderer on the loose.
The pacing of this novel is much better than of any other Martina Cole novel I have read. Rather than a biographical life story of a character embroiled in crime, this is a police investigation drama, where the reader has the advantage of knowing from the start who did it. The tension of the investigation mounts steadily over the course of the novel, as the police resort to more and more drastic methods of finding their man.
George Markham should be an interesting character, but aside from feeling a distaste for his views about women, I couldn't find him at all hateful or sympathetic. He wasn't real enough; he was another bland character brought to the pages. I couldn't believe in him, even as a psychopath. It was very disappointing. Cole tries to make him sympathetic by telling some of backstory and childhood, with his overbearing, controlling mother, but I couldn't believe in the mother either, so I didn't feel sorry for him... I didn't feel very much at all.
Psychologically, Cole's serial killer was slightly off. Markham starts out by watching snuff films, and acting as a peeping tom. Peeping toms do sometimes turn into rapists, but they usually do so by breaking into houses. Markham's first victim is killed in the woods near her house. Admittedly not many people will know the psychology of serial killers when reading these books, but often the devil is in the detail and here I was let down.
Detective Inspector Kate Burrows is a better character to me; she is a single mother living with her daughter and mother, trying to make ends meet. She loves her job, and has strict moral values. Theoretically she should be quite likeable in her actions as well; she has to deal with some sexism in the workplace, and keep a professional attitude when her home life is falling apart. However, again, Cole's writing style puts me off all of her characters. Cole states outright the character traits she thinks her characters have, without letting the reader come to any of their own conclusions.
Kate's relationship with Patrick Kelly is almost believable, but they both have fiery tempers, and start monologuing at each other at the drop of a hat. The constant repetition of arguments and heart-to-hearts and soul-seeking on the part of both of these characters gets very irritating, and with every rehash of a sentence to the effect of “no matter what he did, Kate still wanted him,” makes me lose respect for the character and the author in the same moment.
All or most of my gripes with Martina Cole come to her writing style. She switches point-of-view repeatedly in the middle of scenes, and she tells detailed stories about characters that will only be in the book for one scene in an attempt to make you feel sorry for them when their ends befall them. Why not let you feel sympathy through the family that have been left behind? Cole leaves very little about her characters to the imagination, but an awful lot about the places and rooms.
As before, I am finding a lot to criticise about this book, and little to compliment. However, after reading eight Martina Cole novels, I find myself still unable to enjoy them. If you can, then you will probably enjoy 'The LadyKiller' but I did not. I'm afraid I have failed in objectivity.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Review of the 2004 film 'The Butterfly Effect'
The butterfly effect, also known as chaos theory, states that a small event (such as a butterfly flapping its wings) has knock on effects that can have very large-scale consequences. As a child, Evan has blackouts, with large hunks of time he cannot remember. A psychologist suggests that he should keep a journal, in order to jog his memory about the events. Later in his life, he re-reads the journals and finds that he can remember the lost sections of his memory. Soon afterwards he finds that he can change what happens.
Conceptually, this film is very interesting. By changing very small events from his past, Evan has huge effects on his 'present'. His future keeps changing, he completely alters the outlook for himself and his closest friends. Sometimes things work out better in some ways, but usually they end up worse in others. By trying to 'fix' one aspect of his present, he 'breaks' another.
In execution, this isn't a bad film; it is quite well acted, especially by the younger actors. I have often said that American children lose their ability to act once they hit puberty, and the adult (or rather late teenage) actors seem to prove this somewhat, although the leading lady, Kayleigh (Amy Smart) does a very good job of portraying her various different possible futures throughout the course of the film. The younger self of Evan and Tommy were definitely better than than their adult counterparts, however. The special effects used are understated but very effective, when they are used; more fancy cinematography than computer generated effects, but there are some clever moments that meant that the style of filming carried the plot well.
The reasons I didn't like this film were more to do with the bleakness of the whole thing. There are odd moments of romance and joy, but they are all quickly overshadowed by depression and destruction. Evan begins to realise that there is no way to make all of his friends have a happy ending, from the start that he has. It isn't one of those sad films that you enjoy because of the deep emotion, and there isn't enough action to make this into one of the bleak but dramatic ripping yarns. The film was impossible to 'enjoy', because it was so dark, and it wasn't quite good enough to forgive this, and right through the end it was incredibly bleak.
Perhaps the reason that I didn't enjoy this film was because of the time I watched it (late night on boxing day)... but I didn't particularly like it, and I didn't find it as gripping or interesting as the concept of the plot would have suggested. It was a very clever film, and thus it's not a film I would encourage people to universally dismiss. It wasn't a bad film, but as a subjective viewer, I didn't enjoy it. If you tend not to like dark, 'think' films, then I would recommend you find something less depressing to spend your time on.
Conceptually, this film is very interesting. By changing very small events from his past, Evan has huge effects on his 'present'. His future keeps changing, he completely alters the outlook for himself and his closest friends. Sometimes things work out better in some ways, but usually they end up worse in others. By trying to 'fix' one aspect of his present, he 'breaks' another.
In execution, this isn't a bad film; it is quite well acted, especially by the younger actors. I have often said that American children lose their ability to act once they hit puberty, and the adult (or rather late teenage) actors seem to prove this somewhat, although the leading lady, Kayleigh (Amy Smart) does a very good job of portraying her various different possible futures throughout the course of the film. The younger self of Evan and Tommy were definitely better than than their adult counterparts, however. The special effects used are understated but very effective, when they are used; more fancy cinematography than computer generated effects, but there are some clever moments that meant that the style of filming carried the plot well.
The reasons I didn't like this film were more to do with the bleakness of the whole thing. There are odd moments of romance and joy, but they are all quickly overshadowed by depression and destruction. Evan begins to realise that there is no way to make all of his friends have a happy ending, from the start that he has. It isn't one of those sad films that you enjoy because of the deep emotion, and there isn't enough action to make this into one of the bleak but dramatic ripping yarns. The film was impossible to 'enjoy', because it was so dark, and it wasn't quite good enough to forgive this, and right through the end it was incredibly bleak.
Perhaps the reason that I didn't enjoy this film was because of the time I watched it (late night on boxing day)... but I didn't particularly like it, and I didn't find it as gripping or interesting as the concept of the plot would have suggested. It was a very clever film, and thus it's not a film I would encourage people to universally dismiss. It wasn't a bad film, but as a subjective viewer, I didn't enjoy it. If you tend not to like dark, 'think' films, then I would recommend you find something less depressing to spend your time on.
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
Review of 'War of the Worlds' by H.G. Wells
This is probably going to be a long review, as I have quite a lot to say about this book... so buckle in folks. War of the Worlds probably falls into the reviewing category of 'books I shouldn't touch with a 20 foot long barge pole', but I've opened the door on reviewing classics, now, so I'm taking the plunge. And because this is such a classic (and it's Christmas), I'm allowing myself to be a little bit more self-indulgent than usual (hoho).
After seeing two movies and hearing the musical radio adaptation of this book, the plot was not a surprise to me: In the late 19th century, a series of cylinders are shot from Mars, landing in and around London, containing the dreaded Martians and their unstoppable Heat Ray. Thus begins the slaughter and subjugation of humankind.
Style
This book kick-started a whole genre, and so it had to have been very good, and very powerfully written. However, by contrast with today's standards of 'powerful' this book was not filled with flowery prose and jarring statements. In fact, the most remarkable thing about the style was how plain it was. Written in a down-to-Earth journalistic style, War of the Worlds, tells the tale of the Martians from the point of view of a middle class man, a philosopher and writer. He could be virtually anyone, safe and secure in his post-Victorian steam age existence. Then the world he knew was stripped away, and he happened to be near the centre of it. He was not the first to discover the Martians' arrival, nor the first to see them; but he was among the crowd. It's an incredibly powerful story because it is so easy to relate to this incredibly ordinary protagonist and his plight.
One of the things that I found very odd about this book was that none of the main characters have names. The narrator refers to himself only as 'I' or 'me'; the other major characters are simply 'his wife' 'his brother' 'the artilleryman' and 'the curate'. While cameo roles are given names and explanations; the celebrities of the day; it is possible to put any name or face into the lead role. I have not read enough fiction from this era to know if this is normal, though I do know that referring to the reader directly was quite common at the time, but it struck me as both strange and a very useful literary device. By not naming his main characters, it is much easier in some ways for the reader to slip into their heads; to follow them without the separation of knowing that this is an entirely different person. Wells' oddest choice is also one of his most noticeable and powerful devices.
It is occasionally amusing how very last-century the writing style is. Sometimes the references to 'pop-culture' of the time fall flat on the modern audience, but the descriptions of the damage and desolation of places that are still thriving holds of civilisation in the modern-day never fall flat. In fact, I found descriptions I didn't quite understand much less annoying than the constant references of the edition that I had.
The Science
I never expected a 19th century writer to get all of the science correct, and knowing all that I did about the plot of the War of the Worlds, I knew there were many ways in which Wells got it wrong. For a start, we all know now that Mars is barren and probably lifeless... at least if there is life it is small, and almost certainly not intelligent. There is no 'red weed' giving the planet its colour. The Martian atmosphere is considerably different than ours, with almost no atmospheric oxygen. We also know that there are no current rivers or oceans, and that the ice caps are primarily frozen carbon dioxide, rather than water ice. Early on in his descriptions of the Martians, Wells mentions that there is no bacteria on Mars. From our current understanding of molecular, genetic and macro-evolution, it seems nearly impossible that life could evolve without this primitive first step, and nowadays we are no closer to eradicating bacteria than we are to snuffing out the sun. Also, what are the chances of life evolving on two separate planets that are compatible enough for them to use our blood as an energy source? What are the chances that bacteria that attack, disease and decompose human flesh would have such an effect on an entirely alien physiology?
However, from a century of extra knowledge it is very easy to focus on the negative. That's what suspension of disbelief is for. In the story, it only detracts from the events and the realism for a hair-splitting second, and it doesn't matter a jot in terms of the emotion and the tone of the whole story.
So I shall focus for a moment on all the things that Wells got right. This is a man that clearly did his research. He knew that the gravity on Mars was much less, the air necessarily less dense, the geology long since quiet and stagnant. The technological descriptions are at least conceivable, and his descriptions of the Martian's appearance and physiology is incredibly detailed, imaginative, alien and most importantly almost believable. The Heat Ray and the poison gas speak to a great imagination deriving from what was already known. From what we know now, the Heat Ray could be a very powerful infra-red LASER. The poison gas, though said to contain an unknown element, could be any one of a number of nerve gases or poisons discovered since then.
The Fiction
In my opinion, a lot of modern science fiction suffers a lot from too many scientific ideas, and fails to focus on the plots and the characters; the things that a reader can get their teeth into, and draws them into the world and its ideas. Wells does not suffer from this at all. His narrator describes all he knows of the Martians, but he does not let it draw too far away from the fact that the invasion is the important plot point. At the heart, this story discusses the human suffering, surprise and fighting spirit.
The main character spends much of the novel running and hiding; he is no hero. At times he is as far from the stereotypical hero as it is possible to be, but he recounts his every movement with supreme honesty. The War of the Worlds is more a story of survival than of warfare. Early on, the narrator and the reader both come to the conclusion that the technology of the day could not stand up to the Martian invaders. Though I knew how it was ended; though I even recognised many phrases that were used verbatim in the musical adaptation, I was nonetheless completely absorbed in the story.
The Conclusion
It is not surprising that Wells, among others, sparked the science fiction revolution. With such imagination and intensity and reality of these stories, if only one or two other novels at the time made this kind of grade, then it would prompt many other writers to at least try. With the next generation, the Asimovs and Arthur C. Clarkes, came a new degree of science in fiction, but War of the Worlds was one of those that sparked the revolution. Its pedestal is justified, and I would recommend it to you all as a literary and science-fiction master-work.
If you've read this far, I thank you... and a Merry Christmas to you. May it be altogether Martian free.
After seeing two movies and hearing the musical radio adaptation of this book, the plot was not a surprise to me: In the late 19th century, a series of cylinders are shot from Mars, landing in and around London, containing the dreaded Martians and their unstoppable Heat Ray. Thus begins the slaughter and subjugation of humankind.
Style
This book kick-started a whole genre, and so it had to have been very good, and very powerfully written. However, by contrast with today's standards of 'powerful' this book was not filled with flowery prose and jarring statements. In fact, the most remarkable thing about the style was how plain it was. Written in a down-to-Earth journalistic style, War of the Worlds, tells the tale of the Martians from the point of view of a middle class man, a philosopher and writer. He could be virtually anyone, safe and secure in his post-Victorian steam age existence. Then the world he knew was stripped away, and he happened to be near the centre of it. He was not the first to discover the Martians' arrival, nor the first to see them; but he was among the crowd. It's an incredibly powerful story because it is so easy to relate to this incredibly ordinary protagonist and his plight.
One of the things that I found very odd about this book was that none of the main characters have names. The narrator refers to himself only as 'I' or 'me'; the other major characters are simply 'his wife' 'his brother' 'the artilleryman' and 'the curate'. While cameo roles are given names and explanations; the celebrities of the day; it is possible to put any name or face into the lead role. I have not read enough fiction from this era to know if this is normal, though I do know that referring to the reader directly was quite common at the time, but it struck me as both strange and a very useful literary device. By not naming his main characters, it is much easier in some ways for the reader to slip into their heads; to follow them without the separation of knowing that this is an entirely different person. Wells' oddest choice is also one of his most noticeable and powerful devices.
It is occasionally amusing how very last-century the writing style is. Sometimes the references to 'pop-culture' of the time fall flat on the modern audience, but the descriptions of the damage and desolation of places that are still thriving holds of civilisation in the modern-day never fall flat. In fact, I found descriptions I didn't quite understand much less annoying than the constant references of the edition that I had.
The Science
I never expected a 19th century writer to get all of the science correct, and knowing all that I did about the plot of the War of the Worlds, I knew there were many ways in which Wells got it wrong. For a start, we all know now that Mars is barren and probably lifeless... at least if there is life it is small, and almost certainly not intelligent. There is no 'red weed' giving the planet its colour. The Martian atmosphere is considerably different than ours, with almost no atmospheric oxygen. We also know that there are no current rivers or oceans, and that the ice caps are primarily frozen carbon dioxide, rather than water ice. Early on in his descriptions of the Martians, Wells mentions that there is no bacteria on Mars. From our current understanding of molecular, genetic and macro-evolution, it seems nearly impossible that life could evolve without this primitive first step, and nowadays we are no closer to eradicating bacteria than we are to snuffing out the sun. Also, what are the chances of life evolving on two separate planets that are compatible enough for them to use our blood as an energy source? What are the chances that bacteria that attack, disease and decompose human flesh would have such an effect on an entirely alien physiology?
However, from a century of extra knowledge it is very easy to focus on the negative. That's what suspension of disbelief is for. In the story, it only detracts from the events and the realism for a hair-splitting second, and it doesn't matter a jot in terms of the emotion and the tone of the whole story.
So I shall focus for a moment on all the things that Wells got right. This is a man that clearly did his research. He knew that the gravity on Mars was much less, the air necessarily less dense, the geology long since quiet and stagnant. The technological descriptions are at least conceivable, and his descriptions of the Martian's appearance and physiology is incredibly detailed, imaginative, alien and most importantly almost believable. The Heat Ray and the poison gas speak to a great imagination deriving from what was already known. From what we know now, the Heat Ray could be a very powerful infra-red LASER. The poison gas, though said to contain an unknown element, could be any one of a number of nerve gases or poisons discovered since then.
The Fiction
In my opinion, a lot of modern science fiction suffers a lot from too many scientific ideas, and fails to focus on the plots and the characters; the things that a reader can get their teeth into, and draws them into the world and its ideas. Wells does not suffer from this at all. His narrator describes all he knows of the Martians, but he does not let it draw too far away from the fact that the invasion is the important plot point. At the heart, this story discusses the human suffering, surprise and fighting spirit.
The main character spends much of the novel running and hiding; he is no hero. At times he is as far from the stereotypical hero as it is possible to be, but he recounts his every movement with supreme honesty. The War of the Worlds is more a story of survival than of warfare. Early on, the narrator and the reader both come to the conclusion that the technology of the day could not stand up to the Martian invaders. Though I knew how it was ended; though I even recognised many phrases that were used verbatim in the musical adaptation, I was nonetheless completely absorbed in the story.
The Conclusion
It is not surprising that Wells, among others, sparked the science fiction revolution. With such imagination and intensity and reality of these stories, if only one or two other novels at the time made this kind of grade, then it would prompt many other writers to at least try. With the next generation, the Asimovs and Arthur C. Clarkes, came a new degree of science in fiction, but War of the Worlds was one of those that sparked the revolution. Its pedestal is justified, and I would recommend it to you all as a literary and science-fiction master-work.
If you've read this far, I thank you... and a Merry Christmas to you. May it be altogether Martian free.
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
Review of the 2004 film '13 going on 30'
The concept behind this film is incredibly silly, and another play on 'be careful what you wish for'. After a terrible embarrassment, Jenna Rink ends her thirteenth birthday party wishing that she was 'thirty, flirty and thriving,' like one of the models in her favourite magazine. The next morning, she wakes up as a thirty-year-old editor of the same magazine. Theoretically she has everything she dreamed of...
When I heard about this film, I never expected I would enjoy it, but it's actually quite amusing. Jennifer Garner plays the thirty-year-old Jenna expertly, acting in many ways like a gangly, growing thirteen year old that's just woken up in a grown woman's body. As she makes her discoveries about the world she finds herself in, she comes to face some harsh truths about what she's done to get where she is, and she deals with it admirably; trying to make the best of where she is and perhaps set right a few wrongs.
There are some incredibly funny moments in this film, and some lovely poignant moments. The inevitable love-story is delightfully underplayed, and doesn't end how you might expect it to. Though the ending is predictably cheesy, it didn't quite follow the overused route, and I found myself pleasantly surprised, and nicely warmed by the happy ending, rather than choking.
While the plot of this film is reasonably predictable, as most such comedies tend to be, it was dealt with quite well. There were moments when it broke away from the main plotline and focused on small aspects of Jenna's realisations about her age and status... these were, for me, the best parts of the film, and definitely the most funny, because I think if I was transported from my thirteen-year-old mind into my current body and life, I would have reacted to many things in a similar way.
This film wasn't a perfect rom com, and it wasn't a perfect cheesy teen movie; it had aspects of both, and of neither. It was not the most original, or the best acted story I have ever seen, but it was a lot funnier and more enjoyable than I thought it would be when I saw the trailer. I liked it a surprising amount, and I would recommend you to not count it out.
When I heard about this film, I never expected I would enjoy it, but it's actually quite amusing. Jennifer Garner plays the thirty-year-old Jenna expertly, acting in many ways like a gangly, growing thirteen year old that's just woken up in a grown woman's body. As she makes her discoveries about the world she finds herself in, she comes to face some harsh truths about what she's done to get where she is, and she deals with it admirably; trying to make the best of where she is and perhaps set right a few wrongs.
There are some incredibly funny moments in this film, and some lovely poignant moments. The inevitable love-story is delightfully underplayed, and doesn't end how you might expect it to. Though the ending is predictably cheesy, it didn't quite follow the overused route, and I found myself pleasantly surprised, and nicely warmed by the happy ending, rather than choking.
While the plot of this film is reasonably predictable, as most such comedies tend to be, it was dealt with quite well. There were moments when it broke away from the main plotline and focused on small aspects of Jenna's realisations about her age and status... these were, for me, the best parts of the film, and definitely the most funny, because I think if I was transported from my thirteen-year-old mind into my current body and life, I would have reacted to many things in a similar way.
This film wasn't a perfect rom com, and it wasn't a perfect cheesy teen movie; it had aspects of both, and of neither. It was not the most original, or the best acted story I have ever seen, but it was a lot funnier and more enjoyable than I thought it would be when I saw the trailer. I liked it a surprising amount, and I would recommend you to not count it out.
Sunday, 14 December 2008
Review of 'Diaspora' by Greg Egan
Generally I don't read hard sci-fi. While I appreciate that many of the ideas that take place within the more rigidly scientific framework are extremely clever, I am much more of a fan of novels that have believable and entertaining characters and stories, regardless of how scientifically accurate the world is. I find that a good story can make fantastical science completely acceptable, and as I read for fun, I feel justified in this opinion. Generally, what I read is space opera or at least 'soft' sci-fi, somewhere between the hard-science and story-based adventure.
Diaspora is the exception that proves the rule. It is an absolutely exceptional work of science fiction, that develops and explores incredibly complicated scientific ideas while remaining rooted around characters (albeit AI characters) that are very relate-able and likeable. This story uses complex ideas, but remains a story. In that, I feel, it is quite lonely in the hard sci-fi field, but it is a wonderful and shining example of what happens when someone does it right.
The world of Diaspora is set in the far future. People found a way to make themselves into sentient, practically immortal software by means of the 'Introdus' software. After this, they split into fleshers, remaining in human form, Gleisner robots (sentient software in hardware bodies), and the polises: supercomputer homes for the sentient software. Yatima is an 'orphan': a piece of sentient software created by the polis mind without input from any of the other intelligent software. The story describes the process of the orphan's growth through 'childhood' and 'adolescence', and then it shows what choices Yatima takes along vis path.
Through Yatima, we discover the world of the polises, fleshers and gleisners. It's an incredibly rich world, which has obviously had a great deal of thought put into it. When disaster strikes, Yatima's choices leave us in the centre of the worst of the storm, watching the devastation surround him. And then we follow Yatima as he leaves his birth-polis for a polis that is bound for the stars, in its diaspora, hunting for a world where such a disaster will never strike again.
In terms of story, I cannot fault Greg Egan for his imagination. His descriptions of the way his AIs are born is sublime, and incredibly realistic. It drew me in from the very beginning and I was hooked as Yatima grew up and discovered the world, even as I did. Later, Egan's descriptions of his more 'out-there' scientific ideas are clear, and almost comprehensible... he invents a science that feels like a logical extension of our own. Throughout the book, Egan describes the indescribable, making it almost possible for us to view the world in 5-dimensions, and to understand the complex physics that drives his world forward.
Where I would fault diaspora is that in trying to explore a head-full of ideas, Egan seems to split the book a little too much into separate stories. There is Yatima's growth, then there is the discovery of the disaster, then there are three stages of the diaspora. Perhaps it was because I read this book over a very long period of time (unfortunately being too busy to read much, this last month), but there was a certain amount of disconnectedness between the plots, especially as the central part of the novel seems to drift away from Yatima somewhat. The plot centralises around equally brilliant characters, but my familiarity with Yatima made me want to follow the developments more through ver eyes.
Finally, the ending seemed a little rushed, and a little too keen to wrap up all the remaining loose ends. It's as if Greg Egan was approaching a word limit, and had a certain amount to say before he got there. However, this is a common fault in many books, and it did not detract at all from my enjoyment of the rest of the book, or indeed of the ending itself.
I would recommend Diaspora to all devoted science fiction fans. It is brilliantly written, and even in its more self-indulgent scientific moments, the writing style has clarity and comprehensibility at its heart. Even if you cannot begin to fathom the ideas (and I think we're not really supposed to), then the story behind Diaspora is wonderful, and brings to life the superb hard sci-fi ideas that live within it.
Diaspora is the exception that proves the rule. It is an absolutely exceptional work of science fiction, that develops and explores incredibly complicated scientific ideas while remaining rooted around characters (albeit AI characters) that are very relate-able and likeable. This story uses complex ideas, but remains a story. In that, I feel, it is quite lonely in the hard sci-fi field, but it is a wonderful and shining example of what happens when someone does it right.
The world of Diaspora is set in the far future. People found a way to make themselves into sentient, practically immortal software by means of the 'Introdus' software. After this, they split into fleshers, remaining in human form, Gleisner robots (sentient software in hardware bodies), and the polises: supercomputer homes for the sentient software. Yatima is an 'orphan': a piece of sentient software created by the polis mind without input from any of the other intelligent software. The story describes the process of the orphan's growth through 'childhood' and 'adolescence', and then it shows what choices Yatima takes along vis path.
Through Yatima, we discover the world of the polises, fleshers and gleisners. It's an incredibly rich world, which has obviously had a great deal of thought put into it. When disaster strikes, Yatima's choices leave us in the centre of the worst of the storm, watching the devastation surround him. And then we follow Yatima as he leaves his birth-polis for a polis that is bound for the stars, in its diaspora, hunting for a world where such a disaster will never strike again.
In terms of story, I cannot fault Greg Egan for his imagination. His descriptions of the way his AIs are born is sublime, and incredibly realistic. It drew me in from the very beginning and I was hooked as Yatima grew up and discovered the world, even as I did. Later, Egan's descriptions of his more 'out-there' scientific ideas are clear, and almost comprehensible... he invents a science that feels like a logical extension of our own. Throughout the book, Egan describes the indescribable, making it almost possible for us to view the world in 5-dimensions, and to understand the complex physics that drives his world forward.
Where I would fault diaspora is that in trying to explore a head-full of ideas, Egan seems to split the book a little too much into separate stories. There is Yatima's growth, then there is the discovery of the disaster, then there are three stages of the diaspora. Perhaps it was because I read this book over a very long period of time (unfortunately being too busy to read much, this last month), but there was a certain amount of disconnectedness between the plots, especially as the central part of the novel seems to drift away from Yatima somewhat. The plot centralises around equally brilliant characters, but my familiarity with Yatima made me want to follow the developments more through ver eyes.
Finally, the ending seemed a little rushed, and a little too keen to wrap up all the remaining loose ends. It's as if Greg Egan was approaching a word limit, and had a certain amount to say before he got there. However, this is a common fault in many books, and it did not detract at all from my enjoyment of the rest of the book, or indeed of the ending itself.
I would recommend Diaspora to all devoted science fiction fans. It is brilliantly written, and even in its more self-indulgent scientific moments, the writing style has clarity and comprehensibility at its heart. Even if you cannot begin to fathom the ideas (and I think we're not really supposed to), then the story behind Diaspora is wonderful, and brings to life the superb hard sci-fi ideas that live within it.
Saturday, 13 December 2008
Review of the 1982 film 'Tron'
It's not often I review films that were released before I was born, or films that are cult classics, but I feel I owe Tron a word or two, seeing as I had the audacity to review 'Do Androids Dream...'.
Tron, alongside the book 'Neuromancer' should be listed under a definition of 'Cyberpunk'. The film is about computer programmers, running around trying to bring down 'The Master Program'; an AI that seems to have sprung up somehow. In the process, Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is dragged into the computer world, where he meets up with Tron, a program written by his real-world friend Alan (both played by Bruce Boxleitner), who has the potential to finally stop the master program.
Unfortunately, from the perspective of a 2008 film reviewer, this film sounds cheesy and cliché, but it's much easier to swallow when I realise that this was one of the films that invented the cliché itself. It's also quite easy to mock the special effects, which are funny if not spectacular, even by the standards of the time. However, in terms of story, the film makes up in entertainment, action and variety what it lacks in believability.
I enjoyed Tron, and not just because of the amount of giggling I could do at the scientific 'advancements' and silly 80's haircuts. It's very easy to see why it has become such a cult classic, because within the confines of this film, there lies the groundwork for a lot of similar themed stories that coped far less well with the restrictions of the genre. Throughout the film I found myself saying that it was a cross between two other films; which is fine until I realised that every one of those films (except Star Wars) came afterwards. And the obvious parallels between Tron and Star Wars are more amusing than annoying. I kept thinking of the 'Recognisers' as AT-ATs, and singing the imperial march whenever the Master Program's direct underling came onscreen, which just added to my personal entertainment.
If you call yourself a science-fiction fan, and you haven't seen Tron, it is a *requirement* that you do so, in order to retain your credibility. For sheer hilarity it is worth watching, but also take into a account all the limitations they were dealing with, and recognise that in 1982 this was a pretty amazing piece of cinema. I enjoyed it on several levels, and I was very glad that I got to see it.
Tron, alongside the book 'Neuromancer' should be listed under a definition of 'Cyberpunk'. The film is about computer programmers, running around trying to bring down 'The Master Program'; an AI that seems to have sprung up somehow. In the process, Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is dragged into the computer world, where he meets up with Tron, a program written by his real-world friend Alan (both played by Bruce Boxleitner), who has the potential to finally stop the master program.
Unfortunately, from the perspective of a 2008 film reviewer, this film sounds cheesy and cliché, but it's much easier to swallow when I realise that this was one of the films that invented the cliché itself. It's also quite easy to mock the special effects, which are funny if not spectacular, even by the standards of the time. However, in terms of story, the film makes up in entertainment, action and variety what it lacks in believability.
I enjoyed Tron, and not just because of the amount of giggling I could do at the scientific 'advancements' and silly 80's haircuts. It's very easy to see why it has become such a cult classic, because within the confines of this film, there lies the groundwork for a lot of similar themed stories that coped far less well with the restrictions of the genre. Throughout the film I found myself saying that it was a cross between two other films; which is fine until I realised that every one of those films (except Star Wars) came afterwards. And the obvious parallels between Tron and Star Wars are more amusing than annoying. I kept thinking of the 'Recognisers' as AT-ATs, and singing the imperial march whenever the Master Program's direct underling came onscreen, which just added to my personal entertainment.
If you call yourself a science-fiction fan, and you haven't seen Tron, it is a *requirement* that you do so, in order to retain your credibility. For sheer hilarity it is worth watching, but also take into a account all the limitations they were dealing with, and recognise that in 1982 this was a pretty amazing piece of cinema. I enjoyed it on several levels, and I was very glad that I got to see it.
Review of the 2006 film 'The Fountain'
The Fountain is one of the prettiest films I have ever seen. For pure visual spectacle, it is very much worth watching. With the soundtrack pushed up to full volume through the most awesome speakers we could get our hands on, it was an audio-visual masterpiece. Aside from this, however, there is also an atmospheric plot and excellent acting.
When I was first told about The Fountain, my friend described it as an extremely pretty film about death. This is a fairly accurate, but shallow, description of the main atmosphere. Yes, the film is about death and the fragility of existence, but it is also about the joy and pain of love. It is difficult to explain the depths of these themes without spoiling all of the plot, but throughout those who fear death walk hand in hand with those who are willing to accept it, and for all of them love of one kind or another is the driving motivation.
There are three seemingly parallel story-lines, each tracing a main character searching for immortality of one description or another. There is the past storyline, where a conquistador is going in search of the tree of life. In the modern-day storyline, the lead character is searching for a cure to cancer when he unwittingly stumbles across a cure for ageing. And then there is the future storyline where a space traveller journeys through space with the tree of life.
The messages in this film are far from heavy-handed, and to a tremendous extent you are allowed to draw your own conclusions about what the film is about; to the point that I have come across at least three different, completely plausible possibilities for how the three plotlines interlink. As such, I will let you draw your own conclusions about this, and instead focus on the aspects of this film that are easier to pin down and describe.
I have already mentioned that this film is visually fantastic; from the scenes set around a tree in outer space, to the more mundane image of a man working late in his office, this film is a cinematic masterpiece. Every scene is beautiful in its own way, and blends perfectly with the soundtrack. The soundtrack is a masterwork on its own, and it's probably worth watching the film twice, the second time with your eyes closed, because the music (by Clint Mansell) is stunningly composed and incredibly atmospheric.
Then there is the acting, and Hugh Jackman does a fantastic job in all of his three roles. Rachel Weisz, too, provides an admirable performance. The onscreen chemistry between the characters, too, is absolutely believable, especially in the modern-day storyline, and it makes the film that much more immersive.
The Fountain is a brilliant film that gives you a lot to think about, and three weeks after the occasion I actually watched it, I can think of little there to criticise. It is not in any way a fast paced action movie, and if you are incredibly keen that all of your plot points should be meticulously wrapped up at the end, the you might want to sit this one out. However, if like me you like all sorts of different movies, then watch the Fountain. Even if you don't 'get it', it is beautiful. And if you do understand and think about the themes that are driving through the film, then you will enjoy it on whole new levels. Even now, every time I think about this film, I get the warm feeling that I watched something very special and different from almost any other film I can think of.
When I was first told about The Fountain, my friend described it as an extremely pretty film about death. This is a fairly accurate, but shallow, description of the main atmosphere. Yes, the film is about death and the fragility of existence, but it is also about the joy and pain of love. It is difficult to explain the depths of these themes without spoiling all of the plot, but throughout those who fear death walk hand in hand with those who are willing to accept it, and for all of them love of one kind or another is the driving motivation.
There are three seemingly parallel story-lines, each tracing a main character searching for immortality of one description or another. There is the past storyline, where a conquistador is going in search of the tree of life. In the modern-day storyline, the lead character is searching for a cure to cancer when he unwittingly stumbles across a cure for ageing. And then there is the future storyline where a space traveller journeys through space with the tree of life.
The messages in this film are far from heavy-handed, and to a tremendous extent you are allowed to draw your own conclusions about what the film is about; to the point that I have come across at least three different, completely plausible possibilities for how the three plotlines interlink. As such, I will let you draw your own conclusions about this, and instead focus on the aspects of this film that are easier to pin down and describe.
I have already mentioned that this film is visually fantastic; from the scenes set around a tree in outer space, to the more mundane image of a man working late in his office, this film is a cinematic masterpiece. Every scene is beautiful in its own way, and blends perfectly with the soundtrack. The soundtrack is a masterwork on its own, and it's probably worth watching the film twice, the second time with your eyes closed, because the music (by Clint Mansell) is stunningly composed and incredibly atmospheric.
Then there is the acting, and Hugh Jackman does a fantastic job in all of his three roles. Rachel Weisz, too, provides an admirable performance. The onscreen chemistry between the characters, too, is absolutely believable, especially in the modern-day storyline, and it makes the film that much more immersive.
The Fountain is a brilliant film that gives you a lot to think about, and three weeks after the occasion I actually watched it, I can think of little there to criticise. It is not in any way a fast paced action movie, and if you are incredibly keen that all of your plot points should be meticulously wrapped up at the end, the you might want to sit this one out. However, if like me you like all sorts of different movies, then watch the Fountain. Even if you don't 'get it', it is beautiful. And if you do understand and think about the themes that are driving through the film, then you will enjoy it on whole new levels. Even now, every time I think about this film, I get the warm feeling that I watched something very special and different from almost any other film I can think of.
Review of the 2008 film 'Quantum of Solace'
I actually wrote most of this review some time ago, and completely forgot about it for a while. This week I have 6000 words to write in order that I don't fail my new year's resolution at the final hurdle, so in that spirit I thought I'd review all the things that I haven't yet had a chance to. Those of you with an RSS feed for this blog, I'm sorry for my length absence and sudden revival. Also, thank you. Now, to the review...
Bond films are generally renowned for their action content and the character of Bond himself. The peripherals such as plot and other characters tend to somewhat incidental, and merely tools to drive everything else forward.
Casino Royale, Daniel Craig's first Bond appearance, seemed to buck this trend, with an intelligent and honourable, if duplicitous Bond-girl, a dramatic as well as action-packed plot and a hard-edged Bond that leant away from the suave near-parody that previous Bonds had become.
Quantum of Solace, however, veers away from coherency in favour of flashy action and special effects. The plot, if present, is difficult to grasp and tenuous at best. At the end, every strand of plot I thought I had gathered slipped away again, and I was left with the sense that I had just spent two hours watching people running through odd scenes and having exciting car chases.
I enjoyed this film as an action flick. There were some fun, if stereotyped scenes of Bond running through burning buildings, across rooftops and swinging from ropes. There was lots of shooting and drama. The Bond girls were pretty, and feisty. They also followed the modern trend of Bond girls that weren't just kidnap fodder and eye candy.
The unfortunate and disappointing thing about this film was that, although all the elements of a great Bond film appeared to be there, they didn't quite fit together right. There seemed to be a plot until the end when I realised that nothing had properly been explained. The 'trust issues' that M feels towards Bond get old after a few re-hashings. And then the pretty action sequences just serve to further drive home that nothing makes sense.
After Casino Royale, this was a bit of a backwards step, but I still enjoyed it for its mindless entertainment value. If you generally enjoy Bond films, and chewing-gum-for-the-mind in general, then you'll enjoy this film as well, but I wouldn't go into it with your expectations set too high.
Bond films are generally renowned for their action content and the character of Bond himself. The peripherals such as plot and other characters tend to somewhat incidental, and merely tools to drive everything else forward.
Casino Royale, Daniel Craig's first Bond appearance, seemed to buck this trend, with an intelligent and honourable, if duplicitous Bond-girl, a dramatic as well as action-packed plot and a hard-edged Bond that leant away from the suave near-parody that previous Bonds had become.
Quantum of Solace, however, veers away from coherency in favour of flashy action and special effects. The plot, if present, is difficult to grasp and tenuous at best. At the end, every strand of plot I thought I had gathered slipped away again, and I was left with the sense that I had just spent two hours watching people running through odd scenes and having exciting car chases.
I enjoyed this film as an action flick. There were some fun, if stereotyped scenes of Bond running through burning buildings, across rooftops and swinging from ropes. There was lots of shooting and drama. The Bond girls were pretty, and feisty. They also followed the modern trend of Bond girls that weren't just kidnap fodder and eye candy.
The unfortunate and disappointing thing about this film was that, although all the elements of a great Bond film appeared to be there, they didn't quite fit together right. There seemed to be a plot until the end when I realised that nothing had properly been explained. The 'trust issues' that M feels towards Bond get old after a few re-hashings. And then the pretty action sequences just serve to further drive home that nothing makes sense.
After Casino Royale, this was a bit of a backwards step, but I still enjoyed it for its mindless entertainment value. If you generally enjoy Bond films, and chewing-gum-for-the-mind in general, then you'll enjoy this film as well, but I wouldn't go into it with your expectations set too high.
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Review of 'The Heart of the Matter' by Graeme Green
This book took me an incredibly long time to read, and I think in the end I only finished it through sheer stubbornness and force of will. While it was competently written, and had a very good style of prose, I found nothing at all to relate to within the whole novel.
The main character, Major Scobie, is an English police officer living and working on the west coast of Africa during the second world war. He has long since fallen out of love with his wife, but has such a sense of honour and responsibility that he goes on pretending and doing all he can to make his wife happy. He is an honest policeman, who never takes bribes even when most of his colleagues do. Then, his unhappy wife leaves for South Africa, and Scobie is left alone. He meets a nineteen-year-old widow and falls in love and becomes torn and tortured because of his strong Catholic beliefs and his desire to make his wife happy.
From the start, the joylessness of the situation made me less than eager to keep reading this novel, and it doesn't get better. Reading more than a page or two at a time had a tendency to either make me depressed, or angry that the characters could not extract any joy out of their life whatsoever. Granted that they are in an unpleasant environment; a long-term stay in Africa in hostile times, when one is used to the climate and routine of England is probably not the most enjoyable start. I understand that these people are living in adverse conditions; but while reading the book I was not given a single cause to smile. Even when the characters were reasonably happy, the dark mood of the whole novel brought it down so that each described smile had an air of falseness and fragility that made happiness seem fake, even impossible. Reading it became a chore. It was something I had to do because of an ingrained sense that once started a book must be finished.
I wish I didn't have that ingrained sense.
I'm sure there are people that could read 'The Heart of the Matter' and get some deep-and-meaningful message from it that transcends mere fiction and turns it into a literary masterpiece. Personally, I very rarely enjoy novels that try to impose their own world-view through fictional people. I read for enjoyment, and most of all I read for a good story and likeable characters. 'The Heart of the Matter' had a dull plot and lots of emotion-filled mood-inducing prose describing tortured people. I would have been much more interested if the story dealt with a hunt for diamond smuggler; a story about a 'tortured soul' in love with two women is not what I look for in my fiction.
It's not always that I prefer a ripping yarn page-turner to masterworks; but usually I need some element of the former to keep me reading. I loved 'To Kill a Mockingbird' because it had a suspense-filled plot, wrapped around a beautiful moral issue and characters that I could really relate to. It was a genuinely 'good book' that was also incredibly readable. 'The Heart of the Matter' for me had nothing. If there was a particular life-changing moral message in it, I failed to spot it. It was just an incredibly depressing novel. I don't even really know why I read it to the end. Really, I'd like back the hours I wasted on it.
The main character, Major Scobie, is an English police officer living and working on the west coast of Africa during the second world war. He has long since fallen out of love with his wife, but has such a sense of honour and responsibility that he goes on pretending and doing all he can to make his wife happy. He is an honest policeman, who never takes bribes even when most of his colleagues do. Then, his unhappy wife leaves for South Africa, and Scobie is left alone. He meets a nineteen-year-old widow and falls in love and becomes torn and tortured because of his strong Catholic beliefs and his desire to make his wife happy.
From the start, the joylessness of the situation made me less than eager to keep reading this novel, and it doesn't get better. Reading more than a page or two at a time had a tendency to either make me depressed, or angry that the characters could not extract any joy out of their life whatsoever. Granted that they are in an unpleasant environment; a long-term stay in Africa in hostile times, when one is used to the climate and routine of England is probably not the most enjoyable start. I understand that these people are living in adverse conditions; but while reading the book I was not given a single cause to smile. Even when the characters were reasonably happy, the dark mood of the whole novel brought it down so that each described smile had an air of falseness and fragility that made happiness seem fake, even impossible. Reading it became a chore. It was something I had to do because of an ingrained sense that once started a book must be finished.
I wish I didn't have that ingrained sense.
I'm sure there are people that could read 'The Heart of the Matter' and get some deep-and-meaningful message from it that transcends mere fiction and turns it into a literary masterpiece. Personally, I very rarely enjoy novels that try to impose their own world-view through fictional people. I read for enjoyment, and most of all I read for a good story and likeable characters. 'The Heart of the Matter' had a dull plot and lots of emotion-filled mood-inducing prose describing tortured people. I would have been much more interested if the story dealt with a hunt for diamond smuggler; a story about a 'tortured soul' in love with two women is not what I look for in my fiction.
It's not always that I prefer a ripping yarn page-turner to masterworks; but usually I need some element of the former to keep me reading. I loved 'To Kill a Mockingbird' because it had a suspense-filled plot, wrapped around a beautiful moral issue and characters that I could really relate to. It was a genuinely 'good book' that was also incredibly readable. 'The Heart of the Matter' for me had nothing. If there was a particular life-changing moral message in it, I failed to spot it. It was just an incredibly depressing novel. I don't even really know why I read it to the end. Really, I'd like back the hours I wasted on it.
Sunday, 19 October 2008
Review of the 2008 film 'How to Lose Friends and Alienate People'.
Having enjoyed the last two Simon Pegg films I saw, I expected to also enjoy this offering from the British comedy star. While I cannot say that 'How to Lose Friends and Alienate People' is even in the same league as 'Sean of the Dead' or 'Hot Fuzz', it was an enjoyable dig at both Hollywood star lifestyles and sycophantic journalists.
Simon Pegg plays Sidney Young, writer and editor for a failing magazine. He goes to great efforts to get his scoops, and is rarely rewarded. His writing style is sarcastic, bitter and altogether far too honest for most of Hollywood. When he gets a job offer from Sharp's magazine in New York, he thinks he's made it, but he rapidly realises that to succeed, he will have to give up on his honesty and start boot-licking with the best of them.
Simon Pegg has long-since proven his comedy acting ability, and I did enjoy his portrayal of Sidney as the slightly obnoxious English journalist. While he is a jerk at times, and definitely clueless, hapless and clumsy, he does come across as also being likeable to a sympathetic audience. I also found that Kirsten Dunst was better in this film than in many I have seen with her in, with the obvious exception of Claudia in 'Interview with the Vampire' which remains her greatest preformance to date.
Aside from these two characters, there are some other fantastic roles. The magazine owner, Clayton Harding, is fantastically acted by Jeff Bridges. He starts out as a cynical businessman who will play nice and kiss-ass to keep his magazine at the top... but Sidney alludes to his roots writing a sarcastic comedy celebrity magazine, similar to the one that Sidney used to write for. As the film progresses, it becomes clear that Harding hired Sidney through nostalgia for his honest journalism. This character development and interest is one of the most interesting part of the film.
The plot is reasonably predictable, and at any point most people could probably suggest the next plot development, but even so I found this film entertaining and very amusing. It had comic jokes and a large quantity of slapstick, and often it's humour was of the more painful variety, but even so I did enjoy myself at this film.
I wouldn't recommend you go to see this film with expectations that it will be as good as Sean of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, and if you are flat against humour-of-embarassment, it's probably something you should miss. However, if you are looking for something to entertain you of an evening, I can think of many worse films.
Simon Pegg plays Sidney Young, writer and editor for a failing magazine. He goes to great efforts to get his scoops, and is rarely rewarded. His writing style is sarcastic, bitter and altogether far too honest for most of Hollywood. When he gets a job offer from Sharp's magazine in New York, he thinks he's made it, but he rapidly realises that to succeed, he will have to give up on his honesty and start boot-licking with the best of them.
Simon Pegg has long-since proven his comedy acting ability, and I did enjoy his portrayal of Sidney as the slightly obnoxious English journalist. While he is a jerk at times, and definitely clueless, hapless and clumsy, he does come across as also being likeable to a sympathetic audience. I also found that Kirsten Dunst was better in this film than in many I have seen with her in, with the obvious exception of Claudia in 'Interview with the Vampire' which remains her greatest preformance to date.
Aside from these two characters, there are some other fantastic roles. The magazine owner, Clayton Harding, is fantastically acted by Jeff Bridges. He starts out as a cynical businessman who will play nice and kiss-ass to keep his magazine at the top... but Sidney alludes to his roots writing a sarcastic comedy celebrity magazine, similar to the one that Sidney used to write for. As the film progresses, it becomes clear that Harding hired Sidney through nostalgia for his honest journalism. This character development and interest is one of the most interesting part of the film.
The plot is reasonably predictable, and at any point most people could probably suggest the next plot development, but even so I found this film entertaining and very amusing. It had comic jokes and a large quantity of slapstick, and often it's humour was of the more painful variety, but even so I did enjoy myself at this film.
I wouldn't recommend you go to see this film with expectations that it will be as good as Sean of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, and if you are flat against humour-of-embarassment, it's probably something you should miss. However, if you are looking for something to entertain you of an evening, I can think of many worse films.
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Amanda Palmer in Concert - 10th October, Koko in London.
I went to see Amanda Palmer playing in London on the basis that I loved the Dresden Dolls. Until a couple of weeks ago, I hadn't heard any of the songs from her new solo record and I wasn't quite sure what to expect. Would she play any songs I would actually recognise? What was she even like playing live? Would the support acts be any good?
What happened was one of the best gigs I've ever been to.
Let us start by describing the venue. If I could describe a place that would be the perfect venue for an Amanda Palmer concert, Koko would be pretty damn close. You enter the auditorium through a red-lit tunnel, and are immediately met by the perfect locale for a production of Phantom of the Opera. There are three galleries, each with their own bar, and standing room around the railings. To each side there are about half a dozen boxes. The walls are painted red, and above the main floor there is a giant silver disco ball. Above it, on the wall above the stage is an ornate carving, centred around a white-painted face. For all I know, this could have been put in place for this concert. But if not, then it was perfect.
The stage was backed by a sepia picture, and when we made it down to the auditorium floor there wasn't as much of the pushing and shoving that I've come to expect from gigs.
The first support act was Jason Webley; one man on stage with an accordion. He was beautifully entertaining and hilariously funny. I immediately have a huge amount of respect for a man that can not only get the audience to shout the word 'aardvark' in time with the Blue Danube's waltz beat, but can also make them spin around on the spot twelve times before singing a drinking song. And then there was the song where half of the audience were the violins and half the trombones.
Second up was Zoe Keating, a cellist. I didn't recognise the name at all, but as soon as she started playing, I realised the unique and haunting cello tones were very familiar. Turning to one of my companions I said “She's not by any chance related to the cellist from Rasputina is she?” “Yes!” she replied. “They have a one-to-one relationship.” Let's quickly pass by the small swell of pride I felt at recognising that purely on the basis of tone and quality and move on to Zoe's performance. She only played three songs, but they showcased her talent and heart. She gets a warm, entrancing tone out of her instrument that isn't quite like anything I've heard before. It is difficult for one girl and one instrument to make a full orchestrated sound, but Zoe used a relatively simple backing medley, introducing each theme on her real cello before the backing picked them up. Her way of playing, and the music she played were beautiful. While many talked through her performance, I stood entranced, watching her play and listening to the sounds she was producing. She was really incredible.
The tour is for an album called 'Who killed Amanda Palmer' so of course, Amanda was dead throughout these early stages... ready to come alive to play for us. The compère came on, telling us of the sadness and joy of the occasion... and then he introduced the man that was to introduce Amanda. Neil Gaiman.
If I wasn't already having a fantastic time, having Neil Gaiman come on to introduce the main act just about made my night. He read a piece that he'd written about people asking the question 'who killed Amanda Palmer'. And it was beautiful, and he read it perfectly. As you'd expect of a writer of the talent of Neil Gaiman. Gosh I need to read more of his stuff...
As I've already stated, the crowd was pretty friendly. So when someone comes past me around the outside of the auditorium wearing a purple veil, I didn't think too much of it. After all, this was an Amanda Palmer concert... I was one of the most 'normally' dressed people there, and I was wearing stripy fingerless gloves with mitten-tops. Corsets, pill-box hats, white-painted faces and black lacy skirts were pretty much the norm. Then one of the people to my right pointed and said to one of their friends “She's here.” Then, listening to Neil's speech from the front, I watched the veiled figure slowly make her way forward. On the stage, four people slowly made their way onto the stage, their expressions glassy and their movements robotic.
Amanda Palmer arrived... and came back from the dead to play 'Astronaut'; the one song from her new album that I had already heard. It was incredible.
Alongside her were Zoe Keating on cello and Lyndon Chester on violin. Both are amazingly talented musicians, who complemented Amanda's style perfectly, shining without overwhelming the lady herself. The four people on stage with glassy expressions were the physical theatre group the Danger Ensemble. Throughout the show they provided visual aid, dancing and mood-enhancement to the whole experience. They were fantastic.
Amanda herself was, of course, the highlight and centrepiece. Performing with one foot in a cast and being carried to and from the front of the stage by one of the Danger Ensemble, she was incredible. As well as singing live as well if not better than she does on her albums, she managed to convey comedy and drama and emotion with every song. It was interesting listening to her talk about her songs, talking about the people with her, and talking about the things she was doing. She was genuinely funny, and she seemed to be really enjoying herself on stage, which always makes tonnes of difference to the amount the audience enjoy a show.
As well as songs from her new album, Amanda performed some of the hits from the Dresden Dolls, including my personal favourite coin-operated boy. I was laughing out loud during the first verses, watching the performances of the Danger Ensemble, and I was almost in tears during the bridge. I also almost started crying during a song she wrote about the Columbine high school shootings. At the beginning of the song, Lyndon read out a list of the injuries and deaths from that event... it made all the hairs on my arms and the back of my neck stand up on end.
For one song, Neil Gaiman and Jason Webley came back out on stage; Jason on guitar and Neil on tambourine. Neil also wrote the lyrics to one of the songs that Amanda sang; a jazz-style song that she described as the modern answer to the Sinatra-era songs describing heart-sick people in smoky bars being counselled by their bartender. (Paraphrased) “When you're in the last part of a relationship, and you're in that dark place, you're sitting at home doing something... you all know what it is...” Then she moved on to sing “I google you...” and it had such comedic and tragic punch. It was absolutely beautiful.
In the final stages of the concert, Amanda also sang a couple of covers; most notable 'livin' on a prayer' by Bon Jovi, with the whole audience singing along at the top of their lungs. It was an incredible moment.
Until I went to this concert, I never really understood what 'punk cabaret' was all about. Until I heard Amanda sing for real, and saw the comedy she could inject into tragic songs just with her facial expressions, I didn't know what Amanda really represented, aside from a fantastic musical talent. She stayed cool through what she described as her 'first ever wardrobe malfunction' and she took off her corset (leaving a very pretty lacy upper) to sing the last song to prove a point to her record label that she's happy with her appearance and doesn't want to pander to current trends. I had a tremendous amount of respect for her as a musician already and this has grown exponentially after seeing her in the flesh.
Her music may not appeal to everyone, but dammit if she doesn't know how to put on a fabulous show. I can't *believe* I was considering not going.
What happened was one of the best gigs I've ever been to.
Let us start by describing the venue. If I could describe a place that would be the perfect venue for an Amanda Palmer concert, Koko would be pretty damn close. You enter the auditorium through a red-lit tunnel, and are immediately met by the perfect locale for a production of Phantom of the Opera. There are three galleries, each with their own bar, and standing room around the railings. To each side there are about half a dozen boxes. The walls are painted red, and above the main floor there is a giant silver disco ball. Above it, on the wall above the stage is an ornate carving, centred around a white-painted face. For all I know, this could have been put in place for this concert. But if not, then it was perfect.
The stage was backed by a sepia picture, and when we made it down to the auditorium floor there wasn't as much of the pushing and shoving that I've come to expect from gigs.
The first support act was Jason Webley; one man on stage with an accordion. He was beautifully entertaining and hilariously funny. I immediately have a huge amount of respect for a man that can not only get the audience to shout the word 'aardvark' in time with the Blue Danube's waltz beat, but can also make them spin around on the spot twelve times before singing a drinking song. And then there was the song where half of the audience were the violins and half the trombones.
Second up was Zoe Keating, a cellist. I didn't recognise the name at all, but as soon as she started playing, I realised the unique and haunting cello tones were very familiar. Turning to one of my companions I said “She's not by any chance related to the cellist from Rasputina is she?” “Yes!” she replied. “They have a one-to-one relationship.” Let's quickly pass by the small swell of pride I felt at recognising that purely on the basis of tone and quality and move on to Zoe's performance. She only played three songs, but they showcased her talent and heart. She gets a warm, entrancing tone out of her instrument that isn't quite like anything I've heard before. It is difficult for one girl and one instrument to make a full orchestrated sound, but Zoe used a relatively simple backing medley, introducing each theme on her real cello before the backing picked them up. Her way of playing, and the music she played were beautiful. While many talked through her performance, I stood entranced, watching her play and listening to the sounds she was producing. She was really incredible.
The tour is for an album called 'Who killed Amanda Palmer' so of course, Amanda was dead throughout these early stages... ready to come alive to play for us. The compère came on, telling us of the sadness and joy of the occasion... and then he introduced the man that was to introduce Amanda. Neil Gaiman.
If I wasn't already having a fantastic time, having Neil Gaiman come on to introduce the main act just about made my night. He read a piece that he'd written about people asking the question 'who killed Amanda Palmer'. And it was beautiful, and he read it perfectly. As you'd expect of a writer of the talent of Neil Gaiman. Gosh I need to read more of his stuff...
As I've already stated, the crowd was pretty friendly. So when someone comes past me around the outside of the auditorium wearing a purple veil, I didn't think too much of it. After all, this was an Amanda Palmer concert... I was one of the most 'normally' dressed people there, and I was wearing stripy fingerless gloves with mitten-tops. Corsets, pill-box hats, white-painted faces and black lacy skirts were pretty much the norm. Then one of the people to my right pointed and said to one of their friends “She's here.” Then, listening to Neil's speech from the front, I watched the veiled figure slowly make her way forward. On the stage, four people slowly made their way onto the stage, their expressions glassy and their movements robotic.
Amanda Palmer arrived... and came back from the dead to play 'Astronaut'; the one song from her new album that I had already heard. It was incredible.
Alongside her were Zoe Keating on cello and Lyndon Chester on violin. Both are amazingly talented musicians, who complemented Amanda's style perfectly, shining without overwhelming the lady herself. The four people on stage with glassy expressions were the physical theatre group the Danger Ensemble. Throughout the show they provided visual aid, dancing and mood-enhancement to the whole experience. They were fantastic.
Amanda herself was, of course, the highlight and centrepiece. Performing with one foot in a cast and being carried to and from the front of the stage by one of the Danger Ensemble, she was incredible. As well as singing live as well if not better than she does on her albums, she managed to convey comedy and drama and emotion with every song. It was interesting listening to her talk about her songs, talking about the people with her, and talking about the things she was doing. She was genuinely funny, and she seemed to be really enjoying herself on stage, which always makes tonnes of difference to the amount the audience enjoy a show.
As well as songs from her new album, Amanda performed some of the hits from the Dresden Dolls, including my personal favourite coin-operated boy. I was laughing out loud during the first verses, watching the performances of the Danger Ensemble, and I was almost in tears during the bridge. I also almost started crying during a song she wrote about the Columbine high school shootings. At the beginning of the song, Lyndon read out a list of the injuries and deaths from that event... it made all the hairs on my arms and the back of my neck stand up on end.
For one song, Neil Gaiman and Jason Webley came back out on stage; Jason on guitar and Neil on tambourine. Neil also wrote the lyrics to one of the songs that Amanda sang; a jazz-style song that she described as the modern answer to the Sinatra-era songs describing heart-sick people in smoky bars being counselled by their bartender. (Paraphrased) “When you're in the last part of a relationship, and you're in that dark place, you're sitting at home doing something... you all know what it is...” Then she moved on to sing “I google you...” and it had such comedic and tragic punch. It was absolutely beautiful.
In the final stages of the concert, Amanda also sang a couple of covers; most notable 'livin' on a prayer' by Bon Jovi, with the whole audience singing along at the top of their lungs. It was an incredible moment.
Until I went to this concert, I never really understood what 'punk cabaret' was all about. Until I heard Amanda sing for real, and saw the comedy she could inject into tragic songs just with her facial expressions, I didn't know what Amanda really represented, aside from a fantastic musical talent. She stayed cool through what she described as her 'first ever wardrobe malfunction' and she took off her corset (leaving a very pretty lacy upper) to sing the last song to prove a point to her record label that she's happy with her appearance and doesn't want to pander to current trends. I had a tremendous amount of respect for her as a musician already and this has grown exponentially after seeing her in the flesh.
Her music may not appeal to everyone, but dammit if she doesn't know how to put on a fabulous show. I can't *believe* I was considering not going.
Review of the 2007 film 'Ghost Rider'
Johnny Blaze and his father are a motorcycle stunt duo. When he finds out that his girlfriend is leaving town, he makes plans to run away with her until he finds out that his father is dying of cancer. And then a stranger arrives telling him that he can cure his father's disease if he makes a deal. A deal for his soul that will turn young Johnny Blaze into the Ghost Rider.
Ghost rider is an amusing film, with spectacular effects, but it is by no means the best film I have ever seen. The lead role, Johnny Blaze, played by Nicholas Cage, has a classic redemption storyline. He acts it well, but as with many films of the same ilk, I find myself far more interested by the antagonist leads. Mephistopheles, the devil (Peter Fonda) has a great blend of charm and evil. He pulls off the helpful stranger looking to make a deal, and then he pulls of the ironic trickster that causes the lead to fall. Likewise, the devil's son, Blackheart (Wes Bentley) plays a convincing evil bastard.
Roxanne, the female lead, lets the side down massively with her vacuous why-don't-you-love-me expression and her collagen face. Her role as journalist and love interest give her little opportunity to make a positive impact on the plot, and she mostly gets in the way. I found her very annoying, making the obvious observations and the very obvious responses to every situation that she finds herself in. Perhaps I found her more annoying having read quite a few Heroine Content reviews recently, but even so, Roxanne was far too typical of the superhero genre to be a very good character.
The plot of ghost rider is somewhat predictable, but still entertaining. The devil's son is seeking one of the devil's contract, which will give him the power of a thousand evil souls, which would give him horrendous amounts of power on Earth. Obviously, his father does not want this to happen, so he calls the ghost rider back into existence and sends him out to take his son and send him back to hell. Along the way, the rider fights the lackeys, upsets the female lead, has to show off his motorbiking skills to their grandest extent and of course there is the inevitable police chase. The police, of course, aren't put off by the fact that they are chasing a flaming skeleton riding a bike which is also on fire.
I think the main problem I had with this film was that it didn't have much substance beyond looking cool. There was no real underlying tension, and there was never any doubt that the good guy was going to win. Even the ending cue-for-a-sequel sequence was predictable, even though it didn't make a huge amount of sense. However, maybe I expected too much... Ghost Rider was a silly comic-book action flick, and operated very well within those borders. For cheesy entertainment, Ghost Rider is very watch-able.
Ghost rider is an amusing film, with spectacular effects, but it is by no means the best film I have ever seen. The lead role, Johnny Blaze, played by Nicholas Cage, has a classic redemption storyline. He acts it well, but as with many films of the same ilk, I find myself far more interested by the antagonist leads. Mephistopheles, the devil (Peter Fonda) has a great blend of charm and evil. He pulls off the helpful stranger looking to make a deal, and then he pulls of the ironic trickster that causes the lead to fall. Likewise, the devil's son, Blackheart (Wes Bentley) plays a convincing evil bastard.
Roxanne, the female lead, lets the side down massively with her vacuous why-don't-you-love-me expression and her collagen face. Her role as journalist and love interest give her little opportunity to make a positive impact on the plot, and she mostly gets in the way. I found her very annoying, making the obvious observations and the very obvious responses to every situation that she finds herself in. Perhaps I found her more annoying having read quite a few Heroine Content reviews recently, but even so, Roxanne was far too typical of the superhero genre to be a very good character.
The plot of ghost rider is somewhat predictable, but still entertaining. The devil's son is seeking one of the devil's contract, which will give him the power of a thousand evil souls, which would give him horrendous amounts of power on Earth. Obviously, his father does not want this to happen, so he calls the ghost rider back into existence and sends him out to take his son and send him back to hell. Along the way, the rider fights the lackeys, upsets the female lead, has to show off his motorbiking skills to their grandest extent and of course there is the inevitable police chase. The police, of course, aren't put off by the fact that they are chasing a flaming skeleton riding a bike which is also on fire.
I think the main problem I had with this film was that it didn't have much substance beyond looking cool. There was no real underlying tension, and there was never any doubt that the good guy was going to win. Even the ending cue-for-a-sequel sequence was predictable, even though it didn't make a huge amount of sense. However, maybe I expected too much... Ghost Rider was a silly comic-book action flick, and operated very well within those borders. For cheesy entertainment, Ghost Rider is very watch-able.
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Review of 'Blink' by Malcolm Gladwell
Blink is a book about the power of judging a book by its cover, and how our snap decisions are often completely right. It is well written and laced with comprehensive examples and expert research and opinions. It provides a compelling argument for the power of training, and the usefulness of quick evaluations; and for the times when the snap decision is not quite as useful.
Dealing with such wide-ranging issues as art-experts being able to instantly spot a fake, the uses (and failures) of market research, and why policemen sometimes get things tragically wrong, 'blink' looks at situations we experience, or hear about on a regular basis. It takes each one apart, explains the inner workings, and then puts it back together again, polishing it off with the new knowledge gained from an understanding of the unconscious mind.
If you have the slightest interest in how the human mind works, then I would recommend 'blink' as an example of brilliant pop psychology. It is written for an interested, non-technical audience, and is very accessible. It is also very readable, occasionally witty and often thought-provoking. As I read 'Blink' I started to view the world in a subtly different light. I don't think I will ever dismiss a gut-instinct as easily again.
Dealing with such wide-ranging issues as art-experts being able to instantly spot a fake, the uses (and failures) of market research, and why policemen sometimes get things tragically wrong, 'blink' looks at situations we experience, or hear about on a regular basis. It takes each one apart, explains the inner workings, and then puts it back together again, polishing it off with the new knowledge gained from an understanding of the unconscious mind.
If you have the slightest interest in how the human mind works, then I would recommend 'blink' as an example of brilliant pop psychology. It is written for an interested, non-technical audience, and is very accessible. It is also very readable, occasionally witty and often thought-provoking. As I read 'Blink' I started to view the world in a subtly different light. I don't think I will ever dismiss a gut-instinct as easily again.
Sunday, 21 September 2008
Review of 'Storm Front' by Jim Butcher
In a geeky fangirl type way, I immediately liked the concept of a story about a Wizard Private Investigator. Harry Dresden, said Wizard PI, is a skilled sorcerer but he doesn't do very good business. What he does have is an in with a police department that specialises in cases of an unusual nature. Then two cases come up at once; a missing person, and a double murder. As soon as he sees the murder scene, Harry knows that there is a very powerful mage on the scene who is breaking the laws of magic. He also knows that to a lot of other people, he would be suspect number one.
As a PI story, Storm Front follows some of the traditional clichés. As a magic story, it follows some other clichés... but put the story together, and it becomes an interesting and amusing story. It is also a true ripping yarn; as the story progresses, the urge to find out what is going to happen next draws the reader through the story.
Harry Dresden is mentally tough, and he is a good conjurer. However, he is not the strongest, fittest or fastest, and I like this. He gets beat around as much as anyone else in the story, and when he fights hand-to-hand, he only does it when the element of surprise is well and truly on his side, or when there is no other option.
The other characters include an air elemental, Bob, who is imprisoned in a skull and acts as Harry's magical library. Then there is Harry's watchman, Morgan, a none-too-bright hard man acting on behalf of a wizard's council. The women in this novel are both good, strong characters, but Butcher seems to go out of his way to make them tough girls. I like them in a way; Police officer Karrin Murphy has a kickass quality about her, that makes her totally believable in the position of hard-nosed cop. Then there is the journalist who'll do almost anything to get a story... between them they provide a competent showing for the 'fairer' sex, but the more I read the more I found these characters to fall slightly towards the cliché as well. Hard-nosed cop and mercenary journalist are not exactly the most original character types.
Towards the end of the story, it seems that most of the characters are in some way out to get Harry, and this grows a little frustrating, as viewers of many TV police dramas will understand. Once the actual plot draws to a close, there is a final wrapping up chapter that stings of TV drama sum-up. In fact, Storm Front almost seems designed for TV dramatisation; and indeed it was dramatised for a while on American TV.
Don't get me wrong though; Storm Front is a very entertaining, gripping read. It was well written, and the magic is convincing. I liked most of the characters, and it was only towards the end that I found some of the plot twists predictable. Even then, it was mainly character reactions, rather than actual events, that were predictable.
The major strengths of this novel lie in Harry Dresden himself. Although he is a wizard, he is a believable person, and as his backstory slowly unfolds, it becomes obvious that there is a lot more to him than meets the eye. Seeing the events through his eyes added an extra layer of interest and insight to the event. Harry's quirky, witty style of narrating made the characters rise to the front, and his way of dealing with the unfortunate series of events makes him a brilliant centre for the story.
Overall, I very much enjoyed Storm Front. If you are looking for a ripping yarn with excellent characters, Storm Front is it. I think that as a character, Harry Dresden is well worth following, and Butcher obviously has some skill at plotting and pacing a novel, which made Storm Front a very satisfying read. At some point, I will be purchasing the next in the series to see if it continues to be as beautifully executed as this.
As a PI story, Storm Front follows some of the traditional clichés. As a magic story, it follows some other clichés... but put the story together, and it becomes an interesting and amusing story. It is also a true ripping yarn; as the story progresses, the urge to find out what is going to happen next draws the reader through the story.
Harry Dresden is mentally tough, and he is a good conjurer. However, he is not the strongest, fittest or fastest, and I like this. He gets beat around as much as anyone else in the story, and when he fights hand-to-hand, he only does it when the element of surprise is well and truly on his side, or when there is no other option.
The other characters include an air elemental, Bob, who is imprisoned in a skull and acts as Harry's magical library. Then there is Harry's watchman, Morgan, a none-too-bright hard man acting on behalf of a wizard's council. The women in this novel are both good, strong characters, but Butcher seems to go out of his way to make them tough girls. I like them in a way; Police officer Karrin Murphy has a kickass quality about her, that makes her totally believable in the position of hard-nosed cop. Then there is the journalist who'll do almost anything to get a story... between them they provide a competent showing for the 'fairer' sex, but the more I read the more I found these characters to fall slightly towards the cliché as well. Hard-nosed cop and mercenary journalist are not exactly the most original character types.
Towards the end of the story, it seems that most of the characters are in some way out to get Harry, and this grows a little frustrating, as viewers of many TV police dramas will understand. Once the actual plot draws to a close, there is a final wrapping up chapter that stings of TV drama sum-up. In fact, Storm Front almost seems designed for TV dramatisation; and indeed it was dramatised for a while on American TV.
Don't get me wrong though; Storm Front is a very entertaining, gripping read. It was well written, and the magic is convincing. I liked most of the characters, and it was only towards the end that I found some of the plot twists predictable. Even then, it was mainly character reactions, rather than actual events, that were predictable.
The major strengths of this novel lie in Harry Dresden himself. Although he is a wizard, he is a believable person, and as his backstory slowly unfolds, it becomes obvious that there is a lot more to him than meets the eye. Seeing the events through his eyes added an extra layer of interest and insight to the event. Harry's quirky, witty style of narrating made the characters rise to the front, and his way of dealing with the unfortunate series of events makes him a brilliant centre for the story.
Overall, I very much enjoyed Storm Front. If you are looking for a ripping yarn with excellent characters, Storm Front is it. I think that as a character, Harry Dresden is well worth following, and Butcher obviously has some skill at plotting and pacing a novel, which made Storm Front a very satisfying read. At some point, I will be purchasing the next in the series to see if it continues to be as beautifully executed as this.
Saturday, 13 September 2008
My Reading List
My friends and I are all keen readers, and if there is a book that one of us feels is particularly good, it will do the rounds of our group. I have introduced people to 'Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers' by Harry Harrison, which remains, in my mind, one of the greatest ever works of science fiction parodies. In return, I have been encouraged in the direction of 'Young Miles' by Lois McMaster Bujold, and a number of others that I haven't yet got around to reading.
But I'm getting there.
A recent trip home to see my parents had me leaving with an armful of classic science fiction, and a novel my brother left behind when he moved out. I have another book on long-term loan from a friend who thought it was much more suited to my sense of humour than hers. Not to mention the Discworld books I've been intending to read through for many, many years.
So, what am I reading at the moment?
Well, I'm about halfway through 'Storm Front' by Jim Butcher, a recommendation from a friend from university, which I am thoroughly enjoying. I will, of course, review this when I have finished.
Next up is 'Blink.' This is a non-fiction book, about the unconscious mind, and related psychology. Psychology is a fascination of mine, especially after taking a course in it during university.
Then I have a sizeable list of books on the shelf, including a Graeme Green novel I found in my brother's room after mum had been clearing it out, and 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' by Bill Bryson. I also have two more Martina Cole novels to read before I e-bay the collection. Then another borrowed novel; 'Diaspora' by Greg Egan, which has been universally acclaimed by people whose opinions I trust.
My classic science fiction selection includes many books that everyone says ought to be read by any self-respecting science fiction fan. The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov; H.G Wells' 'War of the Worlds'; '2001 a Space Odessey' by Arthur C. Clarke, and 'Chocky' by John Wyndham.
After this, who knows? Christmas will be showing up all too soon, and it's traditionally the time I relax my moratorium on book-buying. Maybe I'll buy some more of the Jim Butcher Dresden File novels. Maybe I'll complete my Iain M Banks 'Culture' collection by buying 'Inversions', which many say is the best Culture novel after 'Consider Phlebas'. Of course I will be reading the Discworld novels too. And then there are the Neil Gaiman, China Meiville and George R. R. Martin books that everyone says I 'must' read.
One thing's for sure, though; I'm not going to be short on reading material for a while.
I just need to get better at finding the time to read...
But I'm getting there.
A recent trip home to see my parents had me leaving with an armful of classic science fiction, and a novel my brother left behind when he moved out. I have another book on long-term loan from a friend who thought it was much more suited to my sense of humour than hers. Not to mention the Discworld books I've been intending to read through for many, many years.
So, what am I reading at the moment?
Well, I'm about halfway through 'Storm Front' by Jim Butcher, a recommendation from a friend from university, which I am thoroughly enjoying. I will, of course, review this when I have finished.
Next up is 'Blink.' This is a non-fiction book, about the unconscious mind, and related psychology. Psychology is a fascination of mine, especially after taking a course in it during university.
Then I have a sizeable list of books on the shelf, including a Graeme Green novel I found in my brother's room after mum had been clearing it out, and 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' by Bill Bryson. I also have two more Martina Cole novels to read before I e-bay the collection. Then another borrowed novel; 'Diaspora' by Greg Egan, which has been universally acclaimed by people whose opinions I trust.
My classic science fiction selection includes many books that everyone says ought to be read by any self-respecting science fiction fan. The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov; H.G Wells' 'War of the Worlds'; '2001 a Space Odessey' by Arthur C. Clarke, and 'Chocky' by John Wyndham.
After this, who knows? Christmas will be showing up all too soon, and it's traditionally the time I relax my moratorium on book-buying. Maybe I'll buy some more of the Jim Butcher Dresden File novels. Maybe I'll complete my Iain M Banks 'Culture' collection by buying 'Inversions', which many say is the best Culture novel after 'Consider Phlebas'. Of course I will be reading the Discworld novels too. And then there are the Neil Gaiman, China Meiville and George R. R. Martin books that everyone says I 'must' read.
One thing's for sure, though; I'm not going to be short on reading material for a while.
I just need to get better at finding the time to read...
Review of 'Look to Windward' by Iain M Banks
'Look to Windward,' another of Banks' Culture novels, is set, mainly, on one of the Culture's orbitals; giant rings in space, providing accommodation for billions of humans and aliens. Eight hundred years after the Idiran war, the light of a supernova reaches Masaq' orbital; the result of a battle that took place during the war and destroyed two suns. As Masaq' commemorates the events of the ancient war and awaits the light of the second supernova, Chel sends a soldier to Masaq', ostensibly to try and convince the prolific composer Ziller to return to his home-planet. Of course, his intentions are not entirely honourable.
This book reaffirmed my faith in Iain M Banks' talent as a science fiction author. After reading 'Excession', I was not particularly looking forward to starting 'Look to Windward'. I felt the former work was long-winded, and lacked the human influence required for a reader to fully engage with the plot. 'Look to Windward' does not make the same mistakes. It includes all the facets that I loved about 'Consider Phlebas' without any of the problems that I feel have plagued his later books. It has the wonderful alien races and cultures, it has wonderful worlds and technologies, but more than this it has wonderful characterisation and a gripping plot.
I have always loved Banks' aliens and the aliens in this story are no different. There are the Chelgrians; a five-limbed species with a complex caste system, which eventually led to civil war. There are the Homomdans, three-legged aliens who sided with the Idirans at the start of the ancient war, before backing out altogether. And then, more spectacularly, there are the sentient Gigafauna of an airsphere environment, dirigible behemothaurs; giant living airships that live within bubbles of air that traverse the galaxy.
Additionally, Banks is telling the story mainly from the point of view of Culture outsiders, allowing the reader to view the far-reaching human society from the outside. The Culture is an incredible race, often hedonistic and very meddlesome... all these things are revealed during the story, and without the patriotism of its human inhabitants, allowing the reader to make its own decisions about Banks' view of our future.
However, what makes me like 'Look to Windward' more than almost any other Banks' science fiction novel is that, aside from the aliens, he tells a fantastic story, with an excellent cast of characters. While 'Excession' and 'Player of Games' lacked a strong lead character to empathise with, 'Look to Windward' has several characters that work within their given environment and act as wonderful bridges for the reader to gain entry to the world. Where 'The Algebraist' and 'Excession' had problems with over-complicated prose, and long sentences that made it difficult to follow, this novel falls back into the highly comprehensible space opera style, which makes it an incredibly accessible, beautifully written piece. The dialogue, especially, is realistic and compelling, making the story easy to read and immerse in. Importantly, as well, the plot is not overly complicated, but it does have enough intrigue and tension to keep the reader hooked.
The major criticism I would have for this novel is the ending. Banks seems to rush to tie up his loose ends in the last few pages, which is slightly jarring after the main climax of the novel. Aside from this, though, 'Look to Windward' is Banks at his best, and I would thoroughly recommend it as a starting point for a science fiction reader to enter his worlds.
This book reaffirmed my faith in Iain M Banks' talent as a science fiction author. After reading 'Excession', I was not particularly looking forward to starting 'Look to Windward'. I felt the former work was long-winded, and lacked the human influence required for a reader to fully engage with the plot. 'Look to Windward' does not make the same mistakes. It includes all the facets that I loved about 'Consider Phlebas' without any of the problems that I feel have plagued his later books. It has the wonderful alien races and cultures, it has wonderful worlds and technologies, but more than this it has wonderful characterisation and a gripping plot.
I have always loved Banks' aliens and the aliens in this story are no different. There are the Chelgrians; a five-limbed species with a complex caste system, which eventually led to civil war. There are the Homomdans, three-legged aliens who sided with the Idirans at the start of the ancient war, before backing out altogether. And then, more spectacularly, there are the sentient Gigafauna of an airsphere environment, dirigible behemothaurs; giant living airships that live within bubbles of air that traverse the galaxy.
Additionally, Banks is telling the story mainly from the point of view of Culture outsiders, allowing the reader to view the far-reaching human society from the outside. The Culture is an incredible race, often hedonistic and very meddlesome... all these things are revealed during the story, and without the patriotism of its human inhabitants, allowing the reader to make its own decisions about Banks' view of our future.
However, what makes me like 'Look to Windward' more than almost any other Banks' science fiction novel is that, aside from the aliens, he tells a fantastic story, with an excellent cast of characters. While 'Excession' and 'Player of Games' lacked a strong lead character to empathise with, 'Look to Windward' has several characters that work within their given environment and act as wonderful bridges for the reader to gain entry to the world. Where 'The Algebraist' and 'Excession' had problems with over-complicated prose, and long sentences that made it difficult to follow, this novel falls back into the highly comprehensible space opera style, which makes it an incredibly accessible, beautifully written piece. The dialogue, especially, is realistic and compelling, making the story easy to read and immerse in. Importantly, as well, the plot is not overly complicated, but it does have enough intrigue and tension to keep the reader hooked.
The major criticism I would have for this novel is the ending. Banks seems to rush to tie up his loose ends in the last few pages, which is slightly jarring after the main climax of the novel. Aside from this, though, 'Look to Windward' is Banks at his best, and I would thoroughly recommend it as a starting point for a science fiction reader to enter his worlds.
Thursday, 4 September 2008
Review of the 1983 film 'The Right Stuff'
Amongst my music CD collection is a compilation of Sci-Fi theme tunes, and one of the theme tunes is that of 'The Right Stuff'. It has an absolutely amazing soundtrack, and so when I saw the DVD on sale for a couple of quids, I read the blurb on the back, found myself interested, and bought the DVD. It's a rather odd reason to buy a film, I know... but I was rewarded greatly.
In 1947, Chuck Yeager became the first man to break the sound barrier. His success brought test pilots from all over the United States rushing to Edwards Air Force Base to attempt to become the fastest man alive. In 1957, the first satellite, Sputnik 1 was launched by the Russians. The gauntlet was thrown down; the race was on... the race to put a man into space. Shortly thereafter an unprecedented and rigorous training program began, and seven men (all military test pilots) were chosen to be the first American Astronauts of the Mercury Space Program.
'The Right Stuff' documents these events, and more. It shows the events that changed the world, but more than this it gives the personal touch; it shows the anecdotes and stories that make the race to put a man into space into the race to put a man into space. It not only shows the pilots and astronauts, it shows the people that walk with them; the men behind the venture, and the women behind the men. All through, The Right Stuff puts a wonderfully human spin on events, getting across how the Mercury seven astronauts felt as they took part.
And then, behind each of these men is a wife. The film gets across what it means to be the wife of a test-pilot, and astronaut. These women were sat at home, with their children, while their husbands went flying... knowing that there was a one in four chance that they wouldn't come home. The film portrays these women as strong and caring. They were women of their time, but they were as strong as any man, in their own way. The little struggles, and the larger ones, puts a fabulous backdrop on the launching of Freedom 7 and the missions that followed.
What I really love about this film, though, is the little details. Scenes like Chuck Yeager asking his flight engineer for a stick of gum before every one of his test-flights. The little tavern where the test-pilots all hang out. Alan Shepard asking for permission to urinate in his suit, when a 'fifteen minute' flight was delayed for several hours. Scenes of Gordo Cooper sitting in a radio shack next to a dish while John Glenn orbits over his head. The Mercury Seven at a welcoming event in Texas, watching a burlesque dancer while back at Edward's air force base Chuck Yeager, reaching the end of his test-piloting career, attempts to break another world record.
Although the fates of all the characters are sealed in history, the film captures the fear, excitement, tension and joy experienced by all involved in the historic flights. There are comic stories that paint the characters, showing the atmospheres and attitudes of the time. In places it seamlessly melds original footage of the time, with the actors and characters, in black-and-white sections. The film has also aged incredibly well. While it is filmed in the 80's, the quality still fits in alongside more modern films.
Without doing my own meticulous research, I cannot say how true to life the story is. I cannot say that the history is perfect; in fact I'm sure that parts of it are definitely not historically accurate. What I can say, is that 'The Right Stuff' is an incredible story, perhaps more incredible because it is based on a true story. It isn't Science Fiction, it is fact... and it is fact that is described beautifully in this film. The only criticism I could possibly have is that the film is 3 hours long, but I can honestly say that every moment is worth it.
In 1947, Chuck Yeager became the first man to break the sound barrier. His success brought test pilots from all over the United States rushing to Edwards Air Force Base to attempt to become the fastest man alive. In 1957, the first satellite, Sputnik 1 was launched by the Russians. The gauntlet was thrown down; the race was on... the race to put a man into space. Shortly thereafter an unprecedented and rigorous training program began, and seven men (all military test pilots) were chosen to be the first American Astronauts of the Mercury Space Program.
'The Right Stuff' documents these events, and more. It shows the events that changed the world, but more than this it gives the personal touch; it shows the anecdotes and stories that make the race to put a man into space into the race to put a man into space. It not only shows the pilots and astronauts, it shows the people that walk with them; the men behind the venture, and the women behind the men. All through, The Right Stuff puts a wonderfully human spin on events, getting across how the Mercury seven astronauts felt as they took part.
And then, behind each of these men is a wife. The film gets across what it means to be the wife of a test-pilot, and astronaut. These women were sat at home, with their children, while their husbands went flying... knowing that there was a one in four chance that they wouldn't come home. The film portrays these women as strong and caring. They were women of their time, but they were as strong as any man, in their own way. The little struggles, and the larger ones, puts a fabulous backdrop on the launching of Freedom 7 and the missions that followed.
What I really love about this film, though, is the little details. Scenes like Chuck Yeager asking his flight engineer for a stick of gum before every one of his test-flights. The little tavern where the test-pilots all hang out. Alan Shepard asking for permission to urinate in his suit, when a 'fifteen minute' flight was delayed for several hours. Scenes of Gordo Cooper sitting in a radio shack next to a dish while John Glenn orbits over his head. The Mercury Seven at a welcoming event in Texas, watching a burlesque dancer while back at Edward's air force base Chuck Yeager, reaching the end of his test-piloting career, attempts to break another world record.
Although the fates of all the characters are sealed in history, the film captures the fear, excitement, tension and joy experienced by all involved in the historic flights. There are comic stories that paint the characters, showing the atmospheres and attitudes of the time. In places it seamlessly melds original footage of the time, with the actors and characters, in black-and-white sections. The film has also aged incredibly well. While it is filmed in the 80's, the quality still fits in alongside more modern films.
Without doing my own meticulous research, I cannot say how true to life the story is. I cannot say that the history is perfect; in fact I'm sure that parts of it are definitely not historically accurate. What I can say, is that 'The Right Stuff' is an incredible story, perhaps more incredible because it is based on a true story. It isn't Science Fiction, it is fact... and it is fact that is described beautifully in this film. The only criticism I could possibly have is that the film is 3 hours long, but I can honestly say that every moment is worth it.
Monday, 25 August 2008
Review of the 2008 film 'Hellboy II: The Golden Army'
I did not like the first Hellboy film, for many different reasons. However, hearing that the new release was directed by the same genius responsible for Pan's Labyrinth, I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. I was even prepared to enjoy the film.
At first I was severely unimpressed. From the very beginning there was a huge juxtaposition between the monsters created by Guillermo del Toro and those that existed in the previous iteration. It was comic book horror meets epic fantasy; bright red heroes meet spectacularly designed villains, and to be honest it made me wince. A lot of the plot sequences struck me as extremely predictable, and it seemed that the first film's saving grace (the witty one liners) was also absent.
However, as the film progressed, I grew to like the new elements. There was a lot in the film that was beautiful and a lot that was very well-designed. The new monster creations were superb rubber-suited actors that looked real and either terrifying or wonderful, giving the other actors real cues to work from and making the scenes flow superbly. One such creature acted as the turning point for me; Johann Strauss the new character that joins Hellboy, Abe Sapiens and Liz on their team in the Department of Paranormal Research and Defence. He is an ectoplasmic matrix (ghost) in a suit, and a wonderful character. Additional bad-guy monsters, and the lead antagonist turned the film, for me, from a mediocre comic-book story to a reasonable fantasy film.
I still had a problem with this film. I loved the monsters, the animations were beautiful. There were some excellent action sequences, and the soundtrack was another wonderful work from Danny Elfman. Even the plot, once forgiven its more predictable elements, becomes a good story. However, all these good points aside, something kept dragging it back for me. The main characters not only stood out like a sore thumb against the stunningly crafted new creations from del Toro's odd imagination, they were actually unlikeable.
Hellboy himself is supposed to play the part of an evil being, 'twisted' to good, and occasionally haunted by his potential for evil. Instead, he comes across as a petulant ass who goes out of his way to annoy everyone around him. There is no tortured soul element at all, much as I wouldn't want it to be overplayed. He is just an irritating foil, who's only use is to hit things hard in the face. Liz is equally petulant and annoying... I just severely disliked her, especially in the face of the antagonists (portrayed by actually good actors). Even Abe, who I liked in the first film, plays the part of the stereotypical science nerd; his knowledge and wisdom is backed up by no physical strength whatsoever, except a passing familiarity with firearms.
Hellboy II is almost two films rolled into one. One of them, I liked... it had amazing visual effects and some excellent characters and creatures. The other one revolved around annoying characters who always seemed to be facing the wrong way when interesting developments were occurring, and who missed blatantly obvious leaps because they were selectively stupid, or because the director wanted to show off some new monster creation. As the film progressed, the first film took over and became the primary interest; it got better with time.
If you liked the characters in Hellboy, I am almost certain you will enjoy this film. The things added on top of the original are supremely good. However, if you did not like the original Hellboy, you may leave the film as I did, wondering whether you'd actually had a good time or not.
At first I was severely unimpressed. From the very beginning there was a huge juxtaposition between the monsters created by Guillermo del Toro and those that existed in the previous iteration. It was comic book horror meets epic fantasy; bright red heroes meet spectacularly designed villains, and to be honest it made me wince. A lot of the plot sequences struck me as extremely predictable, and it seemed that the first film's saving grace (the witty one liners) was also absent.
However, as the film progressed, I grew to like the new elements. There was a lot in the film that was beautiful and a lot that was very well-designed. The new monster creations were superb rubber-suited actors that looked real and either terrifying or wonderful, giving the other actors real cues to work from and making the scenes flow superbly. One such creature acted as the turning point for me; Johann Strauss the new character that joins Hellboy, Abe Sapiens and Liz on their team in the Department of Paranormal Research and Defence. He is an ectoplasmic matrix (ghost) in a suit, and a wonderful character. Additional bad-guy monsters, and the lead antagonist turned the film, for me, from a mediocre comic-book story to a reasonable fantasy film.
I still had a problem with this film. I loved the monsters, the animations were beautiful. There were some excellent action sequences, and the soundtrack was another wonderful work from Danny Elfman. Even the plot, once forgiven its more predictable elements, becomes a good story. However, all these good points aside, something kept dragging it back for me. The main characters not only stood out like a sore thumb against the stunningly crafted new creations from del Toro's odd imagination, they were actually unlikeable.
Hellboy himself is supposed to play the part of an evil being, 'twisted' to good, and occasionally haunted by his potential for evil. Instead, he comes across as a petulant ass who goes out of his way to annoy everyone around him. There is no tortured soul element at all, much as I wouldn't want it to be overplayed. He is just an irritating foil, who's only use is to hit things hard in the face. Liz is equally petulant and annoying... I just severely disliked her, especially in the face of the antagonists (portrayed by actually good actors). Even Abe, who I liked in the first film, plays the part of the stereotypical science nerd; his knowledge and wisdom is backed up by no physical strength whatsoever, except a passing familiarity with firearms.
Hellboy II is almost two films rolled into one. One of them, I liked... it had amazing visual effects and some excellent characters and creatures. The other one revolved around annoying characters who always seemed to be facing the wrong way when interesting developments were occurring, and who missed blatantly obvious leaps because they were selectively stupid, or because the director wanted to show off some new monster creation. As the film progressed, the first film took over and became the primary interest; it got better with time.
If you liked the characters in Hellboy, I am almost certain you will enjoy this film. The things added on top of the original are supremely good. However, if you did not like the original Hellboy, you may leave the film as I did, wondering whether you'd actually had a good time or not.
Monday, 11 August 2008
Review of the 2008 film ‘The Mummy III: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor'
Your enjoyment of this film will depend almost entirely on your attitude when you enter the cinema. If you want a classy action drama, or expect even a modicum of self-respect, you will be very disappointed. If you go in expecting a very silly but entertaining action film, you are likely to enjoy this film immensely.
I went to the cinema with the latter attitude. After seeing the first two films (albeit a while ago now), I expected a ridiculous, but amusing plot and lots of action. The film was no more far-fetched than the first two films, just as funny and just as action packed. I came out of the movie feeling suitably entertained. It wasn’t the best film of the century, but I think it achieved its aims, and I certainly enjoyed it.
Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser) is the bored, retired hero, who can fight his way out of so many different scenarios. Evy (Maria Bello), his wife, is equally bored with their retirement, and is trying in vain to write a sequel to her two famously successful novels; the Mummy and the Mummy Returns. Meanwhile, Evy’s brother, Jonathan (John Hannah) has a night-club in Shanghai, and their son Alex (Luke Ford) is also in China, raising the mummy of the movie: the Chinese Emperor (who incidentally has superpowers), played by Jet Li. Isabella Leong also joins the cast as Lin, charged with protecting the Emperor’s tomb, her job later becomes to chase the Emperor with a cursed weapon: the only one that can kill the undead Emperor.
All these characters are superb, well acted creations that were believable in their roles without taking themselves too seriously. They made the witty one-liners with a straight face, but the characters seem to realise that they’re in a movie at the right moments, so that it doesn’t become melodramatic. The onscreen interaction between all the characters is seamless. While there was never any question of realism, the characters made it seem almost plausible. I also liked the fact that while Evy and Rick have been married for quite some time, they are still very much in love. They took their assignment because they were bored of mundane life, but the excitement wasn’t necessary for renewing their love. It was a nice touch.
The plot erred on the side of the predictable: at any point you can tell immediately the outcome of their current predicament, just by realising you’re not far enough into the film for them to win yet. However, you can still be emotionally invested enough in the fantastic characters to actually care what happens to them, and I was still engrossed in the action, wondering about exactly how they would get out of whatever scrape the plot had put them in.
The film moves too fast for you to really care that it doesn’t make that much sense. The characters and the constant action kept me entertained without getting too repetitive, and I didn’t mind the predictability; perhaps there was something behind Brendan Fraser’s eyes that let me know that the character also knew the plot was predictable. He didn’t care, in fact he seemed to be having a lot of fun… which made it more amusing to watch.
I would have preferred if the actress that played Evelyn in the first two films could have returned, although Maria Bello did do a great job, and she had very good onscreen chemistry with Brendan Fraser. I also found the special effects used when the Emperor was cursed hilarious: it looked something like a man made out of chocolate. These are my two main criticisms.
This film probably got bad reviews because the critics have been to so many action films that they realise they’re mostly the same. They are probably bored by any film that doesn’t cross lines into new areas of innovation and excitement. I’m not a professional critic: I’m just a normal moviegoer, with a love of silly movies. In a book, I might expect better… but I very much enjoyed the Mummy III. It was never meant to be taken seriously, and as such, it is a very entertaining film.
I went to the cinema with the latter attitude. After seeing the first two films (albeit a while ago now), I expected a ridiculous, but amusing plot and lots of action. The film was no more far-fetched than the first two films, just as funny and just as action packed. I came out of the movie feeling suitably entertained. It wasn’t the best film of the century, but I think it achieved its aims, and I certainly enjoyed it.
Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser) is the bored, retired hero, who can fight his way out of so many different scenarios. Evy (Maria Bello), his wife, is equally bored with their retirement, and is trying in vain to write a sequel to her two famously successful novels; the Mummy and the Mummy Returns. Meanwhile, Evy’s brother, Jonathan (John Hannah) has a night-club in Shanghai, and their son Alex (Luke Ford) is also in China, raising the mummy of the movie: the Chinese Emperor (who incidentally has superpowers), played by Jet Li. Isabella Leong also joins the cast as Lin, charged with protecting the Emperor’s tomb, her job later becomes to chase the Emperor with a cursed weapon: the only one that can kill the undead Emperor.
All these characters are superb, well acted creations that were believable in their roles without taking themselves too seriously. They made the witty one-liners with a straight face, but the characters seem to realise that they’re in a movie at the right moments, so that it doesn’t become melodramatic. The onscreen interaction between all the characters is seamless. While there was never any question of realism, the characters made it seem almost plausible. I also liked the fact that while Evy and Rick have been married for quite some time, they are still very much in love. They took their assignment because they were bored of mundane life, but the excitement wasn’t necessary for renewing their love. It was a nice touch.
The plot erred on the side of the predictable: at any point you can tell immediately the outcome of their current predicament, just by realising you’re not far enough into the film for them to win yet. However, you can still be emotionally invested enough in the fantastic characters to actually care what happens to them, and I was still engrossed in the action, wondering about exactly how they would get out of whatever scrape the plot had put them in.
The film moves too fast for you to really care that it doesn’t make that much sense. The characters and the constant action kept me entertained without getting too repetitive, and I didn’t mind the predictability; perhaps there was something behind Brendan Fraser’s eyes that let me know that the character also knew the plot was predictable. He didn’t care, in fact he seemed to be having a lot of fun… which made it more amusing to watch.
I would have preferred if the actress that played Evelyn in the first two films could have returned, although Maria Bello did do a great job, and she had very good onscreen chemistry with Brendan Fraser. I also found the special effects used when the Emperor was cursed hilarious: it looked something like a man made out of chocolate. These are my two main criticisms.
This film probably got bad reviews because the critics have been to so many action films that they realise they’re mostly the same. They are probably bored by any film that doesn’t cross lines into new areas of innovation and excitement. I’m not a professional critic: I’m just a normal moviegoer, with a love of silly movies. In a book, I might expect better… but I very much enjoyed the Mummy III. It was never meant to be taken seriously, and as such, it is a very entertaining film.
Friday, 1 August 2008
Review of the 2008 film ‘The Dark Knight’
The latest batman film follows on from the deeply broody gothic horror prequel ‘Batman Begins,’ leaving the old image of camp, flashy Batman movies far behind. Christian Bale plays the gravelly-voiced hero, and his more mellifluous alter ego, Bruce Wayne, as he battles his evil anarchist nemesis, The Joker (Heath Ledger).
I will immediately state the one thing I loved most about this film. Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker captures the insanity, psychopathy and genius of the role perfectly, and his anarchistic actions make for a disturbing, but highly skilled performance. The Joker has a shrewd mind and plenty of confidence, without cockiness. He always has a way out, which makes him a terrifying villain. The voice and facial expressions that Ledger gives to this character show an almost reptilian coldness, and his constant lip-smacking is disgusting, and perfect, all at the same time. Ledger’s Joker is one of the best antagonists I have seen in a very long while.
But Ledger is just the best of a brilliant bunch. Christian Bale acts rich jet setter and mysterious vigilante with equal competence, maintaining his acting standards from ‘Batman Begins’. Gary Oldman’s quiet, contemplative police officer, Gordon, says all that he needs to say, without needing to bully. Oldman brings across integrity, with Gordon’s understanding that while Batman’s vigilante justice is not pretty, it is sometimes necessary. Aaron Eckhart plays the honest good-guy, Harvey Dent; the prosecutor who’s determined to put the villains behind bars, and make sure that Gotham no longer need the vigilante. Harvey has some tough times in the film, and from start to finish, Eckhart’s performance is believable, strong and evocative.
Then there are the less major roles, played by equally leading actors. Michael Caine returns as faithful butler, Alfred. With steadfast loyalty and quirky (very British) humour, Alfred plays guide, conscience and aide. Even with limited screen time, Michael Caine has excellent screen presence. Then there’s Lucius Fox, played by Morgan Freeman, another fantastic actor playing a minor role. The intelligent manager acts as guiding hand and moral voice for Batman and Bruce Wayne, and I don’t ever recall seeing Morgan Freeman act anything less than brilliantly.
Unfortunately I have to say that the female actors in this film were either less inspiring or simply outclassed. I was not overly impressed by Maggie Gyllenhaal or Monique Curnen, although both gave competent performances… they were simply in a movie with too much male talent.
The characters of this film were good enough to make a slightly meandering plot highly watchable. But while the plot is occasionally haphazard, in a way it mirrors the Joker’s desire for anarchy as he causes havoc in Gotham. My major criticism of the plot is that there is little by way of an overriding arc, and the movie seems almost split in two by one scene. The borderline was slightly too abrupt, so that it seemed that the plot was over, but the movie showed no signs of finishing.
However, haphazard and chaotic as the overall plot was, the individual plot elements captured some incredible scenes of fear and tension. Many of these sequences would have made excellent shorts on their own. They also show people forced into making difficult choices. The Joker’s calculated scheming makes people show the horrible side of human nature, as well as the more hopeful one.
In terms of filming, many of the visuals in this film are stunning, if a little gratuitous. Also, much to my relief, the director rediscovered the steady-cam for fight scenes rather than the shaky camera-work that I found so annoying in ‘Batman Begins.’ The fistfights are short and punctuated, with ‘kapow’ ‘wop’ style effects, making them more realistic than protracted scenes that are common in other action dramas. The pyrotechnic effects are truly explosive (if you’ll pardon the pun)… I could argue this as a good point or a bad point, depending on personal tastes. For me, there was a little too much ‘boom.’ There are also some horrific injuries on display in this film, perhaps not for the squeamish. Frankly, I was slightly concerned that this film was dubbed ‘12A’ and not the ‘15’ or ‘18’ that would have been appropriate.
‘The Dark Knight’ doesn’t have the same broody gothic mood as ‘Batman Begins,’ and it could be argued that Heath Ledger’s performance carries the movie against improbable odds. It could also be argued that a more scissor-happy editor could have improved the film with no ill effects, or that the direction could have done with a little more consistency of atmosphere. However, all in all, The Dark Knight is an entertaining, if highly disturbing, action movie. The characters make it all worth watching, carrying a plot that would not carry itself. I wouldn’t recommend it for children, but if you enjoy the darker side of action movies, you will probably like The Dark Knight.
I will immediately state the one thing I loved most about this film. Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker captures the insanity, psychopathy and genius of the role perfectly, and his anarchistic actions make for a disturbing, but highly skilled performance. The Joker has a shrewd mind and plenty of confidence, without cockiness. He always has a way out, which makes him a terrifying villain. The voice and facial expressions that Ledger gives to this character show an almost reptilian coldness, and his constant lip-smacking is disgusting, and perfect, all at the same time. Ledger’s Joker is one of the best antagonists I have seen in a very long while.
But Ledger is just the best of a brilliant bunch. Christian Bale acts rich jet setter and mysterious vigilante with equal competence, maintaining his acting standards from ‘Batman Begins’. Gary Oldman’s quiet, contemplative police officer, Gordon, says all that he needs to say, without needing to bully. Oldman brings across integrity, with Gordon’s understanding that while Batman’s vigilante justice is not pretty, it is sometimes necessary. Aaron Eckhart plays the honest good-guy, Harvey Dent; the prosecutor who’s determined to put the villains behind bars, and make sure that Gotham no longer need the vigilante. Harvey has some tough times in the film, and from start to finish, Eckhart’s performance is believable, strong and evocative.
Then there are the less major roles, played by equally leading actors. Michael Caine returns as faithful butler, Alfred. With steadfast loyalty and quirky (very British) humour, Alfred plays guide, conscience and aide. Even with limited screen time, Michael Caine has excellent screen presence. Then there’s Lucius Fox, played by Morgan Freeman, another fantastic actor playing a minor role. The intelligent manager acts as guiding hand and moral voice for Batman and Bruce Wayne, and I don’t ever recall seeing Morgan Freeman act anything less than brilliantly.
Unfortunately I have to say that the female actors in this film were either less inspiring or simply outclassed. I was not overly impressed by Maggie Gyllenhaal or Monique Curnen, although both gave competent performances… they were simply in a movie with too much male talent.
The characters of this film were good enough to make a slightly meandering plot highly watchable. But while the plot is occasionally haphazard, in a way it mirrors the Joker’s desire for anarchy as he causes havoc in Gotham. My major criticism of the plot is that there is little by way of an overriding arc, and the movie seems almost split in two by one scene. The borderline was slightly too abrupt, so that it seemed that the plot was over, but the movie showed no signs of finishing.
However, haphazard and chaotic as the overall plot was, the individual plot elements captured some incredible scenes of fear and tension. Many of these sequences would have made excellent shorts on their own. They also show people forced into making difficult choices. The Joker’s calculated scheming makes people show the horrible side of human nature, as well as the more hopeful one.
In terms of filming, many of the visuals in this film are stunning, if a little gratuitous. Also, much to my relief, the director rediscovered the steady-cam for fight scenes rather than the shaky camera-work that I found so annoying in ‘Batman Begins.’ The fistfights are short and punctuated, with ‘kapow’ ‘wop’ style effects, making them more realistic than protracted scenes that are common in other action dramas. The pyrotechnic effects are truly explosive (if you’ll pardon the pun)… I could argue this as a good point or a bad point, depending on personal tastes. For me, there was a little too much ‘boom.’ There are also some horrific injuries on display in this film, perhaps not for the squeamish. Frankly, I was slightly concerned that this film was dubbed ‘12A’ and not the ‘15’ or ‘18’ that would have been appropriate.
‘The Dark Knight’ doesn’t have the same broody gothic mood as ‘Batman Begins,’ and it could be argued that Heath Ledger’s performance carries the movie against improbable odds. It could also be argued that a more scissor-happy editor could have improved the film with no ill effects, or that the direction could have done with a little more consistency of atmosphere. However, all in all, The Dark Knight is an entertaining, if highly disturbing, action movie. The characters make it all worth watching, carrying a plot that would not carry itself. I wouldn’t recommend it for children, but if you enjoy the darker side of action movies, you will probably like The Dark Knight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)