For years I had been storing all of my book information in a lowly Excel file - books that I owned, wanted to read, and wanted to buy (i.e. wish list). While this worked for a while, the whole thing started to become more than a little unwieldy and unmanageable after a fair number of entries were added. I realized I had passed that point when viewing all the content in the file required a ridiculous amount of scrolling. I had never heard of any suitable online systems for maintaining a book database, and a tiny (and insufficient) bit of googling failed to yield any promising results. Movies have IMDB and DVDs have DVD Aficionado, but books? I gave up my search way too hastily (that or my googling and web awareness skills suck), as it turns out that there are quite a few book cataloguing sites out there, but more on that later.
Needing an alternative to a crummy spreadsheet, I turned to personal database solutions. I have used Microsoft's Access software before and found it to be an effective solution. However, given my general dislike for all things Microsoft, I decide to give the oft touted open source alternative Open Office a shot. Open Office is a suite of office applications, much like Microsoft Office. When it comes to stuff like writing text documents, making spreadsheets, and preparing presentations Open Office seems up to scratch, at least where basic functionality is concerned. For my current purpose however, I only had need for the database component, the Open Office equivalent to Access which is named (rather blandly) 'Base'. Having wrestled with it for a while, I can only say that it is, for lack of a better word, weak. It's a shoddy program and it left me decidedly unimpressed, and the latest version is nowhere near as useful as the version of Access that I used nigh on five years ago!
Base is slow, there's very little in the way of useful documentation, and the interface is awkward and clumsy - there's a bit of lag and the highlighted cells don't update properly during data entry via forms, with entire rows sometimes just disappearing! The 'wizards' are less Gandalf and more Rincewind in their effectiveness - the selection criteria didn't work when I tried to create database queries and views. I had to create them manually, which is fine, but what's the point of the bloody wizard? Bizarrely, the views can't be modified once created, which means if you want to change something you have to do it all over again. It also keeps track of names of tables and views that have been deleted, so when you're forced to re-create a view to implement a modification, you also have to give it a new name. Bollocks! There's more that's wrong, lots more, but I just can't be bothered remembering or writing it out. All I know is that I persevered with it, based on the belief that one day the program will improve; I was also pleased that the data would be stored in an open format (although, at the moment there is no way at all to export the data into CSV or any other format). My book database is now somewhat finished, though there's some changes I want to make but am afraid to attempt for fear of the elevated blood pressure levels 'Base' is certain to induce in me.
My satisfaction at finishing the database was short lived, however, because soon afterwards I stumbled upon an absolutely fantastic book cataloguing site, Library Thing. The site is, as the Doctor would say... FANTASTIC! Part catalogue, part social network, it offers almost everything one could ask for in an online library database. It's a wonderfully austere, fast loading site full of cool AJAX based functionality. It's intuitive and incredibly easy to use - even the sign up procedure is simpler than most. There's a massive selection of books available via searches of various online databases (primarily Amazon and the Library of Congress), and each book has all the usual details plus a selection of covers, reviews, stats, suggestions on similar works, and tags. Each user's profile provides a load of stats and functionality, and there's also a wide variety of message boards which are actually active and seem to be populated by people above a simian level of intelligence. Library Thing also made me aware of a few other similar book database sites, but none seem to be as good; the strange this is how I never found any of them before!
(As an aside, I also found the incredibly useful 'Remember the Milk' site, which is a web based task manager that I'm slowly becoming dependent on. It takes a bit of getting used to before committing to it, and I'm still migrating with caution (since a cock up on a 'to do' list can have serious consequences in the real world), but I'm happy to say that I think I've found a great alternative to my varied collection of 'to do' lists scattered in different files on my computer. I'll just have to make sure to take regular offline backups for those pesky situations when I have no Internet access)
The only major downside to Library Thing so far is the lack of a wish list and 'books I've read' feature, which I hear is in the pipeline. Till then, I'm going to have to maintain my 'Base' database alongside Library Thing, with the hope that I'll eventually be able to migrate away from it. Ah, the wonders of the Internet... Fantastic!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Thing (1982)
The Thing (1982)
I first caught 'The Thing' (a.k.a. John Carpenter's The Thing) part way through many years ago during a late night showing on TV. Just watching a few minutes was enough to get me hooked, and I was on the edge of my seat right till the end. I later enjoyed reading the excellent short story on which it was based, 'Who Goes There?' by John W. Campbell Jr. For some strange reason, I can remember eating pizza while reading it - maybe some weird association with the messy pizza topping like imagery of the film. Anyway, back on topic, I watched the film again recently and it is as brilliant as I remember.
'The Thing' starts off in enigmatic fashion. After a title sequence that depicts an alien ship entering Earth's atmosphere, it cuts to the Antarctic, where a dog runs through the snow while being shot at by a man on board a helicopter. This is all set to eerily hypnotic music by Ennio Morricone. The dog makes it to an American research station, where the helicopter lands and the occupants accidentally blow it up with one of their own grenades. The survivor of the explosion starts shooting wildly, trying to kill the dog, and is quickly shot and killed by one of the Americans. It turns out that the men were Norwegians from another Antarctic outpost. Two men from the American team, MacReady (Kurt Russell) and Dr. Blair (Wilford Brimley) head to the Norwegian outpost and find it destroyed. Even more disturbingly, they find a grotesquely misshapen corpse lying in the snow, which they bring back for analysis. The dog that was being chased, meanwhile, has the run of the compound, and it is immediately apparent that something is not right with it. This dog's performance, by the way, has to be one of the greatest animal performances of all time; it's creepy as hell. When the dog is finally put in the kennel, it undergoes a hideous transformation with its skin ripping apart and tentacles lashing out as it tries to 'assimilate' the other dogs. The men manage to kill the dog-creature, but they are understandably shaken up by what happened.
As Dr. Blair studies the corpse and the dog-creature, he realizes that they are facsimiles created via assimilation by an alien life form. His calculations project that if the alien were to get out into the world, it could potentially wipe out mankind. He also realizes that members of the team may have already been assimilated, and in a paranoid frenzy destroys the helicopters and radio equipment to prevent anyone from getting out. MacReady takes charge as best he can, but the men start to lose it as they begin to suspect each other of being 'things', and what ensues is 100 odd minutes of nerve wracking tension and horror as some are exposed as 'things' while others are killed in moments of chaotic confusion. The body count rises in graphic and bloody scenes, and it all builds up to a fantastic ending that is even more enigmatic and memorable than the opening scenes.
There are elements in the film that are admittedly dated - it's 25 years old, and the stop motion / puppet effects are noticeable. The funny thing is, it's still more effective than most modern CGI monster effects. I guess that's a testament to the fact that the effects are used to tell the story, and complement all the other aspects of film-making instead of overpowering them. It's also an indication of just how awesome the creature designs are. The film is very lean, there's no redundant material or wasted moments. Even the characterization is perfunctory, and really, giving these characters more depth would serve little purpose in the context of the story being told. When the shit hits the fan, there's enough to tell them apart without any cheesy contrived quirks, and the main characters are rendered distinctively enough. MacReady in particular is easy to root for, with his mixture of easy going pragmatism and steely resolve.
One aspect that really sets this film apart is in the way it doesn't adhere to a conventional structure; there is no steady build up towards a climax. People are offed unpredictably and the characters are barely given a moments respite before being forced into taking action of some kind. There's no 'big plan to slay the beast', and everyone improvises in order to survive, which makes the whole experience feel more organic and believable. Credit must go to director John Carpenter for constructing a film with a palpable sense of fear and paranoia. The moments of debate and discussion ring true as the team try and figure out what to do and whom to trust, and since the audience doesn't know who's still human and who has been turned into a 'thing', the revelations are always shocking. The shock factor is enhanced by the fact that Carpenter makes the reveals sudden, brutal, and chaotic, with all hell breaking loose as flamethrowers are unleashed and guns are fired. The moody music and stark visuals of the antarctic outpost enhance the feeling of utter desolation and despair. The final element to seal the deal is the acting, which while not exactly awards worthy, is spot on for the material. These guys basically have to act paranoid and scared, and they all do it well. Kurt Russell is note perfect as the heroic lead MacReady, and there's some fun conflict between him and Childs (Keith David) as the two vie for the role of de facto leader (when the actual team leader is suspected of being a 'thing').
I can't think of any other film that successfully maintains such a high level of tension throughout its runtime. 'The Thing' is horrifying, gripping, and nerve-wracking. It's a classic horror film, right up there with the likes of 'Alien' and 'The Exorcist', and is a must see for all except those with weak stomachs.
I first caught 'The Thing' (a.k.a. John Carpenter's The Thing) part way through many years ago during a late night showing on TV. Just watching a few minutes was enough to get me hooked, and I was on the edge of my seat right till the end. I later enjoyed reading the excellent short story on which it was based, 'Who Goes There?' by John W. Campbell Jr. For some strange reason, I can remember eating pizza while reading it - maybe some weird association with the messy pizza topping like imagery of the film. Anyway, back on topic, I watched the film again recently and it is as brilliant as I remember.
'The Thing' starts off in enigmatic fashion. After a title sequence that depicts an alien ship entering Earth's atmosphere, it cuts to the Antarctic, where a dog runs through the snow while being shot at by a man on board a helicopter. This is all set to eerily hypnotic music by Ennio Morricone. The dog makes it to an American research station, where the helicopter lands and the occupants accidentally blow it up with one of their own grenades. The survivor of the explosion starts shooting wildly, trying to kill the dog, and is quickly shot and killed by one of the Americans. It turns out that the men were Norwegians from another Antarctic outpost. Two men from the American team, MacReady (Kurt Russell) and Dr. Blair (Wilford Brimley) head to the Norwegian outpost and find it destroyed. Even more disturbingly, they find a grotesquely misshapen corpse lying in the snow, which they bring back for analysis. The dog that was being chased, meanwhile, has the run of the compound, and it is immediately apparent that something is not right with it. This dog's performance, by the way, has to be one of the greatest animal performances of all time; it's creepy as hell. When the dog is finally put in the kennel, it undergoes a hideous transformation with its skin ripping apart and tentacles lashing out as it tries to 'assimilate' the other dogs. The men manage to kill the dog-creature, but they are understandably shaken up by what happened.
As Dr. Blair studies the corpse and the dog-creature, he realizes that they are facsimiles created via assimilation by an alien life form. His calculations project that if the alien were to get out into the world, it could potentially wipe out mankind. He also realizes that members of the team may have already been assimilated, and in a paranoid frenzy destroys the helicopters and radio equipment to prevent anyone from getting out. MacReady takes charge as best he can, but the men start to lose it as they begin to suspect each other of being 'things', and what ensues is 100 odd minutes of nerve wracking tension and horror as some are exposed as 'things' while others are killed in moments of chaotic confusion. The body count rises in graphic and bloody scenes, and it all builds up to a fantastic ending that is even more enigmatic and memorable than the opening scenes.
There are elements in the film that are admittedly dated - it's 25 years old, and the stop motion / puppet effects are noticeable. The funny thing is, it's still more effective than most modern CGI monster effects. I guess that's a testament to the fact that the effects are used to tell the story, and complement all the other aspects of film-making instead of overpowering them. It's also an indication of just how awesome the creature designs are. The film is very lean, there's no redundant material or wasted moments. Even the characterization is perfunctory, and really, giving these characters more depth would serve little purpose in the context of the story being told. When the shit hits the fan, there's enough to tell them apart without any cheesy contrived quirks, and the main characters are rendered distinctively enough. MacReady in particular is easy to root for, with his mixture of easy going pragmatism and steely resolve.
One aspect that really sets this film apart is in the way it doesn't adhere to a conventional structure; there is no steady build up towards a climax. People are offed unpredictably and the characters are barely given a moments respite before being forced into taking action of some kind. There's no 'big plan to slay the beast', and everyone improvises in order to survive, which makes the whole experience feel more organic and believable. Credit must go to director John Carpenter for constructing a film with a palpable sense of fear and paranoia. The moments of debate and discussion ring true as the team try and figure out what to do and whom to trust, and since the audience doesn't know who's still human and who has been turned into a 'thing', the revelations are always shocking. The shock factor is enhanced by the fact that Carpenter makes the reveals sudden, brutal, and chaotic, with all hell breaking loose as flamethrowers are unleashed and guns are fired. The moody music and stark visuals of the antarctic outpost enhance the feeling of utter desolation and despair. The final element to seal the deal is the acting, which while not exactly awards worthy, is spot on for the material. These guys basically have to act paranoid and scared, and they all do it well. Kurt Russell is note perfect as the heroic lead MacReady, and there's some fun conflict between him and Childs (Keith David) as the two vie for the role of de facto leader (when the actual team leader is suspected of being a 'thing').
I can't think of any other film that successfully maintains such a high level of tension throughout its runtime. 'The Thing' is horrifying, gripping, and nerve-wracking. It's a classic horror film, right up there with the likes of 'Alien' and 'The Exorcist', and is a must see for all except those with weak stomachs.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Trailers - The Golden Compass & Transformers
Two trailers released recently... One for 'The Golden Compass' and the other for 'Transformers'. Both can be found via the excellent 'Dave's Trailer Page' site. And probably on YouTube as well.
I said earlier that 'The Golden Compass' was looking good, and it still is. The cast, which I thought looked strong on paper, seems just about spot on in this first trailer. The biggest question mark was the girl playing the protagonist Lyra, Dakota Blue Richards, and the trailer doesn't attempt to hide her because she actually seems quite good in those few snippets. She's got that somewhat cocky air of self confidence about her that seems just right. Visually it looks great, lush and spectacular, though there isn't anything really mind blowing and the CGI animals look a bit iffy. The negatives include the stilted way the lines are coming across, but given that this is a trailer and everything's out of context (and likely to be re-recorded later), I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. The trailer itself isn't very good - poorly edited and with uninspiring music - but the film looks promising.
I've got to admit, 'Transformers' is starting to look pretty cool. It seems nothing like the original cartoon, which is a good thing, because a) I'm sure it wasn't very good and b) that stuff wouldn't work in live action if adapted literally. The Michael Bay movie is looking like an all out robot alien invasion action fest, and I'm digging it. The effects look pretty cool so far, and I wish those pesky humans would get out of the frame so I could better witness the metallic carnage. Major concern - they haven't had any of the Transformers talk yet, and I wonder if the whole thing will fall apart the moment one of them speaks. Or maybe they haven't recorded the voices yet. In any case, I can't wait. At the least, it'll be something new on a visual level.
I said earlier that 'The Golden Compass' was looking good, and it still is. The cast, which I thought looked strong on paper, seems just about spot on in this first trailer. The biggest question mark was the girl playing the protagonist Lyra, Dakota Blue Richards, and the trailer doesn't attempt to hide her because she actually seems quite good in those few snippets. She's got that somewhat cocky air of self confidence about her that seems just right. Visually it looks great, lush and spectacular, though there isn't anything really mind blowing and the CGI animals look a bit iffy. The negatives include the stilted way the lines are coming across, but given that this is a trailer and everything's out of context (and likely to be re-recorded later), I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. The trailer itself isn't very good - poorly edited and with uninspiring music - but the film looks promising.
I've got to admit, 'Transformers' is starting to look pretty cool. It seems nothing like the original cartoon, which is a good thing, because a) I'm sure it wasn't very good and b) that stuff wouldn't work in live action if adapted literally. The Michael Bay movie is looking like an all out robot alien invasion action fest, and I'm digging it. The effects look pretty cool so far, and I wish those pesky humans would get out of the frame so I could better witness the metallic carnage. Major concern - they haven't had any of the Transformers talk yet, and I wonder if the whole thing will fall apart the moment one of them speaks. Or maybe they haven't recorded the voices yet. In any case, I can't wait. At the least, it'll be something new on a visual level.
Carnivàle - Season 2 (2004-2005)
Carnivàle - Season 2 (2004-2005)
I mostly enjoyed the first season of 'Carnivàle', but found it to be a bit slow and meandering. It set up a wonderful bunch of varied misfit characters and an interesting premise based around the classic conflict between good and evil, but one where the characters themselves taken at face value couldn't easily be lumped into one category or the other (well, except maybe Brother Justin). With the story taking place in 1930s USA and focusing on a traveling carnival, the show had a unique setting and atmosphere.
The first season, in a nutshell, introduced the characters and hinted at the mythology of the show, and ended with the two warriors of light and dark starting to become fully aware of their powers and destinies. The young escaped convict Ben Hawkins (Nick Stahl) had just killed the cunning Lodz (Patrick Bauchau) and used his powers to transfer life back to Ruthie (Adrienne Barbeau), the snake charmer woman Lodz had killed. In doing so he realizes the extent of his powers, and enters into an agreement with the mysterious Management (Linda Hunt) to track down his father, Henry Scudder (John Savage). Management and Scudder were the previous generation of warriors of Light and Dark, and Hawkins needs to get to Scudder before the evil Brother Justin (Clancy Brown) finds him and takes his powers by killing him. Management charges the dwarf Samson (Michael J. Anderson), who runs the day to day affairs of the carnival, with helping Hawkins.
The second season unfolds with Hawkins on the trail of Scudder and the whole carnival being dragged along with him. While this main story plays out, there are several sub stories featuring various members of the carnival and their personal dealings. Meanwhile, Brother Justin builds an encampment for his mission, and through his radio show starts drawing thousands of supporters to him, thereby building up his power base. He sends an escaped convict, his archangel, to hunt down Scudder. His sister Iris (Amy Madigan) aids him while at the same time possibly plotting his downfall together with the paralyzed Reverend Balthus (Ralph Waite).
Being an HBO series allowed 'Carnivàle' to be edgier than regular mainstream shows. It's decidedly unconventional in terms of milieu and use of violence, swearing and nudity (though they seem to go overboard with the latter sometimes). There's a grittiness and rawness to the show that makes it feel true to its time and place despite its fantasy trappings, and anachronistic moral sensibilities are thankfully absent. The production values are excellent, with everything from the costumes and makeup to the locations and vehicles exuding authenticity. The bleak but attractive visuals and the somber music add to the atmosphere. If anything the show is sometimes too relentlessly bleak, and the few humorous moments that come courtesy of the more colourful characters like Samson are a welcome respite.
On the carnival side, the characters are - despite being oddball and in a line of work few can relate to - understandable and sympathetic, and their friendships, loves, and enmities form an integral part of each episode. On the downside, some of the personal stories get a bit repetitive and take up a little too much time from the now much improved primary narrative. In the first season, Hawkins was aimless and just hung out, occasionally getting himself involved in something or the other, which is fine for a while but not for a whole season. Thankfully that problem is rectified here, with some real impetus to keep things interesting as Hawkins crosses the paths of dangerous people while tracking down Scudder and eventually setting himself on the path to confront Brother Justin. Brother Justin's storyline has also received a boost of adrenaline, although I still found it to be the least interesting, mostly because it is tiresomely repetitive and also because the characters are far less compelling. Justin himself is evil to the point of caricature at times, and his 'Preacher' shtick is often hard to watch without smirking.
The cast is almost uniformly excellent. There are few recognizable faces in the crowd, and the fact that the cast has some unconventional looking actors makes for a refreshing change from the typical pretty people that populate the media. These people are made to look unwashed and grungy, as they should be for the story they're in. The standout performances come from Nick Stahl as Hawkins, the weary and unwitting hero who has a quiet nobility to him, and Michael J, Anderson as the cocky and resourceful dwarf Samson. The two of the make a great team. Clancy Brown's performance is almost great; he's excellent in exhibiting the evil nature of the Preacher, but that malice seems to override every other aspect of his performance to such an extent that the scenes in which he's meant to appear earnest fail more often than not. Apart from that somewhat major blemish, there's not a weak performance in the bunch.
The second season of 'Carnivàle' is much more focused in its storytelling and is much stronger as a result, which is why the cancellation of the show is a bit of a shame (a sentiment I wouldn't have expressed on the merits of the first season alone). It was apparently meant to run for six seasons, and I can only guess that it would have become far more epic and interesting as the story progressed. As it stands the first two seasons make for some unique and compelling albeit occasionally sluggish entertainment that is worthwhile, even if it is ultimately incomplete.
I mostly enjoyed the first season of 'Carnivàle', but found it to be a bit slow and meandering. It set up a wonderful bunch of varied misfit characters and an interesting premise based around the classic conflict between good and evil, but one where the characters themselves taken at face value couldn't easily be lumped into one category or the other (well, except maybe Brother Justin). With the story taking place in 1930s USA and focusing on a traveling carnival, the show had a unique setting and atmosphere.
The first season, in a nutshell, introduced the characters and hinted at the mythology of the show, and ended with the two warriors of light and dark starting to become fully aware of their powers and destinies. The young escaped convict Ben Hawkins (Nick Stahl) had just killed the cunning Lodz (Patrick Bauchau) and used his powers to transfer life back to Ruthie (Adrienne Barbeau), the snake charmer woman Lodz had killed. In doing so he realizes the extent of his powers, and enters into an agreement with the mysterious Management (Linda Hunt) to track down his father, Henry Scudder (John Savage). Management and Scudder were the previous generation of warriors of Light and Dark, and Hawkins needs to get to Scudder before the evil Brother Justin (Clancy Brown) finds him and takes his powers by killing him. Management charges the dwarf Samson (Michael J. Anderson), who runs the day to day affairs of the carnival, with helping Hawkins.
The second season unfolds with Hawkins on the trail of Scudder and the whole carnival being dragged along with him. While this main story plays out, there are several sub stories featuring various members of the carnival and their personal dealings. Meanwhile, Brother Justin builds an encampment for his mission, and through his radio show starts drawing thousands of supporters to him, thereby building up his power base. He sends an escaped convict, his archangel, to hunt down Scudder. His sister Iris (Amy Madigan) aids him while at the same time possibly plotting his downfall together with the paralyzed Reverend Balthus (Ralph Waite).
Being an HBO series allowed 'Carnivàle' to be edgier than regular mainstream shows. It's decidedly unconventional in terms of milieu and use of violence, swearing and nudity (though they seem to go overboard with the latter sometimes). There's a grittiness and rawness to the show that makes it feel true to its time and place despite its fantasy trappings, and anachronistic moral sensibilities are thankfully absent. The production values are excellent, with everything from the costumes and makeup to the locations and vehicles exuding authenticity. The bleak but attractive visuals and the somber music add to the atmosphere. If anything the show is sometimes too relentlessly bleak, and the few humorous moments that come courtesy of the more colourful characters like Samson are a welcome respite.
On the carnival side, the characters are - despite being oddball and in a line of work few can relate to - understandable and sympathetic, and their friendships, loves, and enmities form an integral part of each episode. On the downside, some of the personal stories get a bit repetitive and take up a little too much time from the now much improved primary narrative. In the first season, Hawkins was aimless and just hung out, occasionally getting himself involved in something or the other, which is fine for a while but not for a whole season. Thankfully that problem is rectified here, with some real impetus to keep things interesting as Hawkins crosses the paths of dangerous people while tracking down Scudder and eventually setting himself on the path to confront Brother Justin. Brother Justin's storyline has also received a boost of adrenaline, although I still found it to be the least interesting, mostly because it is tiresomely repetitive and also because the characters are far less compelling. Justin himself is evil to the point of caricature at times, and his 'Preacher' shtick is often hard to watch without smirking.
The cast is almost uniformly excellent. There are few recognizable faces in the crowd, and the fact that the cast has some unconventional looking actors makes for a refreshing change from the typical pretty people that populate the media. These people are made to look unwashed and grungy, as they should be for the story they're in. The standout performances come from Nick Stahl as Hawkins, the weary and unwitting hero who has a quiet nobility to him, and Michael J, Anderson as the cocky and resourceful dwarf Samson. The two of the make a great team. Clancy Brown's performance is almost great; he's excellent in exhibiting the evil nature of the Preacher, but that malice seems to override every other aspect of his performance to such an extent that the scenes in which he's meant to appear earnest fail more often than not. Apart from that somewhat major blemish, there's not a weak performance in the bunch.
The second season of 'Carnivàle' is much more focused in its storytelling and is much stronger as a result, which is why the cancellation of the show is a bit of a shame (a sentiment I wouldn't have expressed on the merits of the first season alone). It was apparently meant to run for six seasons, and I can only guess that it would have become far more epic and interesting as the story progressed. As it stands the first two seasons make for some unique and compelling albeit occasionally sluggish entertainment that is worthwhile, even if it is ultimately incomplete.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
What a waste of talent. I don't plan to spend too much time or too many words writing about this one. Based on the phenomenally successful book of the same name by Dan Brown (which I now have no desire to read), this adaptation directed by Ron Howard and written by Akiva 'Batman & Robin' Goldsman (boo) consumed a lot of money and brought together some great actors to produce a mediocre film. I guess it was a worthwhile fiscal investment given the amount of money it made worldwide.
'The Da Vinci Code' revolves around Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a Harvard Professor of Religious Symbology who is in France to give a lecture. The curator of the Louvre is shot by a weird albino monk (Paul Bettany), a servant of the Christian sect Opus Dei, just after he reveals the location of an ultra secret item. The monk intended to kill him but does a half assed job and the curator doesn't die immediately. Instead, he has enough time in between bleeding to death to run around with his magic marker writing cryptic anagrams in invisible ink, drawing a pentagram on his body, and laying down on the floor in the pose of Leonardo's 'Vitruvian Man' before finally giving up the ghost. I realize lots of people have made fun of this opening, but it really is such a hilarious plot device to start off with that I just had to mention it; it highlights a simple truth about this story, which is that it is ludicrous. Langdon becomes a suspect in the murder, and he and a police cryptographer named Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), the curator's granddaughter, flee the scene of the crime and attempt to follow the clues to figure out the secret the curator died for. On their tail is uptight police captain Fache (Jean Reno) and the albino monk, Silas, who discovers that he was duped about the location of the secret item. Langdon and Sophie basically bounce around from one place to the other, solving riddles that uncover a plot involving the Knights Templar and the Church that goes back to the origin of Christianity itself. Along the way a scholar named Sir Teabing (Ian McKellan) joins them in their quest.
The story, such as it is, is just one long chase interspersed with the occasional simplistic puzzle (seriously, for a secret this big and with puzzles created by intellectuals you'd think the solutions wouldn't be so... basic) and scenes of exposition where the profound truth behind the massive conspiracy is unveiled. The actual logic posited as proof is tenuous but since the counter-arguments against the conspiracy theory are presented as mere lip service, viewers can infer which version is real is fairly early on and are forced to watch the heroes act surprised for the umpteenth time as all the wild theories turn out to be true. As a thriller, there's scant little in the way of thrills and excitement, with many of the twists telegraphed well in advance. Even the ones that aren't as easily guessable arrive with more of a whimper than a bang. The story just isn't as clever as it thinks it is, and the characters and their conversations are simply not compelling; the characters are bland and reactive, and have very little in the way of depth or personality. The two protagonists both have experienced traumatic events in their childhoods, and Langdon is claustrophobic, and that's about it. This character deficiency is compounded by the fact that with the exception of McKellen, everyone else is bland, including the normally vivacious Audrey Tautou. Tom Hanks, Paul Bettany, Audrey Tautou, Jürgen Prochnow, Jean Reno, Alfred Molina - an incredible line up of actors who barely register in this.
Despite the varied locations, the film is visually uninspiring; add to that a forgettable score, and the end result is a film that can barely be classified as mediocre. It takes itself way too seriously, but I suppose that's a trait inherited from the source material. National Treasure is a good example of a much more entertaining take on a similarly outrageous story involving puzzles and conspiracies. I'd much rather watch that again, because it aims to entertain. This film, on the other hand, aims to inspire awe and thought while being thrilling. It misses the mark by a long way.
What a waste of talent. I don't plan to spend too much time or too many words writing about this one. Based on the phenomenally successful book of the same name by Dan Brown (which I now have no desire to read), this adaptation directed by Ron Howard and written by Akiva 'Batman & Robin' Goldsman (boo) consumed a lot of money and brought together some great actors to produce a mediocre film. I guess it was a worthwhile fiscal investment given the amount of money it made worldwide.
'The Da Vinci Code' revolves around Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a Harvard Professor of Religious Symbology who is in France to give a lecture. The curator of the Louvre is shot by a weird albino monk (Paul Bettany), a servant of the Christian sect Opus Dei, just after he reveals the location of an ultra secret item. The monk intended to kill him but does a half assed job and the curator doesn't die immediately. Instead, he has enough time in between bleeding to death to run around with his magic marker writing cryptic anagrams in invisible ink, drawing a pentagram on his body, and laying down on the floor in the pose of Leonardo's 'Vitruvian Man' before finally giving up the ghost. I realize lots of people have made fun of this opening, but it really is such a hilarious plot device to start off with that I just had to mention it; it highlights a simple truth about this story, which is that it is ludicrous. Langdon becomes a suspect in the murder, and he and a police cryptographer named Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), the curator's granddaughter, flee the scene of the crime and attempt to follow the clues to figure out the secret the curator died for. On their tail is uptight police captain Fache (Jean Reno) and the albino monk, Silas, who discovers that he was duped about the location of the secret item. Langdon and Sophie basically bounce around from one place to the other, solving riddles that uncover a plot involving the Knights Templar and the Church that goes back to the origin of Christianity itself. Along the way a scholar named Sir Teabing (Ian McKellan) joins them in their quest.
The story, such as it is, is just one long chase interspersed with the occasional simplistic puzzle (seriously, for a secret this big and with puzzles created by intellectuals you'd think the solutions wouldn't be so... basic) and scenes of exposition where the profound truth behind the massive conspiracy is unveiled. The actual logic posited as proof is tenuous but since the counter-arguments against the conspiracy theory are presented as mere lip service, viewers can infer which version is real is fairly early on and are forced to watch the heroes act surprised for the umpteenth time as all the wild theories turn out to be true. As a thriller, there's scant little in the way of thrills and excitement, with many of the twists telegraphed well in advance. Even the ones that aren't as easily guessable arrive with more of a whimper than a bang. The story just isn't as clever as it thinks it is, and the characters and their conversations are simply not compelling; the characters are bland and reactive, and have very little in the way of depth or personality. The two protagonists both have experienced traumatic events in their childhoods, and Langdon is claustrophobic, and that's about it. This character deficiency is compounded by the fact that with the exception of McKellen, everyone else is bland, including the normally vivacious Audrey Tautou. Tom Hanks, Paul Bettany, Audrey Tautou, Jürgen Prochnow, Jean Reno, Alfred Molina - an incredible line up of actors who barely register in this.
Despite the varied locations, the film is visually uninspiring; add to that a forgettable score, and the end result is a film that can barely be classified as mediocre. It takes itself way too seriously, but I suppose that's a trait inherited from the source material. National Treasure is a good example of a much more entertaining take on a similarly outrageous story involving puzzles and conspiracies. I'd much rather watch that again, because it aims to entertain. This film, on the other hand, aims to inspire awe and thought while being thrilling. It misses the mark by a long way.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Lost - Season 2 (2005-2006)
Lost - Season 2 (2005-2006)
'Lost' had an absolutely brilliant first season that blew me away. The whole premise, the characters, the mystery, the style... all fantastic. It was almost inevitable that the second season wouldn't quite live up to the first after that start. It comes reasonably close in terms of overall quality; the only weakness is in the pacing of the first two-thirds of the season, which seems to drag its feet and give a lot of characters who featured prominently in Season 1 the short-shrift.
Season 2 begins right where 1 left off, with Michael's (Harrold Perrineau) son Walt (Malcolm David Kelley) kidnapped by the mysterious 'Others' and he, Sawyer (Josh Holloway), and Jin (Daniel Dae Kim) stranded at sea. They manage to make it to shore, where they're captured by a group led by Ana Lucia (Michelle Rodriguez) and Mr. Eko (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje). This group turns out to be survivors of the tail section of Oceanic Flight 815, and they're a little paranoid because their group has been attacked several times by the 'Others'. There's a lot of friction between the 'Tailies' and the three of them, but they guide them towards the main camp on the other side of the island nonetheless.
Meanwhile Jack (Matthew Fox), John Locke (Terry O'Quinn), Kate (Evangeline Lilly), and Hurley (Jorge Garcia) had just blown open the door to the hatch. Inside the hatch they find a complex where a man named Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick) has been entering the mysterious numbers into a computer and pushing a button every 108 minutes to supposedly prevent a major catastrophe. This situation once again brings to a head the theme of science versus faith, as Jack believes the whole thing to be meaningless while John believes it to be their destiny to keep pushing the button. Desmond promptly runs off when the hatch computer breaks down; Sayid (Naveen Andrews) manages to fix it in time to press the button, and Jack and John reach an agreement to continue to push the button. The hatch turns out to be a facility built by an organization called the 'Dharma Initiative', and it exists solely to prevent this supposed catastrophe from taking place.
That's roughly the first few episodes. The major storylines that play out in this season are the mystery of the hatch and what its purpose truly is, and the threat of the Others, with whom the survivors clash on several occasions. Major subplots include the capture of one of the Others, Michael's quest to get back his son, the integration of the Tailies into the group, and the power struggle between Jack and John. And of course the myriad relationships and character interactions that elevate Lost from just a mystery show to a mystery show with considerable dramatic depth. The flashbacks detailing the character's lives before the crash are still there, complete with the mysterious crossing of paths that implies that their presence together on the island is no mere coincidence.
For the most part, these stories play out satisfactorily, with each episode adding new details, sometimes explaining a few things while raising new questions. The overall storyline is addictive stuff, and the characters are always interesting. The last third of the season is outstanding and ends yet again on an excellent cliffhanger. The new characters are welcome additions, with each one being distinctive and adding to the web of relationships. And yet there are problems that peg back the show - the first two-thirds feel dragged out at times, and there are some weak filler episodes (Charlie's one in particular comes to mind) that really kill the show's momentum. Some of the flashbacks this time around feel irrelevant to the main storylines. This is mainly because in the first season the supporting characters like Claire (Emilie de Ravin), Sun (Yunjin Kim), Charlie (Dominic Monahan), Sayed, and Shannon (Maggie Grace) had more to do and were part of major events, whereas in this season they only register on occasion, sometimes all but completely disappearing for episodes at a stretch. This results in their flashbacks and current actions feeling tacked on.
Another annoyance is the inconsistency of characters, which was present to an extent in season 1 as well; this time around, Locke and Eko seemed to have perfected swinging wildly from serene and assured in one episode to manic in another and back again as part of their routine. Also, the characters seem to have fractured too much. I find it hard to believe that - given the situation they're in - they wouldn't form more alliances and cliques. There's a strange tendency for characters to keep major information to themselves on a regular basis. Don't they ever hold group discussions at all? The social order established shortly after the crash has quietly disappeared, and while it may be true that they've all settled into a routine and don't need leadership or roles, the weird goings on on the island ought to be enough to get these people to be a little more proactive and concerned about their situation. And is no one interested in the hatch except for a handful of the elite who get to live in relative luxury with beds, bathrooms, and a kitchen?
Phew! So much negativity, but I love the show! Everything else about it is terrific - the acting, writing, directing, production values - which is why the flaws stand out so much more starkly, especially after the near perfect first season. It's still a great show, with the last third or so redeeming the season, and the recent news of 16 episode seasons and a definitive ending have given me confidence that the show will have a satisfactory run and won't peter out like, say, The X-Files. I can't wait to watch season 3.
[One final note of negativity - the music isn't as good as the first season, in fact it's barely there. In season one it had so much presence. Ah well...]
'Lost' had an absolutely brilliant first season that blew me away. The whole premise, the characters, the mystery, the style... all fantastic. It was almost inevitable that the second season wouldn't quite live up to the first after that start. It comes reasonably close in terms of overall quality; the only weakness is in the pacing of the first two-thirds of the season, which seems to drag its feet and give a lot of characters who featured prominently in Season 1 the short-shrift.
Season 2 begins right where 1 left off, with Michael's (Harrold Perrineau) son Walt (Malcolm David Kelley) kidnapped by the mysterious 'Others' and he, Sawyer (Josh Holloway), and Jin (Daniel Dae Kim) stranded at sea. They manage to make it to shore, where they're captured by a group led by Ana Lucia (Michelle Rodriguez) and Mr. Eko (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje). This group turns out to be survivors of the tail section of Oceanic Flight 815, and they're a little paranoid because their group has been attacked several times by the 'Others'. There's a lot of friction between the 'Tailies' and the three of them, but they guide them towards the main camp on the other side of the island nonetheless.
Meanwhile Jack (Matthew Fox), John Locke (Terry O'Quinn), Kate (Evangeline Lilly), and Hurley (Jorge Garcia) had just blown open the door to the hatch. Inside the hatch they find a complex where a man named Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick) has been entering the mysterious numbers into a computer and pushing a button every 108 minutes to supposedly prevent a major catastrophe. This situation once again brings to a head the theme of science versus faith, as Jack believes the whole thing to be meaningless while John believes it to be their destiny to keep pushing the button. Desmond promptly runs off when the hatch computer breaks down; Sayid (Naveen Andrews) manages to fix it in time to press the button, and Jack and John reach an agreement to continue to push the button. The hatch turns out to be a facility built by an organization called the 'Dharma Initiative', and it exists solely to prevent this supposed catastrophe from taking place.
That's roughly the first few episodes. The major storylines that play out in this season are the mystery of the hatch and what its purpose truly is, and the threat of the Others, with whom the survivors clash on several occasions. Major subplots include the capture of one of the Others, Michael's quest to get back his son, the integration of the Tailies into the group, and the power struggle between Jack and John. And of course the myriad relationships and character interactions that elevate Lost from just a mystery show to a mystery show with considerable dramatic depth. The flashbacks detailing the character's lives before the crash are still there, complete with the mysterious crossing of paths that implies that their presence together on the island is no mere coincidence.
For the most part, these stories play out satisfactorily, with each episode adding new details, sometimes explaining a few things while raising new questions. The overall storyline is addictive stuff, and the characters are always interesting. The last third of the season is outstanding and ends yet again on an excellent cliffhanger. The new characters are welcome additions, with each one being distinctive and adding to the web of relationships. And yet there are problems that peg back the show - the first two-thirds feel dragged out at times, and there are some weak filler episodes (Charlie's one in particular comes to mind) that really kill the show's momentum. Some of the flashbacks this time around feel irrelevant to the main storylines. This is mainly because in the first season the supporting characters like Claire (Emilie de Ravin), Sun (Yunjin Kim), Charlie (Dominic Monahan), Sayed, and Shannon (Maggie Grace) had more to do and were part of major events, whereas in this season they only register on occasion, sometimes all but completely disappearing for episodes at a stretch. This results in their flashbacks and current actions feeling tacked on.
Another annoyance is the inconsistency of characters, which was present to an extent in season 1 as well; this time around, Locke and Eko seemed to have perfected swinging wildly from serene and assured in one episode to manic in another and back again as part of their routine. Also, the characters seem to have fractured too much. I find it hard to believe that - given the situation they're in - they wouldn't form more alliances and cliques. There's a strange tendency for characters to keep major information to themselves on a regular basis. Don't they ever hold group discussions at all? The social order established shortly after the crash has quietly disappeared, and while it may be true that they've all settled into a routine and don't need leadership or roles, the weird goings on on the island ought to be enough to get these people to be a little more proactive and concerned about their situation. And is no one interested in the hatch except for a handful of the elite who get to live in relative luxury with beds, bathrooms, and a kitchen?
Phew! So much negativity, but I love the show! Everything else about it is terrific - the acting, writing, directing, production values - which is why the flaws stand out so much more starkly, especially after the near perfect first season. It's still a great show, with the last third or so redeeming the season, and the recent news of 16 episode seasons and a definitive ending have given me confidence that the show will have a satisfactory run and won't peter out like, say, The X-Files. I can't wait to watch season 3.
[One final note of negativity - the music isn't as good as the first season, in fact it's barely there. In season one it had so much presence. Ah well...]
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Neuromancer (1984) by William Gibson
Neuromancer (1984) by William Gibson
'Neuromancer' is to the genre of cyberpunk what 'The Lord of the Rings' is to fantasy. It is widely regarded as the seminal cyberpunk novel, the originator of ideas that have influenced myriad films, books and video games since its publication; it's also the popularizer of the word cyberspace (a word Gibson coined in an earlier work). Reading it in the year 2007, it's easy to fail to appreciate how original and inventive the book would have been back in 1984. With that era in mind, you can't help but be impressed by Gibson's vision. With those ideas now being ubiquitous, however, does the book hold up on its literary merits alone?
The protagonist of the tale is a young man named Case, who was a computer hacker (a 'cowboy') by profession until he betrayed his employer and was punished; his nervous system was damaged in a manner that prevented him from interfacing with the 'matrix' (or cyberspace), a neural graphical representation of the world's computer networks. Case attempts to find a fix for his problem in Japan, but fails to do so and winds up becoming a junkie and a criminal heading down a path of self destruction. He's saved by a mysterious man named Armitage, who has some connection to a military operation that went awry years ago. Armitage makes a deal with Case; he fixes Case's nervous system in exchange for his services in carrying out a mysterious 'job' that involves hacking a highly secure computer system. Armitage has in his employ a woman named Molly, a 'street samurai' who is part bodyguard and part one (wo)man army; she has enhanced physical strength, retractable claws in her arms, and enhanced vision. As Armitage embarks on his mission, dragging them to several places around the world and and into space colonies in Earth orbit, Case and Molly develop a relationship and work together to try and figure out who Armitage is and what their ultimate mission will be.
That just about covers the first 10% of the story. It's a dense narrative that is complex and far from predictable; it's a mystery (who's running the show and what do they really want?) that is revealed piece by piece and builds up to a thoroughly satisfying conclusion. The book is also teeming with ideas. Apart from global computer networks, hacking, and cybernetics, the story touches upon space travel and habitation, artificial intelligence, virtual reality (à la 'The Matrix'), technology dominated society, and corporate omnipotence. Given that these elements aren't particularly novel anymore, the impact of the book from a contemporary point of view lies solely in the quality of the story, the characters, and the storytelling. They are, I think, strong enough to make this a fine novel and not just a cornucopia of concepts. Gibson creates a compelling future world, a neon lit dystopia full of violence, crime, addiction, and seedy characters; it's dark and cynical sci-fi noir. The book hits the ground running, explaining the technologies tangentially as events progress; these explanations are sometimes frustratingly sketchy or incidental, but never to an extent that makes things incomprehensible. All of the technologies and futuristic elements are believably integrated into the story.
The book is broken up into several distinct segments, and it never really slows down for very long. Having said that, it's a book that requires quite a bit more concentration than the average page turner, given the density of ideas and incident; this makes it slow going at times. Also, I found that Gibson's descriptions of events weren't always clear. There is also a lack of suspense in the story, with events taking place with almost a sense of inevitability.
The characters, as is the nature of noir style stories, aren't exactly the most lovable or sympathetic but they are well sketched out with enough backstory and personality for them to feel like people who might inhabit this messed up world. The story is told entirely from the point of view of Case, who is a man in over his head, spending much of his time being dragged around from one situation to the next and only rarely able to assert himself. Case is more at home hooked into the Matrix and he eschews the flesh like some kind of Cyber junkie; when he's hooked in he's among the best 'cowboys' in the business. He's also accompanied for much of his time in the Matrix by a wise-cracking AI reconstruction of his former mentor who assists him with the mission. Interestingly, Case also gets to experience some of the real world action via a 'simstim' system that relays all of Molly's sensory input to him, essentially allowing him to experience everything she does (including the pain). This allows the story to incorporate quite a bit of physical action and excitement as well, in addition to the virtual adventures of Case. The character of Molly - who appears in several of Gibson's books - is enigmatic; she's cool and professional, but some insight is given into what makes her tick. Of the remaining characters only Armitage is significant, and his story is also one aspect of the mystery that case and Molly attempt to solve. There are also a large number or varied and interesting peripheral characters that have a significant impact on the story.
Ultimately, I wasn't blown away by 'Neuromancer', but I found it to be a very good book and an important one in the history of sci-fi and cyberpunk in particular. I have to confess that I wasn't in the best frame of mind for reading and didn't have much time to read the book in long stretches, which detracted from my enjoyment of it and may have coloured my perception somewhat. The story and the subject matter resonate, and I look forward to reading it again, preferably in a few long sittings instead of over the course of several weeks (which is not ideal for any kind of book to be honest, but particularly not for one like this). It's worth reading on its own merits, and definitely worth reading as a landmark novel.
'Neuromancer' is to the genre of cyberpunk what 'The Lord of the Rings' is to fantasy. It is widely regarded as the seminal cyberpunk novel, the originator of ideas that have influenced myriad films, books and video games since its publication; it's also the popularizer of the word cyberspace (a word Gibson coined in an earlier work). Reading it in the year 2007, it's easy to fail to appreciate how original and inventive the book would have been back in 1984. With that era in mind, you can't help but be impressed by Gibson's vision. With those ideas now being ubiquitous, however, does the book hold up on its literary merits alone?
The protagonist of the tale is a young man named Case, who was a computer hacker (a 'cowboy') by profession until he betrayed his employer and was punished; his nervous system was damaged in a manner that prevented him from interfacing with the 'matrix' (or cyberspace), a neural graphical representation of the world's computer networks. Case attempts to find a fix for his problem in Japan, but fails to do so and winds up becoming a junkie and a criminal heading down a path of self destruction. He's saved by a mysterious man named Armitage, who has some connection to a military operation that went awry years ago. Armitage makes a deal with Case; he fixes Case's nervous system in exchange for his services in carrying out a mysterious 'job' that involves hacking a highly secure computer system. Armitage has in his employ a woman named Molly, a 'street samurai' who is part bodyguard and part one (wo)man army; she has enhanced physical strength, retractable claws in her arms, and enhanced vision. As Armitage embarks on his mission, dragging them to several places around the world and and into space colonies in Earth orbit, Case and Molly develop a relationship and work together to try and figure out who Armitage is and what their ultimate mission will be.
That just about covers the first 10% of the story. It's a dense narrative that is complex and far from predictable; it's a mystery (who's running the show and what do they really want?) that is revealed piece by piece and builds up to a thoroughly satisfying conclusion. The book is also teeming with ideas. Apart from global computer networks, hacking, and cybernetics, the story touches upon space travel and habitation, artificial intelligence, virtual reality (à la 'The Matrix'), technology dominated society, and corporate omnipotence. Given that these elements aren't particularly novel anymore, the impact of the book from a contemporary point of view lies solely in the quality of the story, the characters, and the storytelling. They are, I think, strong enough to make this a fine novel and not just a cornucopia of concepts. Gibson creates a compelling future world, a neon lit dystopia full of violence, crime, addiction, and seedy characters; it's dark and cynical sci-fi noir. The book hits the ground running, explaining the technologies tangentially as events progress; these explanations are sometimes frustratingly sketchy or incidental, but never to an extent that makes things incomprehensible. All of the technologies and futuristic elements are believably integrated into the story.
The book is broken up into several distinct segments, and it never really slows down for very long. Having said that, it's a book that requires quite a bit more concentration than the average page turner, given the density of ideas and incident; this makes it slow going at times. Also, I found that Gibson's descriptions of events weren't always clear. There is also a lack of suspense in the story, with events taking place with almost a sense of inevitability.
The characters, as is the nature of noir style stories, aren't exactly the most lovable or sympathetic but they are well sketched out with enough backstory and personality for them to feel like people who might inhabit this messed up world. The story is told entirely from the point of view of Case, who is a man in over his head, spending much of his time being dragged around from one situation to the next and only rarely able to assert himself. Case is more at home hooked into the Matrix and he eschews the flesh like some kind of Cyber junkie; when he's hooked in he's among the best 'cowboys' in the business. He's also accompanied for much of his time in the Matrix by a wise-cracking AI reconstruction of his former mentor who assists him with the mission. Interestingly, Case also gets to experience some of the real world action via a 'simstim' system that relays all of Molly's sensory input to him, essentially allowing him to experience everything she does (including the pain). This allows the story to incorporate quite a bit of physical action and excitement as well, in addition to the virtual adventures of Case. The character of Molly - who appears in several of Gibson's books - is enigmatic; she's cool and professional, but some insight is given into what makes her tick. Of the remaining characters only Armitage is significant, and his story is also one aspect of the mystery that case and Molly attempt to solve. There are also a large number or varied and interesting peripheral characters that have a significant impact on the story.
Ultimately, I wasn't blown away by 'Neuromancer', but I found it to be a very good book and an important one in the history of sci-fi and cyberpunk in particular. I have to confess that I wasn't in the best frame of mind for reading and didn't have much time to read the book in long stretches, which detracted from my enjoyment of it and may have coloured my perception somewhat. The story and the subject matter resonate, and I look forward to reading it again, preferably in a few long sittings instead of over the course of several weeks (which is not ideal for any kind of book to be honest, but particularly not for one like this). It's worth reading on its own merits, and definitely worth reading as a landmark novel.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
'Little Miss Sunshine' is a fun little comedy that became one of the biggest 'indie' hits of last year. Bizarrely, it's been rated as one of the top 250 films of all time on IMDB, a fact that I regard with more than a little incredulity. It's a good film, a funny film whose merits are overrated; it tries too hard to be quirky and profound.
The film is a road trip comedy about a dysfunctional family that are forced to travel together to get to a children's beauty pageant in time for their young daughter Olive (Abigail Breslin) to compete. The family comprises the mother Sheryl (Toni Collette), father Richard (Greg Kinnear), Grandpa (Alan Arkin), Sheryl's mother Frank (Steve Carell), and son Dwayne (Paul Dano). Each family member has some kind of defining characteristic - Grandpa swears and is a drug addict, Richard is obsessed with his crappy self help programme (that he plans to turn into a book), Frank is gay and suicidal, Dwayne has taken a vow of silence, Olive is... well, I dunno, cute and naively optimistic. And the mother Sheryl is... erm, caring? As they travel, most of them are forced to deal with crises relating to their quirks. The van they travel in is used as a metaphor for the family - it's beat up and falling apart and it doesn't work properly, and the only way it can move forward is when they all get together and push it till the engine starts.
The film's characters lack depth and are just quirky, and that too in a contrived manner. Though they're meant to be 'edgy' there's nothing genuinely interesting about their quirks, and the characters' issues are only examined superficially (and predictably). The way the family interacts is fun, but then again there's nothing particularly exceptional about it. It may sound like I'm being negative, but the truth is the film gives off the vibe of thinking that it's deeper than it actually is. The final act focuses on the children's beauty pageant, and is meant to satirize the grotesque nature of such events; the irony of the whole thing is how much more disturbing Olive's performance winds up being, which kind of undermines the themes of the film and makes you reluctant to celebrate with the family when you consider how poorly they've been watching over their child.
Still, it isn't a bad film. As I said, it's funny, occasionally it's downright hilarious, and the cast is very strong and they all do a great job (though again, no one is exceptional). Apart from those funny moments and the cast, every other aspect of the film ranges from OK to decent. It's not bad, but I can't really recommend it. It's... alright, it's entertaining. I can, however, recommend Wes Anderson's The Royal Tennenbaums and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou as being better examples of quirky dysfunctional family films. Sure, those films are way more over the top, but beneath their ostentation lies some subtle and genuine emotional drama and engaging characters. And of course, there's always the criminally overlooked TV comedy series Arrested Development.
'Little Miss Sunshine' is a fun little comedy that became one of the biggest 'indie' hits of last year. Bizarrely, it's been rated as one of the top 250 films of all time on IMDB, a fact that I regard with more than a little incredulity. It's a good film, a funny film whose merits are overrated; it tries too hard to be quirky and profound.
The film is a road trip comedy about a dysfunctional family that are forced to travel together to get to a children's beauty pageant in time for their young daughter Olive (Abigail Breslin) to compete. The family comprises the mother Sheryl (Toni Collette), father Richard (Greg Kinnear), Grandpa (Alan Arkin), Sheryl's mother Frank (Steve Carell), and son Dwayne (Paul Dano). Each family member has some kind of defining characteristic - Grandpa swears and is a drug addict, Richard is obsessed with his crappy self help programme (that he plans to turn into a book), Frank is gay and suicidal, Dwayne has taken a vow of silence, Olive is... well, I dunno, cute and naively optimistic. And the mother Sheryl is... erm, caring? As they travel, most of them are forced to deal with crises relating to their quirks. The van they travel in is used as a metaphor for the family - it's beat up and falling apart and it doesn't work properly, and the only way it can move forward is when they all get together and push it till the engine starts.
The film's characters lack depth and are just quirky, and that too in a contrived manner. Though they're meant to be 'edgy' there's nothing genuinely interesting about their quirks, and the characters' issues are only examined superficially (and predictably). The way the family interacts is fun, but then again there's nothing particularly exceptional about it. It may sound like I'm being negative, but the truth is the film gives off the vibe of thinking that it's deeper than it actually is. The final act focuses on the children's beauty pageant, and is meant to satirize the grotesque nature of such events; the irony of the whole thing is how much more disturbing Olive's performance winds up being, which kind of undermines the themes of the film and makes you reluctant to celebrate with the family when you consider how poorly they've been watching over their child.
Still, it isn't a bad film. As I said, it's funny, occasionally it's downright hilarious, and the cast is very strong and they all do a great job (though again, no one is exceptional). Apart from those funny moments and the cast, every other aspect of the film ranges from OK to decent. It's not bad, but I can't really recommend it. It's... alright, it's entertaining. I can, however, recommend Wes Anderson's The Royal Tennenbaums and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou as being better examples of quirky dysfunctional family films. Sure, those films are way more over the top, but beneath their ostentation lies some subtle and genuine emotional drama and engaging characters. And of course, there's always the criminally overlooked TV comedy series Arrested Development.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
Sometimes referred to as 'Al Gore's Powerpoint Presentation' (ironic; he apparently used Apple Keynote), 'An Inconvenient Truth' is an accessible documentary that serves as a primer on global warming and climate change. It primarily consists of footage of Gore making a presentation to a live audience, one that he has given many many times all over the world. This presentation is inter-cut with other footage relevant to the points being discussed, as well as sequences that focus on Al Gore and his personal life that aim to give some background info on the man.
First, what doesn't work - the Al Gore stuff. While I can appreciate that they were trying to break it up a bit to prevent information overload and that information on the presenter himself gives some insight as to why he does what he does, it doesn't really work. It's very slight and superficial and uninteresting, and often completely irrelevant. Fortunately, that stuff is short. The rest of it is very good - Gore is not an overly exciting speaker, but he's clear and engaging, and maintains a sobriety appropriate to the subject matter (which makes his sudden quips quite funny). The content is well presented and cogent, encompassing pretty much all the major issues surrounding global warming.
Starting with an explanation of what it is (including a brilliant clip from Futurama) and why it's a serious issue, he goes on to paint a picture of how it has impacted and will continue to impact the Earth, touches on the weight of scientific evidence and consensus on the effect man is having on the climate, and attempts to dispel common misconceptions. He also examines the political and economic aspects of global warming. The conclusion puts across the message that it isn't too late or hopeless, and encourages the audience to try and effect change.
There's not much to discuss with regard to the film-making, given that most of it is just footage of a presentation! The subject matter is discussed at a fairly basic level, but that's really its purpose - a general overview. One thing that did irk me was the way some things were just presented matter of factly as direct consequences of global warming, such as random clips of catastrophes without any context or explanation. These sorts of moments, which are there to elicit an emotional reaction, only crop up occasionally but they undermine all of the valid content that is backed up by actual science. Regardless of all the controversy surrounding the topic, it ought to be clear to anyone who cares to look that there is a scientific consensus. Of course, since acting on that consensus would require changing the status quo in a manner that requires more effort and sacrifice (and that will hurt certain groups with vested interests), there's a 'controversy'. As 'An Inconvenient Truth' points out though, nobody is suggesting we revert back to our caveman ways; really, it involves doing things better, more efficiently, and with long term sustainability in mind. That ought to be something to aim for regardless of global warming.
Anyway, to conclude, it's a very good but not brilliant documentary that is informative and engaging. Great for people who haven't been following this topic, and a nice summary that collates all aspects of the topic for those who have (and there's sure to be some things that are new to all but the most well informed). Unquestionably worth watching.
Sometimes referred to as 'Al Gore's Powerpoint Presentation' (ironic; he apparently used Apple Keynote), 'An Inconvenient Truth' is an accessible documentary that serves as a primer on global warming and climate change. It primarily consists of footage of Gore making a presentation to a live audience, one that he has given many many times all over the world. This presentation is inter-cut with other footage relevant to the points being discussed, as well as sequences that focus on Al Gore and his personal life that aim to give some background info on the man.
First, what doesn't work - the Al Gore stuff. While I can appreciate that they were trying to break it up a bit to prevent information overload and that information on the presenter himself gives some insight as to why he does what he does, it doesn't really work. It's very slight and superficial and uninteresting, and often completely irrelevant. Fortunately, that stuff is short. The rest of it is very good - Gore is not an overly exciting speaker, but he's clear and engaging, and maintains a sobriety appropriate to the subject matter (which makes his sudden quips quite funny). The content is well presented and cogent, encompassing pretty much all the major issues surrounding global warming.
Starting with an explanation of what it is (including a brilliant clip from Futurama) and why it's a serious issue, he goes on to paint a picture of how it has impacted and will continue to impact the Earth, touches on the weight of scientific evidence and consensus on the effect man is having on the climate, and attempts to dispel common misconceptions. He also examines the political and economic aspects of global warming. The conclusion puts across the message that it isn't too late or hopeless, and encourages the audience to try and effect change.
There's not much to discuss with regard to the film-making, given that most of it is just footage of a presentation! The subject matter is discussed at a fairly basic level, but that's really its purpose - a general overview. One thing that did irk me was the way some things were just presented matter of factly as direct consequences of global warming, such as random clips of catastrophes without any context or explanation. These sorts of moments, which are there to elicit an emotional reaction, only crop up occasionally but they undermine all of the valid content that is backed up by actual science. Regardless of all the controversy surrounding the topic, it ought to be clear to anyone who cares to look that there is a scientific consensus. Of course, since acting on that consensus would require changing the status quo in a manner that requires more effort and sacrifice (and that will hurt certain groups with vested interests), there's a 'controversy'. As 'An Inconvenient Truth' points out though, nobody is suggesting we revert back to our caveman ways; really, it involves doing things better, more efficiently, and with long term sustainability in mind. That ought to be something to aim for regardless of global warming.
Anyway, to conclude, it's a very good but not brilliant documentary that is informative and engaging. Great for people who haven't been following this topic, and a nice summary that collates all aspects of the topic for those who have (and there's sure to be some things that are new to all but the most well informed). Unquestionably worth watching.
Jaws (1975)
Jaws (1975)
The 1975 classic 'Jaws' is the seminal blockbuster and director Steven Spielberg's breakout hit. Based on the book by Peter Benchley, it was a landmark film that is still regarded as the epitome of the perfect blockbuster. Watching it after several years, I was amazed once again by how well it has aged; it may look dated in a few respects, but it still thrills and entertains and is engrossing from start to finish.
'Jaws' begins with what is now the de facto style for a horror movie opening - the death of a hapless teen, in this instance along the shores of the island of Amity by way of a monstrous shark in a shocking (but not explicit) scene. This event is followed by the introduction of Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider, future captain of the Seaquest), a man who hates the water but moved to Amity to get his family away from the violence of the city. When the teenage girl's body washes up and the medical examiner concludes that it was a shark attack, Brody orders the beaches closed. This rankles the Mayor (Murray Hamilton), who doesn't want the town's tourist business to be adversely affected. He convinces Brody to keep the beaches open.
Brody's worst fears are realized when a boy is devoured by the shark; this time the beaches are closed down, and a hunt for the shark ensues. A local fisherman named Quint (Robert Shaw) promises to kill the shark for a price, but before the town can take up his offer the shark hunters return home successful, putting fears to rest. A shark expert named Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) arrives on the scene and claims that the shark that was killed isn't the rampaging killer shark, but is ignored until another killing takes place. This prompts the town officials to take up Quint's offer, and he sets sail in his ship the 'Orca' together with Chief Brody and Hooper to kill the beast.
'Jaws' is virtually note perfect in execution. Structurally it's fantastic - there's a brilliant introduction to the beast, followed by a layered introduction of the setting and politics and characters, each element adding a new dimension to the story as the shark keeps attacking and revealing itself just a little bit more. With each incident, the shark is shown to be more and more dangerous. The story is fairly simple but believable in terms of characters and logical progression, and it's really the execution of the story that soars. The film is split into two parts - one half in the town and the other half at sea. The first part is all introduction and buildup, and it establishes Amity as a small town community full of bickering personalities. The main characters are completely distinctive and wonderfully realized, with believable motivations and quirks. The second part is where things really heat up as the three heroes clash repeatedly with the shark and with each other - Quint and Hooper engage in verbal class warfare as they squabble over every little thing, with Brody stuck helplessly in the middle doing all the chores.
The dialogue throughout the film is excellent, with frequent use of overlapping dialogue adding to the hubbub and chaos when the town starts to fall apart. The most memorable piece of writing is the monologue from Quint about the tragedy of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, which is an affecting scene no matter how many times you've seen it. There's also a lot of subtle humour throughout, particularly courtesy of Quint and his abrasive personality. It's incredible how tense the whole film is despite the fact that there's very little action and the shark isn't around much of the time. Even when it is around it's hardly ever shown, which makes it all the more effective (the few times it's fully revealed it looks fake, but never enough to draw you out of the story). By making the shark an unseen menace that permeates every scene and focusing on the characters and imbuing them with humanity, Spielberg makes them worth caring about, and the film is more nail biting as a result when the shark actually shows up. The few 'action' sequences that take place are exciting affairs, as the men scramble on the deck firing harpoons and even shooting at the shark with a pistol as it attempts to demolish their ship. The bleak isolation of the ocean and the small, lonely boat (they really did need a bigger one) adds to the sense of despair, and the final assault by the shark and the conclusion ("smile, you son of a bitch!") are outrageous and immensely satisfying.
A lot of credit has to go to the cast. Even the supporting players and the kids are excellent in their minor roles, but the central triumvirate are the heart of the film. Shcreider, Dreyfuss, and Shaw are brilliant in their roles, there's not much else to say about them. Each one on their own would have been compelling in their respective roles, but together these three actors make for something special, and the film wouldn't be half as great without them and their strange camaraderie (what else can I call it?). Another element that elevates the film is the classic score by John Williams, which lends it so much personality, particularly to the shark. The main theme is iconic, and understandably so.
'Jaws' is near perfect film-making, and it puts most modern blockbusters to shame. There's no excess, it's a lean film that's devoid of clichés and chock full of memorable moments. A classic that I enjoy more each time I see it.
You're gonna need a bigger boat
The 1975 classic 'Jaws' is the seminal blockbuster and director Steven Spielberg's breakout hit. Based on the book by Peter Benchley, it was a landmark film that is still regarded as the epitome of the perfect blockbuster. Watching it after several years, I was amazed once again by how well it has aged; it may look dated in a few respects, but it still thrills and entertains and is engrossing from start to finish.
'Jaws' begins with what is now the de facto style for a horror movie opening - the death of a hapless teen, in this instance along the shores of the island of Amity by way of a monstrous shark in a shocking (but not explicit) scene. This event is followed by the introduction of Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider, future captain of the Seaquest), a man who hates the water but moved to Amity to get his family away from the violence of the city. When the teenage girl's body washes up and the medical examiner concludes that it was a shark attack, Brody orders the beaches closed. This rankles the Mayor (Murray Hamilton), who doesn't want the town's tourist business to be adversely affected. He convinces Brody to keep the beaches open.
Brody's worst fears are realized when a boy is devoured by the shark; this time the beaches are closed down, and a hunt for the shark ensues. A local fisherman named Quint (Robert Shaw) promises to kill the shark for a price, but before the town can take up his offer the shark hunters return home successful, putting fears to rest. A shark expert named Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) arrives on the scene and claims that the shark that was killed isn't the rampaging killer shark, but is ignored until another killing takes place. This prompts the town officials to take up Quint's offer, and he sets sail in his ship the 'Orca' together with Chief Brody and Hooper to kill the beast.
'Jaws' is virtually note perfect in execution. Structurally it's fantastic - there's a brilliant introduction to the beast, followed by a layered introduction of the setting and politics and characters, each element adding a new dimension to the story as the shark keeps attacking and revealing itself just a little bit more. With each incident, the shark is shown to be more and more dangerous. The story is fairly simple but believable in terms of characters and logical progression, and it's really the execution of the story that soars. The film is split into two parts - one half in the town and the other half at sea. The first part is all introduction and buildup, and it establishes Amity as a small town community full of bickering personalities. The main characters are completely distinctive and wonderfully realized, with believable motivations and quirks. The second part is where things really heat up as the three heroes clash repeatedly with the shark and with each other - Quint and Hooper engage in verbal class warfare as they squabble over every little thing, with Brody stuck helplessly in the middle doing all the chores.
The dialogue throughout the film is excellent, with frequent use of overlapping dialogue adding to the hubbub and chaos when the town starts to fall apart. The most memorable piece of writing is the monologue from Quint about the tragedy of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, which is an affecting scene no matter how many times you've seen it. There's also a lot of subtle humour throughout, particularly courtesy of Quint and his abrasive personality. It's incredible how tense the whole film is despite the fact that there's very little action and the shark isn't around much of the time. Even when it is around it's hardly ever shown, which makes it all the more effective (the few times it's fully revealed it looks fake, but never enough to draw you out of the story). By making the shark an unseen menace that permeates every scene and focusing on the characters and imbuing them with humanity, Spielberg makes them worth caring about, and the film is more nail biting as a result when the shark actually shows up. The few 'action' sequences that take place are exciting affairs, as the men scramble on the deck firing harpoons and even shooting at the shark with a pistol as it attempts to demolish their ship. The bleak isolation of the ocean and the small, lonely boat (they really did need a bigger one) adds to the sense of despair, and the final assault by the shark and the conclusion ("smile, you son of a bitch!") are outrageous and immensely satisfying.
A lot of credit has to go to the cast. Even the supporting players and the kids are excellent in their minor roles, but the central triumvirate are the heart of the film. Shcreider, Dreyfuss, and Shaw are brilliant in their roles, there's not much else to say about them. Each one on their own would have been compelling in their respective roles, but together these three actors make for something special, and the film wouldn't be half as great without them and their strange camaraderie (what else can I call it?). Another element that elevates the film is the classic score by John Williams, which lends it so much personality, particularly to the shark. The main theme is iconic, and understandably so.
'Jaws' is near perfect film-making, and it puts most modern blockbusters to shame. There's no excess, it's a lean film that's devoid of clichés and chock full of memorable moments. A classic that I enjoy more each time I see it.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Casino Royale (2006)
Casino Royale (2006)
Possessing one of the most famous movie catchphrases of all time, James Bond is surely up there with the most iconic fictional characters of all time. Not bad for a guy who has for the most part appeared in derivative and overblown action films. Films that in recent times have gone from ones that wink at the audience in knowing acknowledgment of how silly they are to ones that give the audience the cinematic finger with their brazen stupidity. This trend has thankfully been rectified with the latest film, which features a brand new incarnation of the character. I don't much care for Bond movies, but this one is a damn fine action/thriller.
'Casino Royale' is essentially a reboot of the Bond franchise that goes right back to his origins as a 00 agent. James Bond (Daniel Craig) is introduced in a black & white pre-credits sequence as a cold and ruthless assassin who is in the process of making his first official kills to earn his 00 status. We then join Bond on the trail of a bomber whose attempt to flee results in an exciting chase sequence (featuring Parkour) that culminates in an explosive embassy showdown. His actions result in an international incident and he's immediately on the bad side of his boss M (Judi Dench). Following up on a clue puts Bond on to a bomb threat at an airport, which he foils in the nick of time.
The bomb plot was orchestrated by a man named Le Chiffre (the awesomely named Mads Mikkelson), a worldwide banker to criminals - the airport bombing was to have aided him in playing the stock market, but Bond's intervention resulted in him losing a lot of his clients' money. Le Chiffre sets up a major poker tournament at the Casino Royale in Montenegro to attempt to recoup his losses. Bond, being MI6's best poker player, is sent in to attempt to win the tournament, which would force Le Chiffre to seek sanctuary with MI6 and spill the beans on his clients. Vesper Lynd (Eva 'cute frown' Green), a treasury agent, accompanies Bond to watch over the government funds he's gambling with; in true Bond style, the two are drawn together even as sparks fly. Bond and Le Chiffre face off at the poker table and engage in verbal, psychological, and physical sparring as the stakes keep getting raised.
It doesn't end just there - there's a few twists in the tale and the conclusion is far more emotion laden than one would expect from a Bond film. Which is a good thing in my mind. There are several things that make this film stand tall among its Bond brethren. The script is the starting point, and it goes for a far less overblown storyline than its predecessors. The villain's scheming isn't outrageous bullshit, instead its something compelling while still being too bizarre to be true. Bond uses low tech approaches and fewer phony technologies. The plot is actually fairly tight and flows smoothly without contrivances. Best of all is the characterization, with Bond in particular being given some depth. He's a super-spy, but he has flaws - he's brash and arrogant, and his over confidence leads to mistakes. Even Le Chiffre's motivations and predicament are compelling; he's trying to weasel his way out of a dire predicament. The interplay between Bond and Vesper is fun and you can believe in them falling for each other. Although the relationship does shift gears rather abruptly, it's still far more believable than the traditional Bond style relationship.
Director Martin Campbell (who made the last good Bond flick, Goldeneye) goes for a far more restrained, grounded in (pseudo) reality approach. This film feels more serious, much more like the Bourne films, and the action sequences are grittier and more brutal with Bond coming off as someone who is still mortal. Yet it's still lavish, with expensive cars, locations, and gadgets. The absence of obtrusive and egregious CGI is a welcome development.
When it comes to the cast, there's only one person who really needs to be discussed, and that's Daniel Craig. It's incredible to think there was a backlash against his casting, because he's terrific. In terms of physicality, the guy is easily the most convincing Bond. In terms of demeanour, he's spot on as a cold and calculating killer, but Craig also imbues him with an air of overconfidence and fallibility. He's also given the opportunity to express normal human emotions besides being cocky, and he does it well. And while he doesn't get lines featuring the tongue in cheek innuendo that his predecessors did, he's still no less charming. The best of the rest are Eva Green and Mads Mikkelson. Green comes across as tough and savvy, and despite her initial aloofness is still likable. She and Craig play off of each other really well. Mikkelson is excellent as the cold hearted villain gambling with his life, and his confrontations with Bond make for some tense moments.
'Casino Royale' is a fantastic reboot to a dire series that has got me actually looking forward to the next Bond film. They now have a new and far more interesting interpretation of the Bond universe and an excellent actor who is perfectly suited to it. Here's hoping they don't drop the ball.
Bond. James Bond.
Possessing one of the most famous movie catchphrases of all time, James Bond is surely up there with the most iconic fictional characters of all time. Not bad for a guy who has for the most part appeared in derivative and overblown action films. Films that in recent times have gone from ones that wink at the audience in knowing acknowledgment of how silly they are to ones that give the audience the cinematic finger with their brazen stupidity. This trend has thankfully been rectified with the latest film, which features a brand new incarnation of the character. I don't much care for Bond movies, but this one is a damn fine action/thriller.
'Casino Royale' is essentially a reboot of the Bond franchise that goes right back to his origins as a 00 agent. James Bond (Daniel Craig) is introduced in a black & white pre-credits sequence as a cold and ruthless assassin who is in the process of making his first official kills to earn his 00 status. We then join Bond on the trail of a bomber whose attempt to flee results in an exciting chase sequence (featuring Parkour) that culminates in an explosive embassy showdown. His actions result in an international incident and he's immediately on the bad side of his boss M (Judi Dench). Following up on a clue puts Bond on to a bomb threat at an airport, which he foils in the nick of time.
The bomb plot was orchestrated by a man named Le Chiffre (the awesomely named Mads Mikkelson), a worldwide banker to criminals - the airport bombing was to have aided him in playing the stock market, but Bond's intervention resulted in him losing a lot of his clients' money. Le Chiffre sets up a major poker tournament at the Casino Royale in Montenegro to attempt to recoup his losses. Bond, being MI6's best poker player, is sent in to attempt to win the tournament, which would force Le Chiffre to seek sanctuary with MI6 and spill the beans on his clients. Vesper Lynd (Eva 'cute frown' Green), a treasury agent, accompanies Bond to watch over the government funds he's gambling with; in true Bond style, the two are drawn together even as sparks fly. Bond and Le Chiffre face off at the poker table and engage in verbal, psychological, and physical sparring as the stakes keep getting raised.
It doesn't end just there - there's a few twists in the tale and the conclusion is far more emotion laden than one would expect from a Bond film. Which is a good thing in my mind. There are several things that make this film stand tall among its Bond brethren. The script is the starting point, and it goes for a far less overblown storyline than its predecessors. The villain's scheming isn't outrageous bullshit, instead its something compelling while still being too bizarre to be true. Bond uses low tech approaches and fewer phony technologies. The plot is actually fairly tight and flows smoothly without contrivances. Best of all is the characterization, with Bond in particular being given some depth. He's a super-spy, but he has flaws - he's brash and arrogant, and his over confidence leads to mistakes. Even Le Chiffre's motivations and predicament are compelling; he's trying to weasel his way out of a dire predicament. The interplay between Bond and Vesper is fun and you can believe in them falling for each other. Although the relationship does shift gears rather abruptly, it's still far more believable than the traditional Bond style relationship.
Director Martin Campbell (who made the last good Bond flick, Goldeneye) goes for a far more restrained, grounded in (pseudo) reality approach. This film feels more serious, much more like the Bourne films, and the action sequences are grittier and more brutal with Bond coming off as someone who is still mortal. Yet it's still lavish, with expensive cars, locations, and gadgets. The absence of obtrusive and egregious CGI is a welcome development.
When it comes to the cast, there's only one person who really needs to be discussed, and that's Daniel Craig. It's incredible to think there was a backlash against his casting, because he's terrific. In terms of physicality, the guy is easily the most convincing Bond. In terms of demeanour, he's spot on as a cold and calculating killer, but Craig also imbues him with an air of overconfidence and fallibility. He's also given the opportunity to express normal human emotions besides being cocky, and he does it well. And while he doesn't get lines featuring the tongue in cheek innuendo that his predecessors did, he's still no less charming. The best of the rest are Eva Green and Mads Mikkelson. Green comes across as tough and savvy, and despite her initial aloofness is still likable. She and Craig play off of each other really well. Mikkelson is excellent as the cold hearted villain gambling with his life, and his confrontations with Bond make for some tense moments.
'Casino Royale' is a fantastic reboot to a dire series that has got me actually looking forward to the next Bond film. They now have a new and far more interesting interpretation of the Bond universe and an excellent actor who is perfectly suited to it. Here's hoping they don't drop the ball.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Tintin Courtesy of Jackson and Spielberg!
Billions of blue blistering barnacles! This just in! Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson are teaming up to direct and produce a trilogy of CGI animated Tintin movies! They will each direct at least one of them.
Although I haven't picked one up in years, I loved reading the Tintin comic book stories, which are a very cool mix of adventure and comedy featuring some wacky and memorable characters. There's no question about the talent behind the adaptations - Jackson and Spielberg are both high on a lot of people's 'best directors working' list, and their track records suggest that they are absolutely right for this sort of material (though Spielberg hasn't made a genuine adventure film in a while, so we'll have to see how the new Indy movie fares).
Most interesting is the fact that they're going for realistic CGI animation:
This seems perfect - the comic itself, while having distinctive looking characters also had a realistic style to it, and a realistic style of CGI animation is probably as close to live action as it can get while still maintaining the visual idiosyncrasies of the characters. They could have of course opted for traditional animation, but that style doesn't seem suited to the type of visuals in a Tintin comic - the realistic look is bland in motion. A lot will ultimately depend on how good the final animation is, and it'll probably be ages before we see any of it (though animation tests have already been done according to the article).
In fact, it'll probably be at least a couple of years before we see the first film released; it's early days yet. It's pretty much a sure thing that with these names behind it, the films will come about and not languish in development hell. I can't help but look forward to these films already! Plus - Spielberg and Jackson working together?!? Thundering Typhoons indeed!
Although I haven't picked one up in years, I loved reading the Tintin comic book stories, which are a very cool mix of adventure and comedy featuring some wacky and memorable characters. There's no question about the talent behind the adaptations - Jackson and Spielberg are both high on a lot of people's 'best directors working' list, and their track records suggest that they are absolutely right for this sort of material (though Spielberg hasn't made a genuine adventure film in a while, so we'll have to see how the new Indy movie fares).
Most interesting is the fact that they're going for realistic CGI animation:
"They look exactly like real people -- but real Herge people".
This seems perfect - the comic itself, while having distinctive looking characters also had a realistic style to it, and a realistic style of CGI animation is probably as close to live action as it can get while still maintaining the visual idiosyncrasies of the characters. They could have of course opted for traditional animation, but that style doesn't seem suited to the type of visuals in a Tintin comic - the realistic look is bland in motion. A lot will ultimately depend on how good the final animation is, and it'll probably be ages before we see any of it (though animation tests have already been done according to the article).
In fact, it'll probably be at least a couple of years before we see the first film released; it's early days yet. It's pretty much a sure thing that with these names behind it, the films will come about and not languish in development hell. I can't help but look forward to these films already! Plus - Spielberg and Jackson working together?!? Thundering Typhoons indeed!
Rocky Balboa (2006)
Rocky Balboa (2006)
And now, the sequel to Rocky. Well, the fifth sequel to be exact, but the ones in between are meant to be not so great (I haven't bothered to watch them), and this is apparently the only one that matches the first in style and tone. It's been hailed as a true sequel in spirit, an assessment I can get behind having just watched the original.
Set 30 years after the first one, the film introduces us to an aged and despondent Rocky Balboa. His wife Adrian has passed away, but he clings on to her memory and spends his time reliving old memories and visiting places that were important to them (many of them are locations from the first movie). His life is empty, and he goes through the motions as he manages his little restaurant (named Adrian's) and tries to connect with his estranged son Robert (Milo Ventimiglia), who is tired of living in his father's shadow. Just like in the original movie, Rocky's life is shaken up by two things. First, he meets a woman named Marie (Geraldine Hughes) whom he met as a kid in the first movie. They develop a friendship, and Rocky takes her son under his wing to keep him out of trouble. The second thing that happens is a computer simulated fight that pits a virtual Rocky against a virtual version of the current Champion Mason Dixon (Antonio Tarver), in which the simulation decides that Rocky in his prime would have come out victorious.
Despite skepticism from all quarters, Rocky decides to get back into boxing. When news of this reaches the Dixon camp, they organize an exhibition match between Dixon and Rocky to help revitalize Dixon's sagging popularity. With the support of his friends, including Paulie (Burt Young), Marie and her son, and the support of the initially reluctant Robert, Rocky trains his way through a rousing montage (set to THAT music) and confronts Dixon in an exhibition match that the commentators call an 'execution match' because of Rocky's age.
Most of the film focuses on Rocky's monotonous routine and the subsequent development of his relationships with the people in his life. It follows his 'reawakening' and the rekindling of his desire to maintain some self respect instead of just fading away. As with the original, the film is very focused on character and setting. It's about people and their place in the world, and it examines both people starting out in the world and those approaching the twilight of their lives. The former are struggling to get a foothold, while the latter are trying to get past regrets and find some meaningful purpose. It's easy to give a damn about these people because their problems are relatable.
The story, unfortunately, has too many elements at play, and some of them end up feeling sketchy as a result - there are far more characters than in the original, and the screenplay can't do justice to them all. The buildup of events is excellent but the final training and fight sequences are too brief, with the latter being like something out of another movie. The fight just isn't that exciting and it's shot in a weird 'TV' style that takes you right out of the drama. Still, it's hard not to get caught up in it because of all the goodwill that most of the film has already engendered. The performances are generally good, with the only truly weak link being Milo Ventimiglia as Rocky's son. The best of the bunch is undoubtedly Stallone, who once again brings dignity and charm to the role of the slow witted Italian Stallion. Also noteworthy is Antonia Tarver as the brash and clinically ruthless Dixon.
At the end of the day 'Balboa' is inferior to the original in almost every way, but it has the same earnestness and heart that made the classic such a favourite. One could argue that it hangs too heavily on the coattails of its progenitor (right down to the music!), and while that is true to some extent it still manages to stand on its own as a separate entity.
The film was met with ridicule when it was announced, but much like the eponymous character he portrays, Stallone defied the odds and surprised everyone by coming out of the doldrums with a quality old-school film that embodies the same spirit as the original. It serves as a fitting conclusion to the story of Rocky Balboa; Stallone, like Rocky, had the last laugh. Now I may have to go and check out the other four movies to see the less beloved aspects of that story.
And now, the sequel to Rocky. Well, the fifth sequel to be exact, but the ones in between are meant to be not so great (I haven't bothered to watch them), and this is apparently the only one that matches the first in style and tone. It's been hailed as a true sequel in spirit, an assessment I can get behind having just watched the original.
Set 30 years after the first one, the film introduces us to an aged and despondent Rocky Balboa. His wife Adrian has passed away, but he clings on to her memory and spends his time reliving old memories and visiting places that were important to them (many of them are locations from the first movie). His life is empty, and he goes through the motions as he manages his little restaurant (named Adrian's) and tries to connect with his estranged son Robert (Milo Ventimiglia), who is tired of living in his father's shadow. Just like in the original movie, Rocky's life is shaken up by two things. First, he meets a woman named Marie (Geraldine Hughes) whom he met as a kid in the first movie. They develop a friendship, and Rocky takes her son under his wing to keep him out of trouble. The second thing that happens is a computer simulated fight that pits a virtual Rocky against a virtual version of the current Champion Mason Dixon (Antonio Tarver), in which the simulation decides that Rocky in his prime would have come out victorious.
Despite skepticism from all quarters, Rocky decides to get back into boxing. When news of this reaches the Dixon camp, they organize an exhibition match between Dixon and Rocky to help revitalize Dixon's sagging popularity. With the support of his friends, including Paulie (Burt Young), Marie and her son, and the support of the initially reluctant Robert, Rocky trains his way through a rousing montage (set to THAT music) and confronts Dixon in an exhibition match that the commentators call an 'execution match' because of Rocky's age.
Most of the film focuses on Rocky's monotonous routine and the subsequent development of his relationships with the people in his life. It follows his 'reawakening' and the rekindling of his desire to maintain some self respect instead of just fading away. As with the original, the film is very focused on character and setting. It's about people and their place in the world, and it examines both people starting out in the world and those approaching the twilight of their lives. The former are struggling to get a foothold, while the latter are trying to get past regrets and find some meaningful purpose. It's easy to give a damn about these people because their problems are relatable.
The story, unfortunately, has too many elements at play, and some of them end up feeling sketchy as a result - there are far more characters than in the original, and the screenplay can't do justice to them all. The buildup of events is excellent but the final training and fight sequences are too brief, with the latter being like something out of another movie. The fight just isn't that exciting and it's shot in a weird 'TV' style that takes you right out of the drama. Still, it's hard not to get caught up in it because of all the goodwill that most of the film has already engendered. The performances are generally good, with the only truly weak link being Milo Ventimiglia as Rocky's son. The best of the bunch is undoubtedly Stallone, who once again brings dignity and charm to the role of the slow witted Italian Stallion. Also noteworthy is Antonia Tarver as the brash and clinically ruthless Dixon.
At the end of the day 'Balboa' is inferior to the original in almost every way, but it has the same earnestness and heart that made the classic such a favourite. One could argue that it hangs too heavily on the coattails of its progenitor (right down to the music!), and while that is true to some extent it still manages to stand on its own as a separate entity.
The film was met with ridicule when it was announced, but much like the eponymous character he portrays, Stallone defied the odds and surprised everyone by coming out of the doldrums with a quality old-school film that embodies the same spirit as the original. It serves as a fitting conclusion to the story of Rocky Balboa; Stallone, like Rocky, had the last laugh. Now I may have to go and check out the other four movies to see the less beloved aspects of that story.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Rocky (1976)
Rocky (1976)
'Adriaaaaaaaan!' I'd heard this iconic line many times via imitations and spoofs before I ever saw 'Rocky' - it's a classic moment from a classic film that has stood the test of time. Sylvester Stallone's breakout film is a drama that wears its heart on its sleeve and is impossible to hate. I decided to revisit it before watching its only spiritual sequel, Rocky Balboa.
'Rocky' tells the story of a humble, down on his luck boxer named Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone). Rocky talks a lot but he's not too bright; he's a decent guy who finds his day job as hired muscle for a loan shark difficult to carry out because he doesn't like shaking people down. He hangs out with his friend Paulie (Burt Young), who works at a meat plant, and is romantically interested in Paulie's shy sister Adrian (Talia Shire), who resists Rocky's charms. The film introduces Rocky's world before shaking it up with two events. First, he finally connects with Adrian and the two hit it off. Second, he's offered the chance to fight the Heavyweight Champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) when Creed's opponent pulls out. The fight is billed as an opportunity for a small time boxer to make his mark, but Creed actually sees it as a publicity stunt to boost his popularity, because nobody expects Rocky to put up much of a fight. Despite being seen as a joke and knowing that he doesn't stand much of a chance, Rocky resolves to give it everything and begins a disciplined training programme. He receives the support of his friends and the goodwill of his community, and receives the wisdom of a cantankerous coach (Burgess Meredith) who offers to train him.
There's nothing overly ambitious about 'Rocky', it's a simple story that's really well executed. Stallone's screenplay is impressive - there are no wasted moments, it builds up to the climactic showdown while letting us get to know the characters. While not overly deep, the characters come across as real people who've led hard lives full of regret and bitterness. The fantastic understated performances by the cast add to this, and there are only a few showy emotional moments. Understated except for Burgess Meredith, who's explosive and entertaining from start to finish (except for one poignant scene). The real standout is Sylvester Stallone, a good actor who has made a lot of crappy films over the years. He's goofily charming, but there's a lot of subtle weariness and pain as well; Stallone also nails the physical aspects of the role. The interplay between Stallone and Talia Shire is also convincing and unique, and their romance is in many ways the backbone of the story ("together we fill gaps" predated "you complete me" by decades, and is a line that feels sincere coming out of Rocky's mouth).
The film conveys a genuine sense of community that lends it a great deal of character and provides a nice backdrop and context for everything that happens, as Rocky becomes something of a celebrity in his hometown. The final fight scenes are dramatic and well staged (though I admittedly know little about boxing), and the conclusion is immensely satisfying. The icing on the cake is Bill Conti's iconic and rousing music, which adds a great deal to the mood of the film.
Rocky's a classic, and no mistake - an uplifting story about a man who attempts to maintain some dignity despite all of the bad hands life has dealt him. It may not be original or brilliant in any department, and yeah it's a bit schmaltzy, but it all comes together brilliantly and makes for a truly memorable film.
'Adriaaaaaaaan!' I'd heard this iconic line many times via imitations and spoofs before I ever saw 'Rocky' - it's a classic moment from a classic film that has stood the test of time. Sylvester Stallone's breakout film is a drama that wears its heart on its sleeve and is impossible to hate. I decided to revisit it before watching its only spiritual sequel, Rocky Balboa.
'Rocky' tells the story of a humble, down on his luck boxer named Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone). Rocky talks a lot but he's not too bright; he's a decent guy who finds his day job as hired muscle for a loan shark difficult to carry out because he doesn't like shaking people down. He hangs out with his friend Paulie (Burt Young), who works at a meat plant, and is romantically interested in Paulie's shy sister Adrian (Talia Shire), who resists Rocky's charms. The film introduces Rocky's world before shaking it up with two events. First, he finally connects with Adrian and the two hit it off. Second, he's offered the chance to fight the Heavyweight Champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) when Creed's opponent pulls out. The fight is billed as an opportunity for a small time boxer to make his mark, but Creed actually sees it as a publicity stunt to boost his popularity, because nobody expects Rocky to put up much of a fight. Despite being seen as a joke and knowing that he doesn't stand much of a chance, Rocky resolves to give it everything and begins a disciplined training programme. He receives the support of his friends and the goodwill of his community, and receives the wisdom of a cantankerous coach (Burgess Meredith) who offers to train him.
There's nothing overly ambitious about 'Rocky', it's a simple story that's really well executed. Stallone's screenplay is impressive - there are no wasted moments, it builds up to the climactic showdown while letting us get to know the characters. While not overly deep, the characters come across as real people who've led hard lives full of regret and bitterness. The fantastic understated performances by the cast add to this, and there are only a few showy emotional moments. Understated except for Burgess Meredith, who's explosive and entertaining from start to finish (except for one poignant scene). The real standout is Sylvester Stallone, a good actor who has made a lot of crappy films over the years. He's goofily charming, but there's a lot of subtle weariness and pain as well; Stallone also nails the physical aspects of the role. The interplay between Stallone and Talia Shire is also convincing and unique, and their romance is in many ways the backbone of the story ("together we fill gaps" predated "you complete me" by decades, and is a line that feels sincere coming out of Rocky's mouth).
The film conveys a genuine sense of community that lends it a great deal of character and provides a nice backdrop and context for everything that happens, as Rocky becomes something of a celebrity in his hometown. The final fight scenes are dramatic and well staged (though I admittedly know little about boxing), and the conclusion is immensely satisfying. The icing on the cake is Bill Conti's iconic and rousing music, which adds a great deal to the mood of the film.
Rocky's a classic, and no mistake - an uplifting story about a man who attempts to maintain some dignity despite all of the bad hands life has dealt him. It may not be original or brilliant in any department, and yeah it's a bit schmaltzy, but it all comes together brilliantly and makes for a truly memorable film.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Hard Candy (2005)
Hard Candy (2005)
'Hard Candy' is a film that makes for a unique and often uncomfortable viewing experience. It's a small scale psychological thriller featuring, essentially, just two actors (there are a handful of others in very, very minor roles) - Ellen Page as a 14 year old girl named Hayley and Patrick Wilson as a 30 something bachelor named Jeff. Warning - I can't really talk about the film without giving away a big twist in the tale, though it is one that is given away in the trailer if I recall correctly.
The film begins with an online chat between Hayley and Jeff; both are flirtatious and end up agreeing to meet up at a coffee shop. Hayley turns out to be a shy but intelligent girl, and Jeff a suave professional photographer. After chatting for a while, the two end up going to Jeff's home, and it is apparent that his intentions are anything but noble. This is where things take an interesting twist - Jeff may well be a paedophile, but Hayley isn't the naive girl she purports to be. She surreptitiously drugs him, ties him up to a chair and confronts him about his intentions. From this point onwards the two engage in a battle of wits as Hayley tries to obtain proof of his paedophilia and proof that he had murdered another girl, while Jeff tries to prove his innocence. Things come to a head when Hayley prepares to castrate Jeff as punishment for his crimes.
The film is exceptionally well written and directed; with only one main location (Jeff's apartment), two characters, and a lot of character interaction, it has to be to work. There's plenty of tension and the situations and exchanges between the two are fascinating and frightening, and there are some real squirm inducing moments created without resorting to anything gratuitous. Both characters are convincingly realized as written (despite Hayley being quite unbelievable in concept), and are brilliantly portrayed by Wilson and Page. Jeff transforms from being despicably charming to violently enraged before ending up as a pitiful shell of a man, and Wilson does well to make the character occasionally sympathetic. He's helped by the fact that Page's portrayal of Hayley as a mix of childish girl and cold sociopath is so unsettling.
'Hard Candy' is a film that manages to instill a great deal of ambivalence. It's initially clear where sympathies lie, but as things unfold, it's hard to decide whom to get behind. Both characters are essentially monstrous; Hayley's position is perhaps more defensible, since she's punishing a wrongdoer, but her extreme and callous nature are ultimately hard to root for. This results in sympathies shifting as the story unfolds. It also raised a bit of a conundrum - if Jeffrey's nature had been more fully depicted and his crimes shown, would my sympathy have been squarely with Hayley, or would I have still been repulsed by Hayley's actions as well? In most revenge film scenarios, we see the bad guys at their most despicable, and this encourages us to get behind the person who dishes out punishment in retribution. It's interesting how the film presents this revenge scenario in a way that works against normal emotional conditioning. Although I have to also wonder whether my foreknowledge of the twist affected my perspective of events at the start of the film. (From a completely detached perspective however, I wouldn't want either of them walking the streets.)
Bottom line, it's a gripping and well made film that isn't exactly wholesome family fun. It's a smart thriller that certainly leaves you with something to think about.
'Hard Candy' is a film that makes for a unique and often uncomfortable viewing experience. It's a small scale psychological thriller featuring, essentially, just two actors (there are a handful of others in very, very minor roles) - Ellen Page as a 14 year old girl named Hayley and Patrick Wilson as a 30 something bachelor named Jeff. Warning - I can't really talk about the film without giving away a big twist in the tale, though it is one that is given away in the trailer if I recall correctly.
The film begins with an online chat between Hayley and Jeff; both are flirtatious and end up agreeing to meet up at a coffee shop. Hayley turns out to be a shy but intelligent girl, and Jeff a suave professional photographer. After chatting for a while, the two end up going to Jeff's home, and it is apparent that his intentions are anything but noble. This is where things take an interesting twist - Jeff may well be a paedophile, but Hayley isn't the naive girl she purports to be. She surreptitiously drugs him, ties him up to a chair and confronts him about his intentions. From this point onwards the two engage in a battle of wits as Hayley tries to obtain proof of his paedophilia and proof that he had murdered another girl, while Jeff tries to prove his innocence. Things come to a head when Hayley prepares to castrate Jeff as punishment for his crimes.
The film is exceptionally well written and directed; with only one main location (Jeff's apartment), two characters, and a lot of character interaction, it has to be to work. There's plenty of tension and the situations and exchanges between the two are fascinating and frightening, and there are some real squirm inducing moments created without resorting to anything gratuitous. Both characters are convincingly realized as written (despite Hayley being quite unbelievable in concept), and are brilliantly portrayed by Wilson and Page. Jeff transforms from being despicably charming to violently enraged before ending up as a pitiful shell of a man, and Wilson does well to make the character occasionally sympathetic. He's helped by the fact that Page's portrayal of Hayley as a mix of childish girl and cold sociopath is so unsettling.
'Hard Candy' is a film that manages to instill a great deal of ambivalence. It's initially clear where sympathies lie, but as things unfold, it's hard to decide whom to get behind. Both characters are essentially monstrous; Hayley's position is perhaps more defensible, since she's punishing a wrongdoer, but her extreme and callous nature are ultimately hard to root for. This results in sympathies shifting as the story unfolds. It also raised a bit of a conundrum - if Jeffrey's nature had been more fully depicted and his crimes shown, would my sympathy have been squarely with Hayley, or would I have still been repulsed by Hayley's actions as well? In most revenge film scenarios, we see the bad guys at their most despicable, and this encourages us to get behind the person who dishes out punishment in retribution. It's interesting how the film presents this revenge scenario in a way that works against normal emotional conditioning. Although I have to also wonder whether my foreknowledge of the twist affected my perspective of events at the start of the film. (From a completely detached perspective however, I wouldn't want either of them walking the streets.)
Bottom line, it's a gripping and well made film that isn't exactly wholesome family fun. It's a smart thriller that certainly leaves you with something to think about.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Ubuntu installed!
After some ranting and some more ranting, I finally installed Ubuntu Linux (Edgy Eft) on my home PC, on a partition I had left in advance many moons ago. The last version I tried was Dapper Drake, which didn't support my graphics card. Fortunately, Edgy Eft does (though still not very well), and the installation process was a breeze in the end, with the whole process clocking in at under an hour (including taking a few quick backups and double checking my MBR backup).
I haven't played around with it much yet, and my first order of business will be to upgrade it to the latest version, Frisky Fox. I mean, Fiesty Fawn. I've already run into a couple of problems though. Upon installation, there were numerous updates available that amounted to over 200 MB of downloads. I decided to break the update process down into two sessions (each comprising a number of updates) to save time because my Net connection isn't that fast. Both times the Window manager got screwed up after completing the update, requiring me to reset. Not sure what caused it, but it was annoying. The second problem was with the graphics - I may need to do some additional configuration, but at the moment the GUI is quite sluggish; a driver update may be necessary to improve things. Hopefully upgrading to Fiesty will resolve this issue. The final problem is with the GRUB boot loader, which allows you to select which operating system to load during boot. It's supposed to have a time out, and the GRUB configuration file is set up correctly, but the time out doesn't work, which means I have to manually press enter to load my default OS!
I'll have to resolve these problems after upgrading to Fiesty, assuming they're not resolved by the upgrade and any subsequent updates. After that, I can actually start mucking about and see what Ubuntu has to offer, and what I can and can't do with it. It looks pretty slick so far, with a clean interface and logical menu organization (though I'd already noticed this when using the live CD).
I haven't played around with it much yet, and my first order of business will be to upgrade it to the latest version, Frisky Fox. I mean, Fiesty Fawn. I've already run into a couple of problems though. Upon installation, there were numerous updates available that amounted to over 200 MB of downloads. I decided to break the update process down into two sessions (each comprising a number of updates) to save time because my Net connection isn't that fast. Both times the Window manager got screwed up after completing the update, requiring me to reset. Not sure what caused it, but it was annoying. The second problem was with the graphics - I may need to do some additional configuration, but at the moment the GUI is quite sluggish; a driver update may be necessary to improve things. Hopefully upgrading to Fiesty will resolve this issue. The final problem is with the GRUB boot loader, which allows you to select which operating system to load during boot. It's supposed to have a time out, and the GRUB configuration file is set up correctly, but the time out doesn't work, which means I have to manually press enter to load my default OS!
I'll have to resolve these problems after upgrading to Fiesty, assuming they're not resolved by the upgrade and any subsequent updates. After that, I can actually start mucking about and see what Ubuntu has to offer, and what I can and can't do with it. It looks pretty slick so far, with a clean interface and logical menu organization (though I'd already noticed this when using the live CD).
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cut (2005)
Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cut (2005)
I first saw Ridley Scott's Crusades epic shortly after it first came out back in 2005 and came away somewhat underwhelmed. While I felt that it was a good movie, it was lacking in many ways - characterization and plot elements were a little sketchy. Unsurprisingly, it turned out that the studio had chopped off lots of the film to make it shorter and more palatable for general audiences. Fortunately, Ridley Scott was provided the opportunity to release his definitive version of the film on DVD, and while I wouldn't call it a masterpiece it's much, much better than the theatrical cut.
Kingdom of Heaven focuses on several characters, but the protagonist is Balian (Orlando Bloom), who is introduced as a blacksmith mourning his wife; she committed suicide after the death of their child. Godfrey Baron of Ibelin (Liam Neeson), a lord from the Holy Lands, arrives in Balian's village and claims Balian as his son (out of wedlock) and rightful heir, and asks him to accompany him back. Balian, who is unwelcome in his village, initially refuses but later commits murder in a fit of rage and joins up with Godfrey and his accompanying Knights with the hope of finding spiritual redemption in Jerusalem. Their party is attacked by men who arrive to arrest Balian, and Godfrey is mortally wounded during the struggle. He Knights Balian and bequeaths the Barony of Ibelin to him. Balian then makes the treacherous journey to Jerusalem, nearly losing his life twice in the process.
The second act of the film introduces the key players and the politics of Jerusalem. Balian finds Ibelin to be dry and barren, and sets to work trying to improve it. He finds the Kingdom divided - King Baldwin (Ed Norton) and Lord Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) struggle to maintain peace between the Christians occupying Jerusalem and the ever growing power of the Muslims led by Salahuddin (Ghassan Massoud), while Guy of Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and Raynald of Châtillon (Brendan Gleeson) try to instigate war against them in the belief that it is 'God's will' for the Christians to prevail (ironically, the hardliners in Salahuddin's camp believe it is 'God's will' for the Muslims to prevail). Guy is married to King Baldwin's sister Sibylla (Eva Green), who has an affair with Balian. Further complicating matters is the fact that King Baldwin is dying as a result of his leprosy, leaving the fate of the Kingdom in the hands of whomever succeeds him. The third act of the film revolves around the battle to defend Jerusalem, with the defenders being led by Balian.
Almost all of what I've described applies to both cuts of the film, but the Director's Cut adds a lot of depth to it, and elevates it from a good one to an excellent one. Backstory, characterization, and one significant subplot are added to the film, which makes it far more complete. 'Kingdom of Heaven' is rich in plot, character, and themes. The story is laced with elements of politics, religion, fanaticism, courage, and honour. The character of Balian is used to some extent as a focal point around which all the other elements of the film revolve - we see mostly from his point of view, and his presence influences those around him. William Monahan's screenplay balances and interweaves the various elements of plot and character into a compelling whole that provides a window into a bygone era. It may not be historically accurate in terms of people and events, and some concepts (such as some character viewpoints) may seem a little too modern to be believable, but taken as a whole the film has an air of verisimilitude about it. The characters are compelling and complex, and unlike in Scott's 'Gladiator' (which I think is a brilliant revenge / action film that had no need for an 'Extended Cut') there's some ambiguity to them.
Balian is a noble and virtuous (to a fault) knight who seeks redemption in the Holy Land and is reluctant to involve himself in the political games of the aristocracy, but he's not squeaky clean - he has blood on his hands and engages in adultery. Orlando Bloom is not the most magnetic leading man, but he's effective in this film because the character is so low key and idealistic, a demeanour perfectly suited to Bloom. He doesn't have to carry the film until the last act where he leads the defence of Jerusalem, which is the only point where his performance doesn't deliver. Godfrey, Balian's father, is a character who hopes to bring some meaning to his weary and bloody life when he brings Balian with him to be his successor, and is willing to break the law to have Balian by his side. Liam Neeson can do the noble mentor figure any day, and he's great as always in this.
King Baldwin is a young but wise ruler who realizes that he maintains an uneasy peace, and is willing to compromise personal honour to maintain it. Edward Norton is barely recognizable and brilliant as the Leper King - he exudes authority and intelligence despite being hidden behind a metal mask. Equally great is Ghassan Massoud as Salahuddin, a brilliant military leader caught between his honour and respect for King Baldwin and his promise to liberate Jerusalem. Massoud is incredibly charismatic and commanding in the role, and the scene where the two Kings meet face to face is a brief but memorable one. Sibylla is a headstrong woman whose relationship with Balian is understandable; she's later thrust into an unenviable position when she becomes Queen, and has to deal with a personal tragedy relating to her son. Eva Green is terrific in the role, going through a transformation in the film and ending up a shattered individual (as an aside, Eva Green has the most endearing 'permanent frown' expression I've ever seen).
The one disappointing portrayal is Marton Csokas as Guy, who is a little over the top in his evil ways, though the script doesn't really give him anything non-evil to do. There are many supporting characters as well - Brendan Gleeson is over the top but clearly playing an insane man in Raynald of Châtillon, David Thewlis is memorable as the pragmatic Hospitaler, and Alexander Siddig is surprisingly commanding as Nasir (a far cry from Doctor Bashir!).
As one would expect from a Ridley Scott film, the visuals are stunning and the action sequences chaotic. There's a lot in the film that is reminiscent of 'The Return of the King', including the siege of Jerusalem, although the action never quite gets to that level of excitement and insanity! As with Gladiator, there are moody contemplative moments for the protagonist, emotions and sentiments are often worn on the sleeve, and the petulant villains sneer, scowl, and glower at every opportunity. The music from Harry Gregson-Williams is complementary and appropriate, if unmemorable. The production values are, unsurprisingly, fantastic and virtually flawless, as are the special effects, which true to form are not used in an overly showy manner by Scott.
This post ended up being longer than I initially intended; I guess the film required a bit more consideration than anticipated. It's excellent and is the only version of 'Kingdom of Heaven' that needs to be seen. Clocking in at over three hours (50 minutes longer than the original cut), it's an epic in every way, and a memorable one. Well worth watching, especially for people who felt the theatrical version was a decent film that could have been better.
Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath.
I first saw Ridley Scott's Crusades epic shortly after it first came out back in 2005 and came away somewhat underwhelmed. While I felt that it was a good movie, it was lacking in many ways - characterization and plot elements were a little sketchy. Unsurprisingly, it turned out that the studio had chopped off lots of the film to make it shorter and more palatable for general audiences. Fortunately, Ridley Scott was provided the opportunity to release his definitive version of the film on DVD, and while I wouldn't call it a masterpiece it's much, much better than the theatrical cut.
Kingdom of Heaven focuses on several characters, but the protagonist is Balian (Orlando Bloom), who is introduced as a blacksmith mourning his wife; she committed suicide after the death of their child. Godfrey Baron of Ibelin (Liam Neeson), a lord from the Holy Lands, arrives in Balian's village and claims Balian as his son (out of wedlock) and rightful heir, and asks him to accompany him back. Balian, who is unwelcome in his village, initially refuses but later commits murder in a fit of rage and joins up with Godfrey and his accompanying Knights with the hope of finding spiritual redemption in Jerusalem. Their party is attacked by men who arrive to arrest Balian, and Godfrey is mortally wounded during the struggle. He Knights Balian and bequeaths the Barony of Ibelin to him. Balian then makes the treacherous journey to Jerusalem, nearly losing his life twice in the process.
The second act of the film introduces the key players and the politics of Jerusalem. Balian finds Ibelin to be dry and barren, and sets to work trying to improve it. He finds the Kingdom divided - King Baldwin (Ed Norton) and Lord Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) struggle to maintain peace between the Christians occupying Jerusalem and the ever growing power of the Muslims led by Salahuddin (Ghassan Massoud), while Guy of Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and Raynald of Châtillon (Brendan Gleeson) try to instigate war against them in the belief that it is 'God's will' for the Christians to prevail (ironically, the hardliners in Salahuddin's camp believe it is 'God's will' for the Muslims to prevail). Guy is married to King Baldwin's sister Sibylla (Eva Green), who has an affair with Balian. Further complicating matters is the fact that King Baldwin is dying as a result of his leprosy, leaving the fate of the Kingdom in the hands of whomever succeeds him. The third act of the film revolves around the battle to defend Jerusalem, with the defenders being led by Balian.
Almost all of what I've described applies to both cuts of the film, but the Director's Cut adds a lot of depth to it, and elevates it from a good one to an excellent one. Backstory, characterization, and one significant subplot are added to the film, which makes it far more complete. 'Kingdom of Heaven' is rich in plot, character, and themes. The story is laced with elements of politics, religion, fanaticism, courage, and honour. The character of Balian is used to some extent as a focal point around which all the other elements of the film revolve - we see mostly from his point of view, and his presence influences those around him. William Monahan's screenplay balances and interweaves the various elements of plot and character into a compelling whole that provides a window into a bygone era. It may not be historically accurate in terms of people and events, and some concepts (such as some character viewpoints) may seem a little too modern to be believable, but taken as a whole the film has an air of verisimilitude about it. The characters are compelling and complex, and unlike in Scott's 'Gladiator' (which I think is a brilliant revenge / action film that had no need for an 'Extended Cut') there's some ambiguity to them.
Balian is a noble and virtuous (to a fault) knight who seeks redemption in the Holy Land and is reluctant to involve himself in the political games of the aristocracy, but he's not squeaky clean - he has blood on his hands and engages in adultery. Orlando Bloom is not the most magnetic leading man, but he's effective in this film because the character is so low key and idealistic, a demeanour perfectly suited to Bloom. He doesn't have to carry the film until the last act where he leads the defence of Jerusalem, which is the only point where his performance doesn't deliver. Godfrey, Balian's father, is a character who hopes to bring some meaning to his weary and bloody life when he brings Balian with him to be his successor, and is willing to break the law to have Balian by his side. Liam Neeson can do the noble mentor figure any day, and he's great as always in this.
King Baldwin is a young but wise ruler who realizes that he maintains an uneasy peace, and is willing to compromise personal honour to maintain it. Edward Norton is barely recognizable and brilliant as the Leper King - he exudes authority and intelligence despite being hidden behind a metal mask. Equally great is Ghassan Massoud as Salahuddin, a brilliant military leader caught between his honour and respect for King Baldwin and his promise to liberate Jerusalem. Massoud is incredibly charismatic and commanding in the role, and the scene where the two Kings meet face to face is a brief but memorable one. Sibylla is a headstrong woman whose relationship with Balian is understandable; she's later thrust into an unenviable position when she becomes Queen, and has to deal with a personal tragedy relating to her son. Eva Green is terrific in the role, going through a transformation in the film and ending up a shattered individual (as an aside, Eva Green has the most endearing 'permanent frown' expression I've ever seen).
The one disappointing portrayal is Marton Csokas as Guy, who is a little over the top in his evil ways, though the script doesn't really give him anything non-evil to do. There are many supporting characters as well - Brendan Gleeson is over the top but clearly playing an insane man in Raynald of Châtillon, David Thewlis is memorable as the pragmatic Hospitaler, and Alexander Siddig is surprisingly commanding as Nasir (a far cry from Doctor Bashir!).
As one would expect from a Ridley Scott film, the visuals are stunning and the action sequences chaotic. There's a lot in the film that is reminiscent of 'The Return of the King', including the siege of Jerusalem, although the action never quite gets to that level of excitement and insanity! As with Gladiator, there are moody contemplative moments for the protagonist, emotions and sentiments are often worn on the sleeve, and the petulant villains sneer, scowl, and glower at every opportunity. The music from Harry Gregson-Williams is complementary and appropriate, if unmemorable. The production values are, unsurprisingly, fantastic and virtually flawless, as are the special effects, which true to form are not used in an overly showy manner by Scott.
This post ended up being longer than I initially intended; I guess the film required a bit more consideration than anticipated. It's excellent and is the only version of 'Kingdom of Heaven' that needs to be seen. Clocking in at over three hours (50 minutes longer than the original cut), it's an epic in every way, and a memorable one. Well worth watching, especially for people who felt the theatrical version was a decent film that could have been better.
Lost will actually end!
The TV series 'Lost' is one of my favourites, featuring an incredibly appealing set of misfit characters and a terrific concept. My main qualm with the show is in its plotting - it's been laying on mystery after mystery without really giving any answers (at least, upto season 2, which is as far as I've got), and I was beginning to suspect that it may head the way of the X-Files and become entangled in its own mythology.
The news today is that the show will end with Season 6. The show's creators have signed a deal that guarantees that it will end at that point. Each of the remaining three seasons will be only 16 episodes long. This is great news for two reasons. Firstly, as with the brilliant Babylon 5, having an end goal will tighten the storytelling and give it some clear direction while allowing for the mysteries to be resolved (if it goes on indefinitely, they can never truly explain most of the mysteries). Secondly, fewer episodes per season means fewer filler episodes and more care taken with the episodes that are produced. The more TV I've watched, the more I've observed that shows with 20+ episodes per season almost always have a few poor episodes to meet their quota, while shows with fewer episodes tend to be stronger throughout.
My one remaining doubt regarding 'Lost' is the use of flashbacks, a hallmark of the show. I love the flashbacks, the way they flesh out the characters and deepen the mysteries of the island. The thing is, there are only so many they can do before it starts to grow tiresome and less relevant to the main storyline. I can already see this happening to some extent in Season 2, where they're sort of reaching for ways to maintain a connection between the characters' pasts and the present.
In any event, my major issues with the show have been addressed and I can accept a few more years of flashbacks (especially when they are compelling mini-stories in and of themselves). I can't wait to see how it all ends...
**UPDATED**
Devin at Chud has a good write up on this, where he states:
It's a fair point, and I think my initial statement about the show not giving any answers was a bit harsh. BUT, upto the end of Season 2 (can't comment on Season 3, it may reveal a lot more), these answers have been few and slow in coming. The hatch has been revealed, as has its function (sort of), and so have 'the others', but the show has taken up a lot of time while still leaving a lot up in the air. I guess my issue is with the pace with which things happen, something the last few seasons (and season 3, or so I've heard) ought to resolve.
The news today is that the show will end with Season 6. The show's creators have signed a deal that guarantees that it will end at that point. Each of the remaining three seasons will be only 16 episodes long. This is great news for two reasons. Firstly, as with the brilliant Babylon 5, having an end goal will tighten the storytelling and give it some clear direction while allowing for the mysteries to be resolved (if it goes on indefinitely, they can never truly explain most of the mysteries). Secondly, fewer episodes per season means fewer filler episodes and more care taken with the episodes that are produced. The more TV I've watched, the more I've observed that shows with 20+ episodes per season almost always have a few poor episodes to meet their quota, while shows with fewer episodes tend to be stronger throughout.
My one remaining doubt regarding 'Lost' is the use of flashbacks, a hallmark of the show. I love the flashbacks, the way they flesh out the characters and deepen the mysteries of the island. The thing is, there are only so many they can do before it starts to grow tiresome and less relevant to the main storyline. I can already see this happening to some extent in Season 2, where they're sort of reaching for ways to maintain a connection between the characters' pasts and the present.
In any event, my major issues with the show have been addressed and I can accept a few more years of flashbacks (especially when they are compelling mini-stories in and of themselves). I can't wait to see how it all ends...
**UPDATED**
Devin at Chud has a good write up on this, where he states:
A word for those who complain that the show doesn’t answer any questions or solve any mysteries: it does. In a major way. But what upsets some folks is that the answers keep bringing up new questions and mysteries – which, one assumes, is the whole point of a show marketed as a mystery from the start.
It's a fair point, and I think my initial statement about the show not giving any answers was a bit harsh. BUT, upto the end of Season 2 (can't comment on Season 3, it may reveal a lot more), these answers have been few and slow in coming. The hatch has been revealed, as has its function (sort of), and so have 'the others', but the show has taken up a lot of time while still leaving a lot up in the air. I guess my issue is with the pace with which things happen, something the last few seasons (and season 3, or so I've heard) ought to resolve.
Monday, May 07, 2007
His Dark Materials - looking good!
This very cool poster for the 'The Golden Compass', the upcoming adaptation of the first of Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy, was revealed a few days ago. The official site has been up for some time and does a pretty good job of introducing the world of the story as well as providing a few glimpses into the production. Particularly amusing is the section on daemons, which are physical manifestations of people's souls - a glorified personality quiz can tell you what your daemon is. My daemon is an ocelot named Hypatia, who is apparently 'modest, solitary, dependable, assertive, and spontaneous'... hmm, there's a couple that don't seem quite right there, Doc.
My previous posts on the books (here and here) were positive but not exactly glowing with praise. My main complaints had less to do with the story, characters, themes, and worlds Pullman created and more to do with his writing style, which just didn't connect with me, especially in the third book. The film could potentially have all of the good stuff from the books told in a way that's more to my liking, so I'm looking forward to it in a big way. The cast looks impressive (although the actress playing Lyra, the series' protagonist, is an unknown factor) and everything I've seen of the film so far looks spot on. It comes out at the end of the year, so a trailer ought to be forthcoming.
On a slightly related note is another fantasy film, 'Stardust', which is out in a few months. Based on a book by Neil Gaiman, 'Stardust' looks to be a whimsical fairy tale in the vein of the classic 'The Princess Bride'. The offical site has a wee bit of basic content, including the trailer which looks interesting if unspectacular. The cast is mighty impressive though, and some of the early word has been good, so I'm eagerly anticipating it.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Save the Green Planet (2003)
Save the Green Planet (2003)
Weird movie alert! 'Save the Green Planet' is one of those relatively obscure, unseen, and absolutely bizarre films. You know the kind. Actually, you don't, because this South Korean film really stands on its own as something completely unique. It's a comedy / drama / horror / sci-fi / thriller, and it really does embody the attributes of all of those genres.
The story revolves around a man named Byeong-gu, who together with his gymnast girlfriend kidnaps a corporate executive because he believes the man to be an alien (the outer space kind) involved in experiments on Earth and an impending invasion. After kidnapping him, the two of them torture him to get him to confess and to put them in touch with the alien 'prince'. It turns out that Byeong-gu has actually done this before to lots of people, all of whom he believed to be aliens. This part of the film plays as straight up horror and also has some sci-fi elements. The police, meanwhile, attempt to locate the executive. Against the orders of the lead investigator, a young police detective teams up with a disgraced ex-cop turned fish-market worker / private detective to help solve the case. The private detective tracks down a lead and investigates Byeong-gu. These parts of the movie play like a police procedural thriller. The drama part of the film plays out in the midst of these two story lines as Byeong-gu's tragic history is revealed.
All of the elements of the film are mixed with comedy, to such an extent that the tone can shift dramatically in mere moments from serious to comical. And the comedy elements are actually really, really funny, though you would be forgiven for feeling queasy about laughing at some of the things that take place. All the different genres are represented at a very high standard; none of it is done half-assed, which is a credit to writer / director Jang Jun-hwan. The concept is original, as is the execution, with the story twisting and turning and never predictable. The characters, via a combination of writing, directing, and performance, are given a fair amount of depth, despite some of them (i.e. the cops) being unabashedly clichéd.
The battle of wits between captor and captive is engrossing, and its remarkable how often the film manages to shift sympathy from one to the other. Byeong-gu's history is so well presented that you can't help but sympathize with him despite the horrific things he does. And while the executive is ostensibly the victim, the film demonstrates that he has a shady past; in a different film, his character could easily be a corporate villain.
'Save the Green Planet' is a bizarre and completely unpredictable film, and surely one of the most original films... well, ever! It's not for the squeamish - though not gratuitous it is quite violent. It is thoroughly entertaining and thought provoking (anything that can muddy the line between hero and villain the way this film does should provoke at least a little thought from anyone), and definitely deserves to be seen.
Weird movie alert! 'Save the Green Planet' is one of those relatively obscure, unseen, and absolutely bizarre films. You know the kind. Actually, you don't, because this South Korean film really stands on its own as something completely unique. It's a comedy / drama / horror / sci-fi / thriller, and it really does embody the attributes of all of those genres.
The story revolves around a man named Byeong-gu, who together with his gymnast girlfriend kidnaps a corporate executive because he believes the man to be an alien (the outer space kind) involved in experiments on Earth and an impending invasion. After kidnapping him, the two of them torture him to get him to confess and to put them in touch with the alien 'prince'. It turns out that Byeong-gu has actually done this before to lots of people, all of whom he believed to be aliens. This part of the film plays as straight up horror and also has some sci-fi elements. The police, meanwhile, attempt to locate the executive. Against the orders of the lead investigator, a young police detective teams up with a disgraced ex-cop turned fish-market worker / private detective to help solve the case. The private detective tracks down a lead and investigates Byeong-gu. These parts of the movie play like a police procedural thriller. The drama part of the film plays out in the midst of these two story lines as Byeong-gu's tragic history is revealed.
All of the elements of the film are mixed with comedy, to such an extent that the tone can shift dramatically in mere moments from serious to comical. And the comedy elements are actually really, really funny, though you would be forgiven for feeling queasy about laughing at some of the things that take place. All the different genres are represented at a very high standard; none of it is done half-assed, which is a credit to writer / director Jang Jun-hwan. The concept is original, as is the execution, with the story twisting and turning and never predictable. The characters, via a combination of writing, directing, and performance, are given a fair amount of depth, despite some of them (i.e. the cops) being unabashedly clichéd.
The battle of wits between captor and captive is engrossing, and its remarkable how often the film manages to shift sympathy from one to the other. Byeong-gu's history is so well presented that you can't help but sympathize with him despite the horrific things he does. And while the executive is ostensibly the victim, the film demonstrates that he has a shady past; in a different film, his character could easily be a corporate villain.
'Save the Green Planet' is a bizarre and completely unpredictable film, and surely one of the most original films... well, ever! It's not for the squeamish - though not gratuitous it is quite violent. It is thoroughly entertaining and thought provoking (anything that can muddy the line between hero and villain the way this film does should provoke at least a little thought from anyone), and definitely deserves to be seen.
A Game of Thrones (1996) by George R. R. Martin
A Game of Thrones (1996) by George R. R. Martin
I'd heard nothing but good things about George R. R. Martin's 'A Song of Ice and Fire' series of books, of which four out of a planned seven books have been published thus far. It's earned a reputation for embracing an anti-Tolkien style of fantasy that is more grounded in reality, with only subtle undercurrents of fantasy. I bought the first part, 'A Game of Thrones', just to see how much I liked it. About half way through the book, I bought the remaining three in the series; yeah, I dug it.
Among the significant traits of 'A Game of Thrones' are its complex plot and smorgasbord of characters, which makes it quite hard to summarize without losing a lot of the essential detail that gives the story its depth. With that little caveat out of the way, I shall attempt to summarize. The story takes place in a continent / land called Westeros (a place where summers and winters can last for years at a stretch), also known as the Seven Kingdoms, which is ruled by the King Robert Baratheon. He and his lifelong friend Eddard Stark, Lord of the Northern realm, together with several other houses overthrew the previous (supposedly 'mad') king years earlier. When the King's 'Hand' (second in command and guy who does most of the work) dies, King Robert names the reluctant Eddard as his successor. Eddard is convinced by his wife Catelyn that he should accept and go to the capital King's Landing, leaving most of his family behind, because of the belief that the Lannister family (to whom the King's wife belongs) killed the previous Hand and are plotting to seize power - by being in the thick of things, Eddard might be able to discover the truth. Doing so, however, puts his family in danger, including his two sons Robb and Bran and his two daughters Arya and Sansa.
Meanwhile, there's trouble brewing in the North, beyond the massive Wall that's designed to keep out the near mythical 'Others' (not the ones from Lost). The ranks of the Night's Watch, a community of men sworn to defending the Wall, have grown thin; with winter approaching and strange occurrences taking place beyond the Wall, they are in desperate need of men. And far to the East, on another continent, two children of the former king live in exile but plot to reclaim their Kingdom by allying themselves (by marriage) with a powerful warrior tribe.
That just about scratches the surface of what's going on. At over 800 pages, there's a lot of incident, although Martin is sometimes guilty of dragging things out a bit. There are many sub stories and plotlines that take place; what I was most impressed by was how well they all tie in together naturally without feeling contrived. Everything is interconnected, and what happens in one plot line affects the others as a matter of logical consequence. The story is dense with detail and a history full of allegiances, strategic marriages, and betrayals, all of which affect the way events play out in the present. The different cultures are also delineated quite well, with much of the detail being evocative of medieval Europe. Tonally the book is quite dark and foreboding, with only the occasional moment of levity. There's an air of brutal capriciousness to the world Martin creates where you feel that anything can happen, which makes the book unpredictable and exciting.
The narrative is driven by a mixture of plot and character - a lot of things happen outside of the hands of the characters, but where they do get involved the characters' actions are believable based on what we know of them. The main characters are given a fair bit of depth - the book uses a style of following one of a select group of characters in each chapter; these characters are Eddard, Catelyn, Arya, Sansa, Bran, Jon Snow (a bastard child of Eddard's who joins the Night's Watch), Tyrrion Lannister (a crafty, put-upon dwarf), and Daenerys Targaryen (daughter of the former King of the Seven Kingdoms). Each chapter presents events from that particular character's point of view, including their thoughts and perspectives. The tendency to have a cliffhanger ending in each chapter can be quite frustrating with this writing style however, because it leaves one waiting for a while before that character's story thread is picked up again in a subsequent chapter.
There's not much in the way of action in the book, with most of it composed of conversations and thoughts. The book moves along at a fair pace after a fairly slow initial buildup. Most chapters aren't overly long; understandable, given the substantial number of storylines that Martin has to keep jumping back and forth from. The writing is clear and engaging and things really get moving in the second half of the book; I found myself reading the last half of the book in around a third of the time as the first. Despite arriving at a fairly satisfactory and climactic conclusion, Martin still leaves a lot left hanging in the air, with stories set up for the second part in the series.
I've mentioned a lot of positives about the book, but it's not without its flaws. As I mentioned earlier, Martin tends to drag things out sometimes (kind of like this post!), and a lot of what happens feels like set up for later books, meaning that its significance can only be truly assessed in context once the entire tale is told (or once the relevant story arcs conclude in one of the subsequent books). Another major flaw is the two dimensional nature of the villains of the piece, who behave like caricatures to a distracting level at times. A main character who suffers from a similar two dimensional fate is Sansa Stark, whose chapters I enjoyed the least of all. Sansa felt like a character created merely to facilitate certain events late in the book, and it was difficult to buy into her characterization.
All in all though, despite those niggling flaws, 'A Game of Thrones' is an excellent book that is clearly fantasy while being blatant in its avoidance of fantasy clichés. I was drawn in slowly from the outset and by the end was completely invested in the goings on in Westeros. I imagine I'll be reading the next book in the series fairly soon.
I'd heard nothing but good things about George R. R. Martin's 'A Song of Ice and Fire' series of books, of which four out of a planned seven books have been published thus far. It's earned a reputation for embracing an anti-Tolkien style of fantasy that is more grounded in reality, with only subtle undercurrents of fantasy. I bought the first part, 'A Game of Thrones', just to see how much I liked it. About half way through the book, I bought the remaining three in the series; yeah, I dug it.
Among the significant traits of 'A Game of Thrones' are its complex plot and smorgasbord of characters, which makes it quite hard to summarize without losing a lot of the essential detail that gives the story its depth. With that little caveat out of the way, I shall attempt to summarize. The story takes place in a continent / land called Westeros (a place where summers and winters can last for years at a stretch), also known as the Seven Kingdoms, which is ruled by the King Robert Baratheon. He and his lifelong friend Eddard Stark, Lord of the Northern realm, together with several other houses overthrew the previous (supposedly 'mad') king years earlier. When the King's 'Hand' (second in command and guy who does most of the work) dies, King Robert names the reluctant Eddard as his successor. Eddard is convinced by his wife Catelyn that he should accept and go to the capital King's Landing, leaving most of his family behind, because of the belief that the Lannister family (to whom the King's wife belongs) killed the previous Hand and are plotting to seize power - by being in the thick of things, Eddard might be able to discover the truth. Doing so, however, puts his family in danger, including his two sons Robb and Bran and his two daughters Arya and Sansa.
Meanwhile, there's trouble brewing in the North, beyond the massive Wall that's designed to keep out the near mythical 'Others' (not the ones from Lost). The ranks of the Night's Watch, a community of men sworn to defending the Wall, have grown thin; with winter approaching and strange occurrences taking place beyond the Wall, they are in desperate need of men. And far to the East, on another continent, two children of the former king live in exile but plot to reclaim their Kingdom by allying themselves (by marriage) with a powerful warrior tribe.
That just about scratches the surface of what's going on. At over 800 pages, there's a lot of incident, although Martin is sometimes guilty of dragging things out a bit. There are many sub stories and plotlines that take place; what I was most impressed by was how well they all tie in together naturally without feeling contrived. Everything is interconnected, and what happens in one plot line affects the others as a matter of logical consequence. The story is dense with detail and a history full of allegiances, strategic marriages, and betrayals, all of which affect the way events play out in the present. The different cultures are also delineated quite well, with much of the detail being evocative of medieval Europe. Tonally the book is quite dark and foreboding, with only the occasional moment of levity. There's an air of brutal capriciousness to the world Martin creates where you feel that anything can happen, which makes the book unpredictable and exciting.
The narrative is driven by a mixture of plot and character - a lot of things happen outside of the hands of the characters, but where they do get involved the characters' actions are believable based on what we know of them. The main characters are given a fair bit of depth - the book uses a style of following one of a select group of characters in each chapter; these characters are Eddard, Catelyn, Arya, Sansa, Bran, Jon Snow (a bastard child of Eddard's who joins the Night's Watch), Tyrrion Lannister (a crafty, put-upon dwarf), and Daenerys Targaryen (daughter of the former King of the Seven Kingdoms). Each chapter presents events from that particular character's point of view, including their thoughts and perspectives. The tendency to have a cliffhanger ending in each chapter can be quite frustrating with this writing style however, because it leaves one waiting for a while before that character's story thread is picked up again in a subsequent chapter.
There's not much in the way of action in the book, with most of it composed of conversations and thoughts. The book moves along at a fair pace after a fairly slow initial buildup. Most chapters aren't overly long; understandable, given the substantial number of storylines that Martin has to keep jumping back and forth from. The writing is clear and engaging and things really get moving in the second half of the book; I found myself reading the last half of the book in around a third of the time as the first. Despite arriving at a fairly satisfactory and climactic conclusion, Martin still leaves a lot left hanging in the air, with stories set up for the second part in the series.
I've mentioned a lot of positives about the book, but it's not without its flaws. As I mentioned earlier, Martin tends to drag things out sometimes (kind of like this post!), and a lot of what happens feels like set up for later books, meaning that its significance can only be truly assessed in context once the entire tale is told (or once the relevant story arcs conclude in one of the subsequent books). Another major flaw is the two dimensional nature of the villains of the piece, who behave like caricatures to a distracting level at times. A main character who suffers from a similar two dimensional fate is Sansa Stark, whose chapters I enjoyed the least of all. Sansa felt like a character created merely to facilitate certain events late in the book, and it was difficult to buy into her characterization.
All in all though, despite those niggling flaws, 'A Game of Thrones' is an excellent book that is clearly fantasy while being blatant in its avoidance of fantasy clichés. I was drawn in slowly from the outset and by the end was completely invested in the goings on in Westeros. I imagine I'll be reading the next book in the series fairly soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)