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:

"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.

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.

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.

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).

Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cut (2005)

Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cut (2005)

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.