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.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)