When I started this blog, I never intended for it to be solely reviews. Unfortunately it seems to have turned out that way, to the extent that I'm tentative about posting non-review blogging posts now. However, I've recently found a few things I wanted to write about, and seeing as that's what blogs are for... I might as well use the opportunity while it's there.
Two weeks ago, I was in Paris, visiting the touristy places in one of the best-known historic cities in Europe. I have a lot to say about a lot of things I saw there, but for now, I want to talk about the Arc de Triomphe.
The Arc de Triomphe stands at a junction between several big roads in Paris, the biggest being the Champs Elysées and the Avenue de la Grande Armée. It was built by Napoleon to honour his troops on their journey home. It can be seen from just about any point in Paris that stands above three stories high, but disappears surprisingly fast when you walk away from it at ground level.
An impressive white edifice, it stands proud and tall, with an ornamented but elegant design. The views from the top level are stunning. But the thing that really struck me when I was at the Arc, was not inside the giant structure at all.
Between two of the giant pillars there is a plain gravestone, with some flowers and a flame that is always lit.
“Ici repose un soldat Francais, mort pour la patrie.”
Here lies a French soldier who died for his country.
The tomb of the unknown soldier is a tradition I've known about for as long as I can remember, but until I stood there, under the arch, I didn't really understand it. I've never seen the soldier in Westminster Cathedral (a little closer to home), so I don't know if I would have been affected the same way there.
But as I stood there, surrounded by crowds, reading the signs that asked me to treat the site with the respect it deserved, I realised that it wasn't just the tomb of an unknown soldier. It was the tomb of every unknown soldier.
Here lies a man who fought and died for his country. Wrong or right, he took up arms to fight a force he believed needed to be fought. The Generals sat above him, somewhere, and directed him, but he was the one fighting. He was the one that faced the enemy on equal footing. And somewhere along the line, somehow, he was killed.
It happened to a lot of men. There are thousands upon thousands of graves, of those who died in two world wars. Some were recovered, named, buried. Their families knew and mourned properly.
But some just never came home.
Reality and fiction say a lot about how difficult it is to mourn properly when there is no closure. Burying a close loved-one, especially one who dies young, must be hard; I have been very sheltered in this in my life so far, but I can imagine something of what it would feel, even if my imagination could never truly harness the reality. It's even harder to imagine what it must be like to lose someone and never know what happened, to never be able to bury them.
So, when I stood beside the grave under the Arc de Triomphe, I think I realised just how much it must have meant. The symbolism behind the Unknown Soldier may have allowed people just a touch of what they needed. Perhaps they could imagine that their beloved lay underneath that well-loved grave; that buried in state is the man that they adored in their time. And while he was never named, he is still there, at rest.
It hit me with a cold wind, and I stared for a long moment.
Looking up, there is a lot of the Arc that is impressive, and important; a very powerful monument. It contains the names of many. But none of them meant anything to me; a name is just a name if it's someone you don't know and never will.
But an Unknown Person, unnamed... that could be anyone. And I think that will stay with me a lot longer than the views along the Champs Elysées.
Saturday, 24 October 2009
Review of Babel-17 by Samuel R. Delany
In the far future, humans have spread out among the stars, discovered alien life and is in the midst of a war. A series of catastrophic 'accidents' around the galaxy are preceded by communications in a language that no one understands. Rydra Wong, however, has an extremely keen linguistic mind, and starts to extract meaning from Babel-17. And with understanding, she sets out in search of whoever speaks the strange and remarkable tongue.
Babel-17 is another one of the sci-fi masterworks, so I had an inkling it would be good before I picked it up. As it was, though, I was still blown away by it. With a brilliant plot, a wonderful cast of characters and prose that I can only dream of writing, this stands rightly among the sci-fi masterworks.
Linguistics is a field I've always been interested in, but never had enough time to devote to it. Discovering a sci-fi novel, where the plot is based around linguistics is interesting, and it's always nice when a passive interest meets an active one. The linguistic explorations and Rydra's attempts to explain how things work make for very compelling and interesting reading. In addition, the other characters add a whole host of personas and interests to the plot. From the customs officer whose life is changed after spending one evening with Rydra, to the trio of navigators and the wonderful way they interact with each other... it all fits together seamlessly.
The world-building is fantastic, as well, I should say. The way the 'Transport' people work, and the way the society in general works is introduced gradually throughout the novel. There are one or two things that are introduced slightly too soon before they become plot-relevant, but in general, it all fits together. The world is beautiful, vibrant, and nearly completely believable. Even something of art and science in their world is described and painted beautifully.
Babel-17 is only a short book, so it's necessarily quite punchy and fast-paced. There are a few plot elements and 'decisions' that strike me as strange. And there are some scenes that the author seems to dwell on, when perhaps others may have seemed more plot-relevant. However, in the span of 200 or so pages, the author built a world and a cast of characters, and made me care for all of them. The ending seemed slightly rushed; there was a chapter that was only vaguely coherent, followed by a few that led the book to its end, but never really fully explained everything. On the whole, though, it was very well paced, and everything up to those last few chapters made me enjoy it all the more. At the end, I was left wanting more, so if that was the intention, Mr. Delany certainly achieved his objective.
One thing I found slightly strange is that the main character, Rydra Wong, and another character who is only present for a short time, are the only two convincing female characters... the others are slightly bland, and don't have as much stage-presence as the male characters. Another criticism I'd have is that there are the occasional bits that are hard to read; especially a three-page long sentence (not as bad as it sounds, and skilfully done, but even so; hard going).
In general, Babel-17 was an excellently crafted, easy-to-read 200 pages, with world and characters I didn't find it hard to love. I'd recommend it wholeheartedly to anyone who likes science fiction, especially, but not exclusively, if you also enjoy linguistics.
Babel-17 is another one of the sci-fi masterworks, so I had an inkling it would be good before I picked it up. As it was, though, I was still blown away by it. With a brilliant plot, a wonderful cast of characters and prose that I can only dream of writing, this stands rightly among the sci-fi masterworks.
Linguistics is a field I've always been interested in, but never had enough time to devote to it. Discovering a sci-fi novel, where the plot is based around linguistics is interesting, and it's always nice when a passive interest meets an active one. The linguistic explorations and Rydra's attempts to explain how things work make for very compelling and interesting reading. In addition, the other characters add a whole host of personas and interests to the plot. From the customs officer whose life is changed after spending one evening with Rydra, to the trio of navigators and the wonderful way they interact with each other... it all fits together seamlessly.
The world-building is fantastic, as well, I should say. The way the 'Transport' people work, and the way the society in general works is introduced gradually throughout the novel. There are one or two things that are introduced slightly too soon before they become plot-relevant, but in general, it all fits together. The world is beautiful, vibrant, and nearly completely believable. Even something of art and science in their world is described and painted beautifully.
Babel-17 is only a short book, so it's necessarily quite punchy and fast-paced. There are a few plot elements and 'decisions' that strike me as strange. And there are some scenes that the author seems to dwell on, when perhaps others may have seemed more plot-relevant. However, in the span of 200 or so pages, the author built a world and a cast of characters, and made me care for all of them. The ending seemed slightly rushed; there was a chapter that was only vaguely coherent, followed by a few that led the book to its end, but never really fully explained everything. On the whole, though, it was very well paced, and everything up to those last few chapters made me enjoy it all the more. At the end, I was left wanting more, so if that was the intention, Mr. Delany certainly achieved his objective.
One thing I found slightly strange is that the main character, Rydra Wong, and another character who is only present for a short time, are the only two convincing female characters... the others are slightly bland, and don't have as much stage-presence as the male characters. Another criticism I'd have is that there are the occasional bits that are hard to read; especially a three-page long sentence (not as bad as it sounds, and skilfully done, but even so; hard going).
In general, Babel-17 was an excellently crafted, easy-to-read 200 pages, with world and characters I didn't find it hard to love. I'd recommend it wholeheartedly to anyone who likes science fiction, especially, but not exclusively, if you also enjoy linguistics.
Review of the 2004 film 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow'
I'm discovering it's very difficult to review things... especially if I really enjoyed it. If I was to embark upon this properly, I'd have to pick films at random, rather than choosing films that I am fairly certain I'm going to enjoy. However, my intent was always to be an 'everyman' reviewer. Hopefully I can attempt to be balanced even when I enjoyed a film, and hopefully people can judge from my reviews whether they would enjoy something or not. I'm sure that professional reviewers quickly become jaded, so a film has to do something very special to stand out. Not so for me, as I like cheesy crazy action movies as much as the next guy.
However, sometimes I watch a film that I have lots of things to say about, positive and negative.
And so to my next review... Sky Captain.
Jude Law stars as Sky Captain, a mercenary crack pilot with almost the almost superhuman ability to fly through cities without destroying buildings (much). Gwyneth Paltrow plays a cut-throat journalist who will do just about anything to get a story. Together, they set out in search of the coordinator of a series of attacks involving highly technologically advanced giant robots and flying machines.
If it sounds steam-punk and cheesy, it is... but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There is a quite gripping and thrill-riding-ly entertaining plot, veneered with strong stilton. The plot held up to closer examination better than most other elements of the film. If you took for granted that the level of technology was possible in the supposed time period (the 50's I think), and that Sky Captain and his number-two tech expert Dex (Giovanni Ribisi) are as good as they are claimed to be, then everything else sort of works, in a silly way. There were some good action scenes, a good mystery element and some amusing twists. It came with comedy and drama and managed both pretty well.
My main problem with this film was that I didn't particularly like the characters. The Captain himself was arrogant in the way only crack pilots in film seem to be, but he was good enough to pull it off. Dex had enough screen presence to stand up, but he didn't really stand out, or have enough screen time to make me really like him. Angelina Jolie's character had enough charm to actually make me like Angelina for possibly the first time ever... but again, she had limited screen time, so it wasn't enough to redeem the movie.
And then, trailing notably behind these characters in my estimation, I hated Gwyneth Paltrow's character. I didn't actively hate her in the way that you'd hate a well-done bad guy. I hated her in the sense that it was a terrible character, and I didn't find the portrayal good enough to rescue it. In the vein of journalistic stereotypes, Polly Perkins, puts herself in harms way and almost gets killed several times in her determination to get a story and a few pictures. Far from brave and ambitious, I found her irritating and stupid, and I wanted to slap her face on more than one occasion. She was worse than useless in aiding the plot, and spent a lot of time fretting about her beloved camera in a way I found vexing.
Leaving my ire behind though, let's move on to the filming. While the special effects would not be considered ground-breaking, they were adequate, and the filming style covered that a lot; the film user a lot of sepia and blue-filters, which I think dulled the difference between real and CG. However, aside from this notable benefit, I didn't particularly like the sepia. I found it hard to watch (as in, odd glares and shadows, rather than the this-film-is-too-frustrating sense). I can cope with blue filters, though, so for those bits of the film I wasn't squinting at the TV quite as much.
I should add a note that this film had a brilliant soundtrack, which added greatly to the atmosphere of the film. Reminiscent of some of John Williams better works, Edward Shearmur does a brilliant job of backing this film and adding a pinch of what's needed to every scene.
So, let's balance up: pretty good, quite gripping plot, with some good characters and one supremely irritating one who gets a lot of screen-time. Filming techniques that I half-liked and half-disliked. Reasonable acting and adequate special effects. But for a film I watched on a lazy Saturday and had hardly heard of before, it wasn't a bad couple of hour's entertainment.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a fairly good film, but it's not quite the epic it could have been. It's not going to top my list of favourites, and it won't be high on my list of things to re-watch soon, but it might be worth giving it a go, if you like that sort of thing.
However, sometimes I watch a film that I have lots of things to say about, positive and negative.
And so to my next review... Sky Captain.
Jude Law stars as Sky Captain, a mercenary crack pilot with almost the almost superhuman ability to fly through cities without destroying buildings (much). Gwyneth Paltrow plays a cut-throat journalist who will do just about anything to get a story. Together, they set out in search of the coordinator of a series of attacks involving highly technologically advanced giant robots and flying machines.
If it sounds steam-punk and cheesy, it is... but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There is a quite gripping and thrill-riding-ly entertaining plot, veneered with strong stilton. The plot held up to closer examination better than most other elements of the film. If you took for granted that the level of technology was possible in the supposed time period (the 50's I think), and that Sky Captain and his number-two tech expert Dex (Giovanni Ribisi) are as good as they are claimed to be, then everything else sort of works, in a silly way. There were some good action scenes, a good mystery element and some amusing twists. It came with comedy and drama and managed both pretty well.
My main problem with this film was that I didn't particularly like the characters. The Captain himself was arrogant in the way only crack pilots in film seem to be, but he was good enough to pull it off. Dex had enough screen presence to stand up, but he didn't really stand out, or have enough screen time to make me really like him. Angelina Jolie's character had enough charm to actually make me like Angelina for possibly the first time ever... but again, she had limited screen time, so it wasn't enough to redeem the movie.
And then, trailing notably behind these characters in my estimation, I hated Gwyneth Paltrow's character. I didn't actively hate her in the way that you'd hate a well-done bad guy. I hated her in the sense that it was a terrible character, and I didn't find the portrayal good enough to rescue it. In the vein of journalistic stereotypes, Polly Perkins, puts herself in harms way and almost gets killed several times in her determination to get a story and a few pictures. Far from brave and ambitious, I found her irritating and stupid, and I wanted to slap her face on more than one occasion. She was worse than useless in aiding the plot, and spent a lot of time fretting about her beloved camera in a way I found vexing.
Leaving my ire behind though, let's move on to the filming. While the special effects would not be considered ground-breaking, they were adequate, and the filming style covered that a lot; the film user a lot of sepia and blue-filters, which I think dulled the difference between real and CG. However, aside from this notable benefit, I didn't particularly like the sepia. I found it hard to watch (as in, odd glares and shadows, rather than the this-film-is-too-frustrating sense). I can cope with blue filters, though, so for those bits of the film I wasn't squinting at the TV quite as much.
I should add a note that this film had a brilliant soundtrack, which added greatly to the atmosphere of the film. Reminiscent of some of John Williams better works, Edward Shearmur does a brilliant job of backing this film and adding a pinch of what's needed to every scene.
So, let's balance up: pretty good, quite gripping plot, with some good characters and one supremely irritating one who gets a lot of screen-time. Filming techniques that I half-liked and half-disliked. Reasonable acting and adequate special effects. But for a film I watched on a lazy Saturday and had hardly heard of before, it wasn't a bad couple of hour's entertainment.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a fairly good film, but it's not quite the epic it could have been. It's not going to top my list of favourites, and it won't be high on my list of things to re-watch soon, but it might be worth giving it a go, if you like that sort of thing.
Review of the 2007 film 'Bridge to Terabithia'
I knew nothing about Bridge to Terabithia before watching it. Reading this review will somewhat deprive you of that opportunity. I recommend approaching this film with your mind open, so if you want to see it before reading this... know only that I recommend you watch it. I had trouble even deciding whether to post this review. However...
For those that would rather know more...
Bridge to Terabithia affected me in ways that only a couple of other films ever have. It was incredibly effective, and for many reasons really got to me. It's hard to review it without spoiling it, but I'll do my best.
Josh Hutcherson is a preteen with the usual trials of the kid who isn't quite in the cool crowd. When Leslie Burke starts at the school, the pair initially start off on the wrong foot, but soon become friends. Leslie has many of the same problems as Josh, but she is much better at letting things wash over her. She has a strong personality, and some wisdom far beyond her years, with the imagination and playfulness of youth. Together, they create a world of their own, Terabithia, driven by imagination and escapism.
I don't know what I was expecting when I sat down to watch this film; I think I expected something far more fanciful and fantastical than what I got. Perhaps I thought it would a fantasy similar to 'City of Ember'. I thought it was a kid's film, and I thought it would be the kind of hollywood kid's film cheese I've come to expect. As it was, though, I got something that took me back to my own experiences of youth; my own attempts to use imagination and fictional worlds to escape from the world of today. I was incredibly sympathetic towards the characters, which made it easy to enjoy the highs, and to feel the lows even more distinctly.
The acting in this film is brilliant, by children and adults alike. Even Zooey Deschanel, who I normally find annoying, was good in this film (though her part was thankfully reasonably small). Everything meshes together perfectly.
On the other side, there were a few things I liked less about this film... some of the characters didn't fit quite as well as others, and nothing much is ever made of two of Josh's sisters. In one or two places, there were ideas that not everyone will agree with, but as it was all presented as children's ideas, I think it was easier to swallow.
The visual effects are pretty average, and the plotline is fairly simplistic. But, this is not an epic storyline about children discovering a Narnia-like fantasy world. This is about children and the power of imagination. It reminded me of a lot of things I had thought gone, and evoked a churn of new emotions (to get overly poetical).
I think Bridge to Terabithia has wound its way rightfully up into my favourite films. There's something about it that I think, and hope, will stay with me. It's something I think I could watch again and again, and each time love it anew, even if the twists and turns have less punch than the first time.
In a way, I'm glad I knew nothing about the film before seeing it. It caught me and immersed me in a way that few films I have seen ever have. I loved every moment, even the saddest moments. And I hope that if and when you see it, you enjoy it on as many levels as I did.
For those that would rather know more...
Bridge to Terabithia affected me in ways that only a couple of other films ever have. It was incredibly effective, and for many reasons really got to me. It's hard to review it without spoiling it, but I'll do my best.
Josh Hutcherson is a preteen with the usual trials of the kid who isn't quite in the cool crowd. When Leslie Burke starts at the school, the pair initially start off on the wrong foot, but soon become friends. Leslie has many of the same problems as Josh, but she is much better at letting things wash over her. She has a strong personality, and some wisdom far beyond her years, with the imagination and playfulness of youth. Together, they create a world of their own, Terabithia, driven by imagination and escapism.
I don't know what I was expecting when I sat down to watch this film; I think I expected something far more fanciful and fantastical than what I got. Perhaps I thought it would a fantasy similar to 'City of Ember'. I thought it was a kid's film, and I thought it would be the kind of hollywood kid's film cheese I've come to expect. As it was, though, I got something that took me back to my own experiences of youth; my own attempts to use imagination and fictional worlds to escape from the world of today. I was incredibly sympathetic towards the characters, which made it easy to enjoy the highs, and to feel the lows even more distinctly.
The acting in this film is brilliant, by children and adults alike. Even Zooey Deschanel, who I normally find annoying, was good in this film (though her part was thankfully reasonably small). Everything meshes together perfectly.
On the other side, there were a few things I liked less about this film... some of the characters didn't fit quite as well as others, and nothing much is ever made of two of Josh's sisters. In one or two places, there were ideas that not everyone will agree with, but as it was all presented as children's ideas, I think it was easier to swallow.
The visual effects are pretty average, and the plotline is fairly simplistic. But, this is not an epic storyline about children discovering a Narnia-like fantasy world. This is about children and the power of imagination. It reminded me of a lot of things I had thought gone, and evoked a churn of new emotions (to get overly poetical).
I think Bridge to Terabithia has wound its way rightfully up into my favourite films. There's something about it that I think, and hope, will stay with me. It's something I think I could watch again and again, and each time love it anew, even if the twists and turns have less punch than the first time.
In a way, I'm glad I knew nothing about the film before seeing it. It caught me and immersed me in a way that few films I have seen ever have. I loved every moment, even the saddest moments. And I hope that if and when you see it, you enjoy it on as many levels as I did.
Review of the 2006 film 'A Scanner Darkly'
A Scanner Darkly is a story about the dangers of drugs. In the future, a drug known as 'substance D' is the current bane of civilisation. The narcotics police send undercover agents out to try and infiltrate groups of addicts, to find and bring down those who are distributing the drugs. Keanu Reeves plays a narcotics known by codename 'Fred'. His undercover guise is as Bob Arctor, living in a house with two other Substance D addicted men.
Having never read the book, I cannot tell you how true it is to Philip K Dick's original creation, but I can say that as a film, this stood up very well. There was some brilliant acting from all of the cast, especially Robert Downey Jr, who is fast becoming one of my favourite actors. The film is shown as cell-shaded live action. You can tell that the cast are real, but the unreality of the overlaying colour accentuates the drug-haze that its characters are living in. There are some interesting effects as well. When not undercover, the narcotics officers wear suits that hide their identity, showing images of switching faces, flashing a series of strange and different images.
The plot thread that the majority of the film follows is relatively simple. It is mostly following Bob and his group, and watching him as he tries to discover more about the drug network. Throughout there are a series of interactions that show the life that they are living, listening in on their 'trippy' conversations. It is an interesting sketch. The ending of the film, however, shows what everything else has been leading up to, and it impressed me greatly.
At times the mood of the film is relatively comic, as you watch the characters having conversations that most level-headed people would never have. At these points, I found myself wondering if they were based off actual conversations that Philip K Dick had had. Often the film is a lot darker, as Bob becomes more drug addicted and starts losing his faculties.
The film held my interest throughout, and made me think about what it was trying to achieve. As well as good acting, and a very good script, it captured a variety of moods. From the opening scene of watching a drug-addicted man imagine that he is covered in insects, to the final conclusion, there is a lot of good story-telling, and a wonderful variety of characters. As science fiction it is squarely within the realms of possibility, perhaps making the film that little bit more plausible and unnerving.
This isn't a light-hearted film, but I enjoyed it very much as a film to watch and get my teeth into. I think it would have a lot of appeal to many people, and definitely not one just for science fiction fans.
Having never read the book, I cannot tell you how true it is to Philip K Dick's original creation, but I can say that as a film, this stood up very well. There was some brilliant acting from all of the cast, especially Robert Downey Jr, who is fast becoming one of my favourite actors. The film is shown as cell-shaded live action. You can tell that the cast are real, but the unreality of the overlaying colour accentuates the drug-haze that its characters are living in. There are some interesting effects as well. When not undercover, the narcotics officers wear suits that hide their identity, showing images of switching faces, flashing a series of strange and different images.
The plot thread that the majority of the film follows is relatively simple. It is mostly following Bob and his group, and watching him as he tries to discover more about the drug network. Throughout there are a series of interactions that show the life that they are living, listening in on their 'trippy' conversations. It is an interesting sketch. The ending of the film, however, shows what everything else has been leading up to, and it impressed me greatly.
At times the mood of the film is relatively comic, as you watch the characters having conversations that most level-headed people would never have. At these points, I found myself wondering if they were based off actual conversations that Philip K Dick had had. Often the film is a lot darker, as Bob becomes more drug addicted and starts losing his faculties.
The film held my interest throughout, and made me think about what it was trying to achieve. As well as good acting, and a very good script, it captured a variety of moods. From the opening scene of watching a drug-addicted man imagine that he is covered in insects, to the final conclusion, there is a lot of good story-telling, and a wonderful variety of characters. As science fiction it is squarely within the realms of possibility, perhaps making the film that little bit more plausible and unnerving.
This isn't a light-hearted film, but I enjoyed it very much as a film to watch and get my teeth into. I think it would have a lot of appeal to many people, and definitely not one just for science fiction fans.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Review of the 2009 film 'Up'
The Pixar film series have included many that are brilliant, and Up is no exception. I thoroughly recommend this film, so you should go out and see it now... and then come back and read the rest of my review.
Up follows the story of Carl Frederickson, an elderly man who is living alone in a house he has known since childhood. Then there is Russell, a young 'wilderness explorer' looking to get his Helping the Elderly badge. Karl sends him off on a fake errand, but Russell ends up on Mr Frederickson's house, when Carl launches the house with an enormous bunch of helium balloons and sets off to South America.
With poignancy, adventure, comedy and sadness all rolled into one film, it's hard not to find something to like in Up. I liked everything. The action sequences were clever and exciting, without being overdone. I found the comical elements and characters hilarious. There were also some surprisingly hard-hitting emotional moments that made me think; this is still Disney, so it wasn't exactly a tear-jerker, but it was still quite special.
Likewise, the characters in this story are wonderful. Carl is a grumpy old man, with a life-story that I could really relate to, and I felt for him even in his most crotchety moment. Russell, while overeager, has a lot of admirable and amusing character traits. Even at his most annoying, he is a nice character. The other side-kicks and the antagonist are likewise amusing.
Up also comes with an incredible soundtrack by Michael Giacchino. The main theme is catchy and brilliant; adaptable for all highs and lows and beautiful. I've been humming it for the last two days, and I'm going to attempt to learn it on the piano. It really adds something to the film to make it extra special.
For a balanced review, I should try and say some things that don't make Up to be perfection incarnate, because it isn't. There are some moments where the plot is a little predictable, and there are perhaps a few too many scenes showing the house floating amongst the clouds, with no good reason. I also found there were moments where characters were rather more sprightly than is generally possible for their age.
However, my overall feeling is overwhelmingly positive. This was a highly entertaining children's film, with a considerable amount to keep the adults amused as well.
As a final note, I should say that I watched Up in 3D at the cinema. The last (and so far only other) film I saw in 3D (Coraline), seemed to use 3D as a gimmick to have lots of things jumping out of the screen. I didn't like this. Up, however, used it to give much more depth to the shot, and had hardly any needless things jumping out of the screen at you. It made good use of the 3D, and it was far less annoying and distracting than I think it would be for many things.
Up follows the story of Carl Frederickson, an elderly man who is living alone in a house he has known since childhood. Then there is Russell, a young 'wilderness explorer' looking to get his Helping the Elderly badge. Karl sends him off on a fake errand, but Russell ends up on Mr Frederickson's house, when Carl launches the house with an enormous bunch of helium balloons and sets off to South America.
With poignancy, adventure, comedy and sadness all rolled into one film, it's hard not to find something to like in Up. I liked everything. The action sequences were clever and exciting, without being overdone. I found the comical elements and characters hilarious. There were also some surprisingly hard-hitting emotional moments that made me think; this is still Disney, so it wasn't exactly a tear-jerker, but it was still quite special.
Likewise, the characters in this story are wonderful. Carl is a grumpy old man, with a life-story that I could really relate to, and I felt for him even in his most crotchety moment. Russell, while overeager, has a lot of admirable and amusing character traits. Even at his most annoying, he is a nice character. The other side-kicks and the antagonist are likewise amusing.
Up also comes with an incredible soundtrack by Michael Giacchino. The main theme is catchy and brilliant; adaptable for all highs and lows and beautiful. I've been humming it for the last two days, and I'm going to attempt to learn it on the piano. It really adds something to the film to make it extra special.
For a balanced review, I should try and say some things that don't make Up to be perfection incarnate, because it isn't. There are some moments where the plot is a little predictable, and there are perhaps a few too many scenes showing the house floating amongst the clouds, with no good reason. I also found there were moments where characters were rather more sprightly than is generally possible for their age.
However, my overall feeling is overwhelmingly positive. This was a highly entertaining children's film, with a considerable amount to keep the adults amused as well.
As a final note, I should say that I watched Up in 3D at the cinema. The last (and so far only other) film I saw in 3D (Coraline), seemed to use 3D as a gimmick to have lots of things jumping out of the screen. I didn't like this. Up, however, used it to give much more depth to the shot, and had hardly any needless things jumping out of the screen at you. It made good use of the 3D, and it was far less annoying and distracting than I think it would be for many things.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
Review of the 2008 film 'Cloverfield'
In Manhattan, a small group of friends are throwing a farewell party in honour of Rob (Michael Stahl-David). His best friend Hud (T.J Miller) is going around the party collecting farewell messages using Rob's handheld video recorder. When an earthquake shocks the city and all hell breaks loose, Hud keeps hold of the camera and documents the progress of a small group of his friends as they attempt to escape the havoc.
I'm not sure how to describe my experience of this film. In some ways I thought it was brilliant, in other ways I was slightly disappointed. However, when I think of some of the things that disappointed me, I wonder if it would have been better had it been done differently, and I am uncertain.
I'll start with the characters. Quite quickly, I got an idea of what all the characters were like, and enough of their backstory to give them the shade of realism required. And so, I found that I cared about what happened to them. As the film progressed, those attachments were used well in the plot to shock and scare, and worry and interest. It kept me watching. It was well acted and throughout I had a good impression of the character's fear and their real-world heroism as they suffered their ordeal.
What plot was there was designed to keep the characters in the city for long enough to show off all that was happening. There were some visually interesting moments and some (slightly) scary ones. As none of the characters that the film was following really knew what was going on in the larger picture, the viewer didn't really know what was going on either. There were bits of subplot revealed through snatches of the tape that was being overwritten. As the characters make their way through the city, there are some excellent monster-shots and some spectacular displays of destruction and death. What can be described as the main plot thread, following friends going to rescue another friend who is trapped, was a little bit weak, and a little too cheesy, but it was covered well enough by good acting and some superb action sequences.
Telling the story through a camcorder was an interesting choice. In some ways, it turned what could have been a fairly run-of-the-mill monster flick into a good film. It kept you with the action, at ground level with a small group of people you could relate to. As they ran and screamed and attempted to work out what was going on, the camcorder shooting made it a little bit more realistic. The snatches of monster-footage were very interesting, and didn't give enough information to form a cohesive picture of the alien/monster to start picking too many holes in it.
In other ways, I didn't like the camcorder approach. There were moments where I wanted to tell the cameraman to put the camera down and act like a sensible human being. The camera was nearly always at head-height, even when its holder was running, screaming, fighting, climbing and falling. It felt more like a story being told from first-person perspective than a film told through a camcorder. Where most people would have dropped the camera to protect themselves, even temporarily, the camera always showed enough of the action. And no one seemed to mind the camera; they didn't mind bearing their souls in front of it, or the fact that Hud had at least one hand always glued to it.
On balance, I think Cloverfield was a good film. I did enjoy it, but I won't be adding it to my top-ten any time soon. There was a great monster-movie hidden somewhere within an interesting method of story-telling and while I enjoyed it, I was slightly dissatisfied with many of the choices taken through the film. I found the plot on the cheesy-side, and the ending frustrating, but I enjoyed the concept and feel of the movie. If you get a chance, I think it's worth seeing once.
I'm not sure how to describe my experience of this film. In some ways I thought it was brilliant, in other ways I was slightly disappointed. However, when I think of some of the things that disappointed me, I wonder if it would have been better had it been done differently, and I am uncertain.
I'll start with the characters. Quite quickly, I got an idea of what all the characters were like, and enough of their backstory to give them the shade of realism required. And so, I found that I cared about what happened to them. As the film progressed, those attachments were used well in the plot to shock and scare, and worry and interest. It kept me watching. It was well acted and throughout I had a good impression of the character's fear and their real-world heroism as they suffered their ordeal.
What plot was there was designed to keep the characters in the city for long enough to show off all that was happening. There were some visually interesting moments and some (slightly) scary ones. As none of the characters that the film was following really knew what was going on in the larger picture, the viewer didn't really know what was going on either. There were bits of subplot revealed through snatches of the tape that was being overwritten. As the characters make their way through the city, there are some excellent monster-shots and some spectacular displays of destruction and death. What can be described as the main plot thread, following friends going to rescue another friend who is trapped, was a little bit weak, and a little too cheesy, but it was covered well enough by good acting and some superb action sequences.
Telling the story through a camcorder was an interesting choice. In some ways, it turned what could have been a fairly run-of-the-mill monster flick into a good film. It kept you with the action, at ground level with a small group of people you could relate to. As they ran and screamed and attempted to work out what was going on, the camcorder shooting made it a little bit more realistic. The snatches of monster-footage were very interesting, and didn't give enough information to form a cohesive picture of the alien/monster to start picking too many holes in it.
In other ways, I didn't like the camcorder approach. There were moments where I wanted to tell the cameraman to put the camera down and act like a sensible human being. The camera was nearly always at head-height, even when its holder was running, screaming, fighting, climbing and falling. It felt more like a story being told from first-person perspective than a film told through a camcorder. Where most people would have dropped the camera to protect themselves, even temporarily, the camera always showed enough of the action. And no one seemed to mind the camera; they didn't mind bearing their souls in front of it, or the fact that Hud had at least one hand always glued to it.
On balance, I think Cloverfield was a good film. I did enjoy it, but I won't be adding it to my top-ten any time soon. There was a great monster-movie hidden somewhere within an interesting method of story-telling and while I enjoyed it, I was slightly dissatisfied with many of the choices taken through the film. I found the plot on the cheesy-side, and the ending frustrating, but I enjoyed the concept and feel of the movie. If you get a chance, I think it's worth seeing once.
Review of the 2008 film 'City of Ember'
When disaster threatens the world, people survive in the City of Ember, deep underground and powered by a generator that gives light and heat to the city. The first Mayor of Ember is entrusted with a box, that contains instructions about what to do when 200 years are over, and Ember is reaching the end of its intended life. However, the box is lost, and over 200 years since Ember was founded, the people are beginning to run out of stored food, and the generator is dying.
I found the concept behind the film very interesting; Ember itself and the story behind it is a very nice idea. In mood, it reminded me of a cross between two of my favourite children's books. Visually, the make-do-and-mend feel was put across very well. The characters are often wearing threadbare or worn clothes, and all the machinery and buildings look like they are two-hundred years old, run by a society that doesn't have the expertise or resources to maintain them.
In addition, the feel of the society seemed about right. When the children come of age and leave school, they have an 'assignment day' where they do not choose jobs, but rather pick them randomly from a bag. There seems to be a strong community spirit, and for the most part the people seem to band together to make things work in the city. However, there is the normal kind of conflict that you'd expect with people living in close quarters. As a world, I found it worked very well.
The story follows Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan), a messenger, and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway), a pipeworker. When Lina finds the box and realises that they contain instructions about how to leave Ember, she and Doon try to put the torn instructions back together in order to save the people of their city.
Once you get past the stunning visuals, and interesting underlying concepts and society, however, I found City of Ember to be a fun film, but not as special as everything else might have implied. There were a lot of great actors (including Bill Murray, Tim Robbins and Martin Landau), and a lot of good acting, but the main characters didn't hold the plot together as well as I thought they should. Ronan and Treadaway did a very good job of getting the plot across, but I felt they were a little too much the all-American teen to really carry off the steam-punk style film.
The plot was a little thin, and at times predictable. I think the film was aimed at children much younger than I am, and having children as the main character tends to enforce this opinion. I would hope, though, that a film with as much conceptual promise as this one would give a little more to its adult viewers. It seemed to use every conceivable plot 'trick' to get the characters through to the film's conclusion.
Having said that, I did enjoy the film. It was a pleasant, easily watchable film and it was a fun plot, even if I felt it did not quite live up to the brilliant concepts and world. If you have an hour and a half and want something fun to watch, I'd recommend this film, but I wouldn't go into it with your expectations set too high. Although it's visually brilliant, it's a little on the shallow side, and it is probably much better when viewed by people under the age of fourteen.
I found the concept behind the film very interesting; Ember itself and the story behind it is a very nice idea. In mood, it reminded me of a cross between two of my favourite children's books. Visually, the make-do-and-mend feel was put across very well. The characters are often wearing threadbare or worn clothes, and all the machinery and buildings look like they are two-hundred years old, run by a society that doesn't have the expertise or resources to maintain them.
In addition, the feel of the society seemed about right. When the children come of age and leave school, they have an 'assignment day' where they do not choose jobs, but rather pick them randomly from a bag. There seems to be a strong community spirit, and for the most part the people seem to band together to make things work in the city. However, there is the normal kind of conflict that you'd expect with people living in close quarters. As a world, I found it worked very well.
The story follows Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan), a messenger, and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway), a pipeworker. When Lina finds the box and realises that they contain instructions about how to leave Ember, she and Doon try to put the torn instructions back together in order to save the people of their city.
Once you get past the stunning visuals, and interesting underlying concepts and society, however, I found City of Ember to be a fun film, but not as special as everything else might have implied. There were a lot of great actors (including Bill Murray, Tim Robbins and Martin Landau), and a lot of good acting, but the main characters didn't hold the plot together as well as I thought they should. Ronan and Treadaway did a very good job of getting the plot across, but I felt they were a little too much the all-American teen to really carry off the steam-punk style film.
The plot was a little thin, and at times predictable. I think the film was aimed at children much younger than I am, and having children as the main character tends to enforce this opinion. I would hope, though, that a film with as much conceptual promise as this one would give a little more to its adult viewers. It seemed to use every conceivable plot 'trick' to get the characters through to the film's conclusion.
Having said that, I did enjoy the film. It was a pleasant, easily watchable film and it was a fun plot, even if I felt it did not quite live up to the brilliant concepts and world. If you have an hour and a half and want something fun to watch, I'd recommend this film, but I wouldn't go into it with your expectations set too high. Although it's visually brilliant, it's a little on the shallow side, and it is probably much better when viewed by people under the age of fourteen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)