It's strange, buying a book mainly because a character in your favourite television show was named after the author, but that's probably the main reason I first picked up The Stars My Destination (also previously published under the title Tiger Tiger). This is another one of the books published in the Science Fiction masterworks series, though, so I suspected that I was in for a good ride, and I was right.
Gully Foyle is the sole survivor on his mostly burned-out ship. He is an uneducated nobody, surviving through sheer bloody-mindedness. He does not know how he came to be there. Eventually, he has a chance for rescue, but his would-be rescuer passes him by. At that moment, he vows revenge on those that passed him by, and in vowing and seeking his vengeance he becomes more than he was.
The central science-fiction premise around which the world is hung is the development (or rather discovery) of personal, instantaneous teleportation. With just the power of their minds, people can travel up to a thousand miles across the world. While the concept seems even more unlikely today than it did when the book was written, the society that Bester created around it rang very true, and I loved the way that he created the world where such a form of teleportation was possible.
Around this tenet, Bester also created a rich world where a number of other things were possible, and in this, Gully Foyle wanders and seeks his vengeance. He is helped and hindered along the way by a cast of characters with as much variety as I have come to expect from real life. There is a greedy, self-absorbed businessman who manages somehow to avoid many of the cliches that now hang around such a character; There is a woman who has grown so sick of the role that women are given in the world of instantaneous teleportation that she has turned to a life of petty crime; Then there is a poor teacher who has the negative qualities of telepathy (broadcasting her thoughts) without the benefits of being able to read minds.
And at the centre of it all is the determined Gully Foyle. He maintains his purpose throughout the story, even when it is difficult to believe that any real person would. But somehow, he forces himself to ambition when he is given a hook for his vengeance, and he channels all that energy towards getting what he wants. He doesn't care that it makes people along the path hate him for it, and he happily uses them to get what he wants. However, throughout the character grows from a down-and-out to an intelligent, well-educated human being, who has every possibility. It is strange watching how such a destructive force as revenge builds an incredibly intelligent and resourceful man out of a nobody, but in the pages of The Stars My Destination, it is pulled off with immense skill.
The story was brilliantly told, and I greatly enjoyed the simple (but not bare or too utilitarian) prose. The plot was rich, interesting and compelling, encouraging me with each step to read on. It was the kind of compulsion that I had missed in the Deptford Trilogy, in fact, though I will not state that the book stands as well as Great Literature. Importantly, the characters and story all rang true, once the central tenets had been accepted with a pinch poetic license and I can well see why this book has made it into the science fiction masterworks.
It almost seems bad form to comment upon the books flaws, but I probably should. Most of them stem from the fact that the book is quite dated; it was written some time ago and the views on society, women and science are a little out of date by now. This book has perhaps not stood the test of time as well as some science fiction books. Equally, though, in my opinion it has lasted better than some, and I can forgive a lot when I take into account that it was written a long time before the present day.
In the end, the story is made by the brilliance of the main character; and while I do not necessarily believe that anyone is capable of anything they set their mind to, Gully Foyle rings true as a character who does pull off that feat, and as such I found him inspirational, even though his motivation was questionable.
As you can probably tell, I enjoyed this book... and I think that most science fiction fans will. I do not think it has yet supplanted any of my top favourites... but perhaps that is only because my favourites haven't lasted through fifty years of time taking a completely different path to that which the writers expected.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Review of 'The Deptford Trilogy' by Robertson Davies
Starting in the small Canadian village of Deptford, this trilogy of novels follow the lives of three men whose lives started, or were greatly affected by, that village. The first is Dunstan Ramsay, a relatively unremarkable history professor, looking back over his life to an event that occurred in his tenth year and shaped much that happened to him afterwards. The second is a rich, highly respected lawyer, David Staunton, the son of Ramsay's old friend Boy Staunton. The third is Magnus Eisengrim, the greatest magician in the world, who was also born in Deptford.
These novels aren't the usual sort of thing I would read, and I cannot say that I would have ever come across them if they hadn't been recommended to me. However, they are very good books, and are certainly very well written. The characters are all well-rounded, and interesting. Each has a good story to tell, and each is well told. Throughout each book, there are a number of interesting themes, such as friendship, loyalty, myth and vengeance. They are dealt with skilfully and as each story develops, you see how each character has been shaped by his past.
While I can honestly say that I enjoyed these stories, I have more to say on the negative side than usual, and this is perhaps because I have stepped outside my reading comfort zone. However, I also mainly noticed flaws that I have picked up on (or that others have mentioned) about my own writing.
Firstly, all of the main characters were all incredibly intelligent and self-aware. This in itself is not a flaw, but there were very few characters bought to the fore in the whole story who did not meet this general description, which I feel lost something of the tapestry of life.
Secondly, all of the characters seemed to speak in the same, or very similar, voices. The consistency of tone was very good for the first story, where it was all told in first-person perspective from Ramsay's point of view. However, when all three of the stories were told in the same tone, it became less interesting and lost the characters some of their variety, especially in the third story, where other characters have a lot more to say. This is not to say that the narrative voice was dull; just that the style was a little too consistent between characters.
Thirdly, although I wanted to read on, and was interested in the outcomes of all of the stories, this book was not what I would describe as a page-turner. Usually stories that interest also grab me, to a lesser or greater extent. For the Deptford Trilogy I wanted to read on, but I was not compelled in the same way as for many ripping yarn stories.
However, at no point did I consider stopping reading the book; throughout I wanted to find out what happened, it just took me a lot longer than some books. The first book introduced me to a cast of characters who had enough variety to intrigue (earlier comments notwithstanding). There was also a considerable amount of extraneous knowledge and information dotted around the plot. The second book, especially, taught me a few things that I didn't know, while exploring the life and character of the subject of that novel, David Staunton.
I've thus finished this omnibus with mixed feelings. The threads that pull all three stories together are intriguing and the characters and tales are very strong, and quite believable, even in their most fanciful moments. It was definitely strong literature, very cleverly and well written. However, while the book was entertaining enough, it just wasn't as gripping as I wanted it to be, so I found it took me a very long time to read.
If, like me, you prefer ripping-yarn stories that pull you through on tenter-hooks, and have a plot that grabs you, you may find, like me, that the Deptford trilogy is a surprisingly good read, but not precisely your cup of tea. If, however, you are very much into fictional life-stories and semi-historical fiction, I think that this is a fine example of its kind, and you will probably enjoy it greatly.
These novels aren't the usual sort of thing I would read, and I cannot say that I would have ever come across them if they hadn't been recommended to me. However, they are very good books, and are certainly very well written. The characters are all well-rounded, and interesting. Each has a good story to tell, and each is well told. Throughout each book, there are a number of interesting themes, such as friendship, loyalty, myth and vengeance. They are dealt with skilfully and as each story develops, you see how each character has been shaped by his past.
While I can honestly say that I enjoyed these stories, I have more to say on the negative side than usual, and this is perhaps because I have stepped outside my reading comfort zone. However, I also mainly noticed flaws that I have picked up on (or that others have mentioned) about my own writing.
Firstly, all of the main characters were all incredibly intelligent and self-aware. This in itself is not a flaw, but there were very few characters bought to the fore in the whole story who did not meet this general description, which I feel lost something of the tapestry of life.
Secondly, all of the characters seemed to speak in the same, or very similar, voices. The consistency of tone was very good for the first story, where it was all told in first-person perspective from Ramsay's point of view. However, when all three of the stories were told in the same tone, it became less interesting and lost the characters some of their variety, especially in the third story, where other characters have a lot more to say. This is not to say that the narrative voice was dull; just that the style was a little too consistent between characters.
Thirdly, although I wanted to read on, and was interested in the outcomes of all of the stories, this book was not what I would describe as a page-turner. Usually stories that interest also grab me, to a lesser or greater extent. For the Deptford Trilogy I wanted to read on, but I was not compelled in the same way as for many ripping yarn stories.
However, at no point did I consider stopping reading the book; throughout I wanted to find out what happened, it just took me a lot longer than some books. The first book introduced me to a cast of characters who had enough variety to intrigue (earlier comments notwithstanding). There was also a considerable amount of extraneous knowledge and information dotted around the plot. The second book, especially, taught me a few things that I didn't know, while exploring the life and character of the subject of that novel, David Staunton.
I've thus finished this omnibus with mixed feelings. The threads that pull all three stories together are intriguing and the characters and tales are very strong, and quite believable, even in their most fanciful moments. It was definitely strong literature, very cleverly and well written. However, while the book was entertaining enough, it just wasn't as gripping as I wanted it to be, so I found it took me a very long time to read.
If, like me, you prefer ripping-yarn stories that pull you through on tenter-hooks, and have a plot that grabs you, you may find, like me, that the Deptford trilogy is a surprisingly good read, but not precisely your cup of tea. If, however, you are very much into fictional life-stories and semi-historical fiction, I think that this is a fine example of its kind, and you will probably enjoy it greatly.
Saturday, 24 October 2009
The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)