The IT Crowd - Season 1 (2006)
The IT Crowd ('it', not I.T.) is a half hour sitcom that was shown on Channel 4 in the UK last year. The unique aspect of this show, as the title suggests, is that it focuses on the type of people that rarely get much accurate exposure in the media - geeks.
Set in a fictitious company, the show revolves around the IT Team that is relegated to the building's dingy basement while everyone else 'works' from their luxurious offices. In the first episode, Jen (Katherine Parkinson) is assigned to lead the IT Team by the company Director Mr. Reynholm (Chris Morris) because she stated on her CV that she was good with computers. In actual fact Jen knows next to nothing about computers. In the basement she meets Roy (Chris O'Dowd) and Moss (Richard Ayoade), the under-appreciated geeky techies, who immediately realize she's not suitable for IT. Despite an abrasive start, the three eventually get along and suffer the pitfalls associated with being the least liked and respected team in the building.
The six episodes of the first (and currently, only) series are actually quite varied in terms of storylines. The thing that stays the same is, of course, the characters - that's always a formula for good storytelling. The geeky personalities of Roy and Moss and their social ineptitude naturally lend themselves to good situational comedy, with Jen getting haplessly drawn in or getting into troubles of her own. Most of the humour is straightforward sitcom style with absurd situations, but sometimes bizarre imagery is used (in much the same way that Scrubs uses bizarre imagery, only much less frequently). The performances are quite good from all four of the stars, although they lean heavily towards caricature (not necessarily the actors' faults). It's easy to empathize with them despite their quirks (although being a geek myself, maybe I'm not the best judge), which just goes to show that GEEKS ARE PEOPLE TOO! REALLY!
The show's really funny with some incredibly hilarious moments, although there are a few misses littered around as well. I think the show is accurate in its depiction of geeky traits and corporate attitudes towards techies. My only complaint is that in order to make these guys relatable to the average Joe, they are somewhat watered down. They're not hardcore geeks. Which is fair enough, because watching people trade movie quote quips or make references to Linux and Microsoft and open source software is not particularly entertaining to those who aren't in on it. Nonetheless, there's much on offer for geeks to appreciate - from the opening credit sequence to Roy's t-shirts to the posters in the basement, the show is littered with geek references.
The IT Crowd's first season is short but entertaining, and while not stylistically much different from a lot of modern comedies it has a lot of trappings that make it a unique experience that no geek should miss. It's funny enough that even regular boring people (I kid, I kid) ought to enjoy it.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Inside Man (2006)
Inside Man (2006)
The trailer for Inside Man intrigued me - it had the look of a slick and stylish heist thriller with substance, it had a very impressive cast, and in Spike Lee it had a director of some renown making an unconventionally mainstream looking film. Now that I've finally watched it, I'm happy to say my initial impression was correct. The only thing I got wrong was that I underestimated how good it would be.
Inside Man begins with a man named Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) telling us about an ingenious bank heist that he carried out. We are then shown the bank heist being pulled off by masked individuals in a New York City bank, with Dalton being the ringleader. The robbers are calm and controlled, and have a very clear plan in mind. They take hostages and hole up in the bank, and they waste no time in getting rid of the hostages' cellphones and subduing them. Meanwhile on the outside, Detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) is being investigated for some money that's gone missing; he's given a break when he and his partner Bill Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor) are assigned to the bank robbery. The owner of the bank being robbed, Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer), becomes agitated when he hears about the situation and enlists the services of Madeline White (Jodie Foster), a 'problem solver' with connections, to ensure that an item of his stored in the bank vault remains safe.
What ensues is the proverbial game of cat and mouse. Dalton makes demands in creative ways and confuses the cops, while occasionally releasing a hostage. Frazier tries to get a grip on the situation and out-think Russell while also contending with the abrasive police officer in charge (Willem Dafoe) who has it in for him. Madeline White's arrival on the scene adds some drama when she tries to take control of the situation and barter with Dalton. All the while there's a sense of mystery surrounding Arthur Case's secret item in the bank and the final outcome of Dalton's plan. Adding to the mystery is the fact that the film occasionally jumps forward in time to interviews between the two detectives and the hostages, where it is clear that the detectives are unsure whether the hostages were involved with the heist in some way.
Inside Man adheres to the conventions of its genre in most ways. It has an improbable but well thought out plot - in this case, one that holds together fairly well. It has standoffs between its protagonists, and battles of wits. It has twists and turns and puzzles that are not realistic but make the film that much more entertaining. But what Inside Man also has is a great script with lots of humour. It's slick and stylishly shot and has some tense and thrilling moments. It's also unique in that it captures the texture and character of a cosmopolitan city with the idiosyncrasies of different peoples and the tensions that exist between them. There are a lot of digressions that have little to do with the plot but are simply amusing and insightful exchanges between people. On the downside, one could argue that the main characters don't have much depth - they're characterized in broad strokes - but there's enough to go on, and the performances are good enough to make them seem believable.
Speaking of performances, the marquee names earn their paychecks in this one. The always good Jodie Foster in a relatively minor role as the somewhat mysterious Madeline White is icy and manipulative and exudes authority. Denzel Washington plays Detective Frazier as a smart tough cop struggling to juggle various different interests while ensuring that nobody gets hurt. The most memorable performance is Clive Owen's - despite being hidden behind a mask for most of the film, he conveys a lot of character through just his voice and body language. Dalton is smart, assured, unflinching and occasionally very funny - he's one of those cool 'villains' that you end up rooting for. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Willem Dafoe are also memorable in their respective supporting roles. Only Christopher Plummer is left with little to do in a minor role.
Inside Man is a slightly unconventional conventional thriller that's a lot of fun without being dumb. It's improbable and cool like it's genre brethren, but it also has some thematic elements related to violence and culture clashes that leave some food for thought. It's well worth watching.
The trailer for Inside Man intrigued me - it had the look of a slick and stylish heist thriller with substance, it had a very impressive cast, and in Spike Lee it had a director of some renown making an unconventionally mainstream looking film. Now that I've finally watched it, I'm happy to say my initial impression was correct. The only thing I got wrong was that I underestimated how good it would be.
Inside Man begins with a man named Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) telling us about an ingenious bank heist that he carried out. We are then shown the bank heist being pulled off by masked individuals in a New York City bank, with Dalton being the ringleader. The robbers are calm and controlled, and have a very clear plan in mind. They take hostages and hole up in the bank, and they waste no time in getting rid of the hostages' cellphones and subduing them. Meanwhile on the outside, Detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) is being investigated for some money that's gone missing; he's given a break when he and his partner Bill Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor) are assigned to the bank robbery. The owner of the bank being robbed, Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer), becomes agitated when he hears about the situation and enlists the services of Madeline White (Jodie Foster), a 'problem solver' with connections, to ensure that an item of his stored in the bank vault remains safe.
What ensues is the proverbial game of cat and mouse. Dalton makes demands in creative ways and confuses the cops, while occasionally releasing a hostage. Frazier tries to get a grip on the situation and out-think Russell while also contending with the abrasive police officer in charge (Willem Dafoe) who has it in for him. Madeline White's arrival on the scene adds some drama when she tries to take control of the situation and barter with Dalton. All the while there's a sense of mystery surrounding Arthur Case's secret item in the bank and the final outcome of Dalton's plan. Adding to the mystery is the fact that the film occasionally jumps forward in time to interviews between the two detectives and the hostages, where it is clear that the detectives are unsure whether the hostages were involved with the heist in some way.
Inside Man adheres to the conventions of its genre in most ways. It has an improbable but well thought out plot - in this case, one that holds together fairly well. It has standoffs between its protagonists, and battles of wits. It has twists and turns and puzzles that are not realistic but make the film that much more entertaining. But what Inside Man also has is a great script with lots of humour. It's slick and stylishly shot and has some tense and thrilling moments. It's also unique in that it captures the texture and character of a cosmopolitan city with the idiosyncrasies of different peoples and the tensions that exist between them. There are a lot of digressions that have little to do with the plot but are simply amusing and insightful exchanges between people. On the downside, one could argue that the main characters don't have much depth - they're characterized in broad strokes - but there's enough to go on, and the performances are good enough to make them seem believable.
Speaking of performances, the marquee names earn their paychecks in this one. The always good Jodie Foster in a relatively minor role as the somewhat mysterious Madeline White is icy and manipulative and exudes authority. Denzel Washington plays Detective Frazier as a smart tough cop struggling to juggle various different interests while ensuring that nobody gets hurt. The most memorable performance is Clive Owen's - despite being hidden behind a mask for most of the film, he conveys a lot of character through just his voice and body language. Dalton is smart, assured, unflinching and occasionally very funny - he's one of those cool 'villains' that you end up rooting for. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Willem Dafoe are also memorable in their respective supporting roles. Only Christopher Plummer is left with little to do in a minor role.
Inside Man is a slightly unconventional conventional thriller that's a lot of fun without being dumb. It's improbable and cool like it's genre brethren, but it also has some thematic elements related to violence and culture clashes that leave some food for thought. It's well worth watching.
Tru Calling - Seasons 1 & 2 (2003-2005)
Tru Calling - Seasons 1 & 2 (2003-2005)
Tru Calling is one of those teen / early twenties oriented supernatural dramas. Like a lot of shows I've mentioned on this blog, it was unceremoniously cancelled. Unfortunately, unlike many of those shows, this never manages to elevate itself beyond the status of 'OK'.
Tru Calling is about a young woman, Tru Davies (Eliza Dushku), who takes up a medical internship at a morgue. On her first day, she discovers that dead people can 'ask' for her help, at which point her day rewinds to the moment she last woke up, only with all her memories of that day intact (ala Groundhog Day). She then attempts to use whatever information she has about the soon to be deceased to try and prevent them from dying. This usually involves her lying her way to get close to them, finding out things about them, and predicting what's going to cause their deaths. Tru is assisted by her boss, Davis (Zach Galifianakis), and her brother Harrison (Shawn Reaves). She also has a rich lawyer drug addict older sister, Meredith, and a devoted best friend , Lindsay. Later on in the show, the cast is joined by the enigmatic Jack Harper (Jason Priestly) who apparently has some dark secrets.
It should be readily apparent that the premise lends itself to formulaic episodes, and the writers unfortunately succumb to temptation. During the day, certain tangential events happen that you just know Tru will fix while also trying to prevent the death - these are usually related to friends and family. There's usually a red herring and Tru initially gets it wrong before she has an epiphany and rushes to save the day. The biggest complaint I have is how patently absurd some of the plots are, with ridiculous murder schemes and poorly sketched characters who have unbelievable motivations. There are always little gags as well - like Tru stopping someone from eating a bad sandwich, or catching some item that fell during the first day - but these are telegraphed well in advance and are only mildly amusing. There are ongoing story arcs, and these are the most interesting elements - the mystery surrounding Tru's mother who was murdered when Tru was a child, her father's shady dealings, her figuring out the rules behind what she can do. Tru also has the obligatory superhero problem of not being able to tell her secret to those close to her, including a frustrated boyfriend.
The Wikipedia entry for the show implies that there was more to the 'mythology' they were creating that they never got to explore because of its premature demise. Admittedly, it does improve during the second season by making things a bit less rote, but they could have tried breaking the formula a little earlier. You'd think that with such an amazing power there'd be at least a little introspection and musing on the meaning of it all, a little experimentation to see what can be done. But no, the plot of the day is always the focus, and Tru's too much of a goody goody to muck around, being incredibly earnest and righteous. The most entertaining characters are Tru's geeky boss Davis and her undisciplined brother Harrison; the show is always better when they're around. The self assured and mysterious Jack Harper character is the real scene stealer towards the end of the show, and truth be told I'd much rather have watched a show about him - at least he has some edginess and depth to him.
Production wise, Tru Calling is fairly generic. There's nothing about the direction or photography or design that sets it apart from its ilk. The cast are solid. Dushku is easy to get behind initially but isn't all that compelling in the long run - she's always either running around looking worried or is depressed about how her life is being mucked up. Her boyfriend, best friend, and older sister are also solid but unremarkable. This may partly be because of the writing though, because the more interestingly written characters are tied to the best performances - Zach Galifianakis, Shawn Reaves, and Jason Priestly as Davis, Harrison, and Jack respectively. The guest stars are usually forgettable, although Alec Newman (Muad'dib from the Dune mini!) makes a memorable appearance during one of the show's best and most interesting episodes.
All in all, a decent if predictable series that may have become better over time, but not by much. The formulaic nature doesn't lend itself to DVD, where watching many episodes at a stretch makes the formula stand out that much more. It's fairly entertaining but is probably not worth watching unless one is a fan of the genre.
Tru Calling is one of those teen / early twenties oriented supernatural dramas. Like a lot of shows I've mentioned on this blog, it was unceremoniously cancelled. Unfortunately, unlike many of those shows, this never manages to elevate itself beyond the status of 'OK'.
Tru Calling is about a young woman, Tru Davies (Eliza Dushku), who takes up a medical internship at a morgue. On her first day, she discovers that dead people can 'ask' for her help, at which point her day rewinds to the moment she last woke up, only with all her memories of that day intact (ala Groundhog Day). She then attempts to use whatever information she has about the soon to be deceased to try and prevent them from dying. This usually involves her lying her way to get close to them, finding out things about them, and predicting what's going to cause their deaths. Tru is assisted by her boss, Davis (Zach Galifianakis), and her brother Harrison (Shawn Reaves). She also has a rich lawyer drug addict older sister, Meredith, and a devoted best friend , Lindsay. Later on in the show, the cast is joined by the enigmatic Jack Harper (Jason Priestly) who apparently has some dark secrets.
It should be readily apparent that the premise lends itself to formulaic episodes, and the writers unfortunately succumb to temptation. During the day, certain tangential events happen that you just know Tru will fix while also trying to prevent the death - these are usually related to friends and family. There's usually a red herring and Tru initially gets it wrong before she has an epiphany and rushes to save the day. The biggest complaint I have is how patently absurd some of the plots are, with ridiculous murder schemes and poorly sketched characters who have unbelievable motivations. There are always little gags as well - like Tru stopping someone from eating a bad sandwich, or catching some item that fell during the first day - but these are telegraphed well in advance and are only mildly amusing. There are ongoing story arcs, and these are the most interesting elements - the mystery surrounding Tru's mother who was murdered when Tru was a child, her father's shady dealings, her figuring out the rules behind what she can do. Tru also has the obligatory superhero problem of not being able to tell her secret to those close to her, including a frustrated boyfriend.
The Wikipedia entry for the show implies that there was more to the 'mythology' they were creating that they never got to explore because of its premature demise. Admittedly, it does improve during the second season by making things a bit less rote, but they could have tried breaking the formula a little earlier. You'd think that with such an amazing power there'd be at least a little introspection and musing on the meaning of it all, a little experimentation to see what can be done. But no, the plot of the day is always the focus, and Tru's too much of a goody goody to muck around, being incredibly earnest and righteous. The most entertaining characters are Tru's geeky boss Davis and her undisciplined brother Harrison; the show is always better when they're around. The self assured and mysterious Jack Harper character is the real scene stealer towards the end of the show, and truth be told I'd much rather have watched a show about him - at least he has some edginess and depth to him.
Production wise, Tru Calling is fairly generic. There's nothing about the direction or photography or design that sets it apart from its ilk. The cast are solid. Dushku is easy to get behind initially but isn't all that compelling in the long run - she's always either running around looking worried or is depressed about how her life is being mucked up. Her boyfriend, best friend, and older sister are also solid but unremarkable. This may partly be because of the writing though, because the more interestingly written characters are tied to the best performances - Zach Galifianakis, Shawn Reaves, and Jason Priestly as Davis, Harrison, and Jack respectively. The guest stars are usually forgettable, although Alec Newman (Muad'dib from the Dune mini!) makes a memorable appearance during one of the show's best and most interesting episodes.
All in all, a decent if predictable series that may have become better over time, but not by much. The formulaic nature doesn't lend itself to DVD, where watching many episodes at a stretch makes the formula stand out that much more. It's fairly entertaining but is probably not worth watching unless one is a fan of the genre.
Monday, January 29, 2007
The Producers (2005)
The Producers (2005)
The IMDB trivia page informs me that this version of The Producers is "...a movie about a play based on a play about a play based on a movie about a play." Which is interesting. The original 1968 film, written and directed by Mel Brooks, was made into a Broadway musical in 2001, and this film is an adaptation of the musical that features most of the cast from the Broadway show, with the only major newcomers being Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman.
The film starts with the latest musical by producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) flopping spectacularly. When a neurotic and timid accountant named Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) arrives to work on the books for the failed musical, he makes an offhand observation that if they were to oversell a failure to investors, they could make a lot of money. This inspires the driven but down on his luck Bialystock, who asks Bloom to help him with a scheme to make the worst musical ever, with the intention of walking away with the investors' money once it fails. After some coaxing, Bloom, who harbours a dream to become a Broadway producer, quits his boring accounting job and agrees to join Bialystock. They get the rights to the worst play they've ever seen, 'Springtime for Hitler', from a crazy Neo Nazi named Franz Liebkind (Will Ferrell). They convince the worst director available, Roger DeBris (Gary Beach), to helm the production. Bialystock and Bloom both fall for a beautiful Swedish actress, Ula (Uma Thurman), during an impromptu audition and hire her as a secretary and actress. With all the players in place, the two producers put their plan in motion. Naturally, things don't quite go to plan.
I don't know anything about the Broadway musical, and haven't seen the original film. I believe the plot is pretty much the same in all of them. This seems to me to be a recreation of the musical as a film, and not really an adaptation. It's much like watching a stage play on screen. As such, I don't know how it holds up to the stage version. All I can say is, as someone who's not usually a fan of musicals (the only one I care for is Moulin Rouge, which is actually one of my favourite films), I had a great time watching this. It's manic and fun, with catchy songs and lively routines. It's got wacky characters and the story is consistently amusing. The performances are great across the board - I'm not normally a Mathew Broderick fan, but he's really good in this. Nathan Lane is hilarious, as is Will Farrell. My favourite performance though was Uma Thurman's - she's gone from playing a sword wielding warrior in the Kill Bill films to a ditzy temptress, and somehow it works perfectly.
My only real complaint with this film is the overuse of gay gags, which get repetitive after a while. Other than that, it's a fun film that only the staunchest of musical haters will fail to enjoy. Although, looking at the IMDB rating for it, I could be wrong.
The IMDB trivia page informs me that this version of The Producers is "...a movie about a play based on a play about a play based on a movie about a play." Which is interesting. The original 1968 film, written and directed by Mel Brooks, was made into a Broadway musical in 2001, and this film is an adaptation of the musical that features most of the cast from the Broadway show, with the only major newcomers being Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman.
The film starts with the latest musical by producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) flopping spectacularly. When a neurotic and timid accountant named Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) arrives to work on the books for the failed musical, he makes an offhand observation that if they were to oversell a failure to investors, they could make a lot of money. This inspires the driven but down on his luck Bialystock, who asks Bloom to help him with a scheme to make the worst musical ever, with the intention of walking away with the investors' money once it fails. After some coaxing, Bloom, who harbours a dream to become a Broadway producer, quits his boring accounting job and agrees to join Bialystock. They get the rights to the worst play they've ever seen, 'Springtime for Hitler', from a crazy Neo Nazi named Franz Liebkind (Will Ferrell). They convince the worst director available, Roger DeBris (Gary Beach), to helm the production. Bialystock and Bloom both fall for a beautiful Swedish actress, Ula (Uma Thurman), during an impromptu audition and hire her as a secretary and actress. With all the players in place, the two producers put their plan in motion. Naturally, things don't quite go to plan.
I don't know anything about the Broadway musical, and haven't seen the original film. I believe the plot is pretty much the same in all of them. This seems to me to be a recreation of the musical as a film, and not really an adaptation. It's much like watching a stage play on screen. As such, I don't know how it holds up to the stage version. All I can say is, as someone who's not usually a fan of musicals (the only one I care for is Moulin Rouge, which is actually one of my favourite films), I had a great time watching this. It's manic and fun, with catchy songs and lively routines. It's got wacky characters and the story is consistently amusing. The performances are great across the board - I'm not normally a Mathew Broderick fan, but he's really good in this. Nathan Lane is hilarious, as is Will Farrell. My favourite performance though was Uma Thurman's - she's gone from playing a sword wielding warrior in the Kill Bill films to a ditzy temptress, and somehow it works perfectly.
My only real complaint with this film is the overuse of gay gags, which get repetitive after a while. Other than that, it's a fun film that only the staunchest of musical haters will fail to enjoy. Although, looking at the IMDB rating for it, I could be wrong.
Friday, January 26, 2007
The Iron Giant (1999)
The Iron Giant (1999)
Wow... I'd forgotten how good this film is, having not seen it in around 5 years. Directed by Brad (The Incredibles) Bird, The Iron Giant is an animated classic (yeah, maybe it's too soon to call it that, sue me) that was largely ignored when it was first released, but has lived on and grown in stature over the years.
Based on a book called The Iron Man, The Iron Giant tells the story of a young boy, Hogarth Hughes, who befriends an amnesiac giant metal robot from space that lands near his town in the 1950s. Hogarth's mother is a single parent who works late, so he has ample opportunity to hang out with his new friend. The Giant is initially a blank slate, and Hogarth teaches him the basics of the world and of language and has a lot of fun doing so. Hogarth hides the metal eating Giant at a scrapyard belonging to a wannabe artist named Dean. Trouble brews, however, when an over-enthusiastic government agent comes to town to investigate reports about a giant monster and makes a connection between the events and Hogarth. Worse still, the Giant's memory begins to return and he realizes that he was constructed to be a weapon.
From the opening moments, you can tell this is something special - it depicts an object (the Giant) heading towards the Earth, and the animation and set up are tunning. You can see a storm taking place down on the planet - these sorts of little details occur throughout and really help separate the film from more generic fare. There's an immediacy to the opening scene that continues throughout, but it never feels rushed. The characters and setting are established economically but not superficially. There's a light hearted feel to events and plenty of humour. Hogarth's interaction and friendship with the Giant is built up with lots of gags but its still affecting. Hogarth's interactions with the annoying and dangerous Agent Mansley also make for some hilarious moments. Despite the generally light tone, the film doesn't shy away from being serious, as when it deals with themes like rabid paranoia and free will. It is quite moving at times as well, especially towards the end, but it never feels manipulative.
The animation is fantastic. There's a retro look to the designs that suit the time in which events take place. There's a lot of character in the animation - the Giant in particular is a fantastically designed and emotive creation. Michael Kamen's score feels appropriate to the era and has some rousing moments. The biggest names in the voice cast are Jennifer Aniston and Vin Diesel (pre-fame) as Hogarth's mom and the Giant respectively. Aniston is good, as is Harry Connick Jr as Dean, but the best of the humans are Christopher McDonald as Agent Mansley and Eli Marienthal as Hogarth. It's hard to say how much of Vin Diesel is in the voice of the Giant; his voice is gravelly, but not THAT gravelly. In any case, the Giant's voice is impressive in that it's mechanical but manages to convey emotion at the same time.
The Iron Giant is a terrific film. I loved Brad Bird's The Incredibles, but I think this is his best work. Every aspect of it is near flawless. It all gels together to become one of the best animated films of recent times, and while it's not as rich and textured as the work of Miyazaki, I still hold it in as high a regard.
Wow... I'd forgotten how good this film is, having not seen it in around 5 years. Directed by Brad (The Incredibles) Bird, The Iron Giant is an animated classic (yeah, maybe it's too soon to call it that, sue me) that was largely ignored when it was first released, but has lived on and grown in stature over the years.
Based on a book called The Iron Man, The Iron Giant tells the story of a young boy, Hogarth Hughes, who befriends an amnesiac giant metal robot from space that lands near his town in the 1950s. Hogarth's mother is a single parent who works late, so he has ample opportunity to hang out with his new friend. The Giant is initially a blank slate, and Hogarth teaches him the basics of the world and of language and has a lot of fun doing so. Hogarth hides the metal eating Giant at a scrapyard belonging to a wannabe artist named Dean. Trouble brews, however, when an over-enthusiastic government agent comes to town to investigate reports about a giant monster and makes a connection between the events and Hogarth. Worse still, the Giant's memory begins to return and he realizes that he was constructed to be a weapon.
From the opening moments, you can tell this is something special - it depicts an object (the Giant) heading towards the Earth, and the animation and set up are tunning. You can see a storm taking place down on the planet - these sorts of little details occur throughout and really help separate the film from more generic fare. There's an immediacy to the opening scene that continues throughout, but it never feels rushed. The characters and setting are established economically but not superficially. There's a light hearted feel to events and plenty of humour. Hogarth's interaction and friendship with the Giant is built up with lots of gags but its still affecting. Hogarth's interactions with the annoying and dangerous Agent Mansley also make for some hilarious moments. Despite the generally light tone, the film doesn't shy away from being serious, as when it deals with themes like rabid paranoia and free will. It is quite moving at times as well, especially towards the end, but it never feels manipulative.
The animation is fantastic. There's a retro look to the designs that suit the time in which events take place. There's a lot of character in the animation - the Giant in particular is a fantastically designed and emotive creation. Michael Kamen's score feels appropriate to the era and has some rousing moments. The biggest names in the voice cast are Jennifer Aniston and Vin Diesel (pre-fame) as Hogarth's mom and the Giant respectively. Aniston is good, as is Harry Connick Jr as Dean, but the best of the humans are Christopher McDonald as Agent Mansley and Eli Marienthal as Hogarth. It's hard to say how much of Vin Diesel is in the voice of the Giant; his voice is gravelly, but not THAT gravelly. In any case, the Giant's voice is impressive in that it's mechanical but manages to convey emotion at the same time.
The Iron Giant is a terrific film. I loved Brad Bird's The Incredibles, but I think this is his best work. Every aspect of it is near flawless. It all gels together to become one of the best animated films of recent times, and while it's not as rich and textured as the work of Miyazaki, I still hold it in as high a regard.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Howl's Moving Castle (2004)
Howl's Moving Castle (2004)
Hayao Miyazaki's latest feature length film, Howl's Moving Castle, is loosely based on a book of the same name by Diana Wynne Jones. Miyazaki is probably the most consistent filmmaker out there - I can't think of a film directed by him that is anything if not good. Howl's is unmistakably a Miyazaki film, and it bears many of the signature elements that feature in most of his work.
Howl's Moving Castle is a fantasy adventure film with a dash of romance set in a fictional pseudo 19th century European Kingdom on the brink of war. The protagonist is Sophie, a shy young woman who works as a hatter and is resigned to remain one her whole life. Until, that is, she meets the famous Howl, a charming if vain young wizard with a reputation for stealing women's hearts. Her encounter with Howl enrages the jealous Witch of the Waste, who casts a spell on Sophie that causes her to turn into an old woman; part of the curse prevents her from telling anyone about it. The aged Sophie leaves her home and goes into the countryside to find Howl, who lives in a giant moving 'castle' that walks on mechanical legs, hoping that he'll be able to lift the curse.
Sophie finds the castle and winds up becoming Howl's cleaning lady (the place was an absolute mess). She makes some strange friends - besides Howl, the castle is occupied by Howl's assistant, a young boy named Markl, and a little fire spirit that 'powers' the house name Calcifer, who has a history with Howl and is bound to him. Oh, and a 'living' scarecrow that hops around on a pole tags along with the castle. Howl, who bears a secret that may eventually destroy him, is in a bit of a fix because he has been summoned to fight in the war (the details of which are sketchy), but he does not wish to on a matter of principal. Sophie and her friends try and help Howl out of his dilemma.
The story is character-centric and follows the personal journeys of Howl and Sophie as well as many of the supporting characters. The characters and the relationships between them evolve as the story progresses (sometimes quite amusingly), and friendships and unlikely alliances form. Despite not having a complex plot, a lot of things actually happen in the film - a trait common to Miyazaki's films. One element of the story that isn't dwelt on much is the war that takes place and infringes upon the lives of the protagonists. I suppose it's a testament to the fact that war is war regardless of the players and their causes, but the resolution provided at the end of the film was a bit too simplistic for my taste.
As one can gather from what I've already described, there are plenty of magical and fantastical elements in the film, like strange flying craft, beastly henchmen, magic portals, and magical transformations. These are all imaginatively realized on screen, especially Howl's castle, which is marvelously detailed and animated. In fact, the overall animation is (as always) stunning, with beautiful images varying from lush landscapes to cluttered houses to cities on fire. The inclusion of small human details (like characters straightening out their clothes for example) lends the film a sense of charm absent in lesser animated films. Frequent Miyazaki collaborator Joe Hisaishi once again provides a wonderful score that perfectly matches the visuals and tone of the film.
Howl's Moving Castle doesn't quite reach the heights of Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. There's something lacking, possibly the fact that it feels more unfocused and random, and seemingly drifts from one event to the next. The characters' impact on and interaction with the outside world doesn't seem as significant as in those films. It's not a major complaint however - just because it falls short of the brilliance of its predecessors doesn't mean it isn't a great film in its own right.
Hayao Miyazaki's latest feature length film, Howl's Moving Castle, is loosely based on a book of the same name by Diana Wynne Jones. Miyazaki is probably the most consistent filmmaker out there - I can't think of a film directed by him that is anything if not good. Howl's is unmistakably a Miyazaki film, and it bears many of the signature elements that feature in most of his work.
Howl's Moving Castle is a fantasy adventure film with a dash of romance set in a fictional pseudo 19th century European Kingdom on the brink of war. The protagonist is Sophie, a shy young woman who works as a hatter and is resigned to remain one her whole life. Until, that is, she meets the famous Howl, a charming if vain young wizard with a reputation for stealing women's hearts. Her encounter with Howl enrages the jealous Witch of the Waste, who casts a spell on Sophie that causes her to turn into an old woman; part of the curse prevents her from telling anyone about it. The aged Sophie leaves her home and goes into the countryside to find Howl, who lives in a giant moving 'castle' that walks on mechanical legs, hoping that he'll be able to lift the curse.
Sophie finds the castle and winds up becoming Howl's cleaning lady (the place was an absolute mess). She makes some strange friends - besides Howl, the castle is occupied by Howl's assistant, a young boy named Markl, and a little fire spirit that 'powers' the house name Calcifer, who has a history with Howl and is bound to him. Oh, and a 'living' scarecrow that hops around on a pole tags along with the castle. Howl, who bears a secret that may eventually destroy him, is in a bit of a fix because he has been summoned to fight in the war (the details of which are sketchy), but he does not wish to on a matter of principal. Sophie and her friends try and help Howl out of his dilemma.
The story is character-centric and follows the personal journeys of Howl and Sophie as well as many of the supporting characters. The characters and the relationships between them evolve as the story progresses (sometimes quite amusingly), and friendships and unlikely alliances form. Despite not having a complex plot, a lot of things actually happen in the film - a trait common to Miyazaki's films. One element of the story that isn't dwelt on much is the war that takes place and infringes upon the lives of the protagonists. I suppose it's a testament to the fact that war is war regardless of the players and their causes, but the resolution provided at the end of the film was a bit too simplistic for my taste.
As one can gather from what I've already described, there are plenty of magical and fantastical elements in the film, like strange flying craft, beastly henchmen, magic portals, and magical transformations. These are all imaginatively realized on screen, especially Howl's castle, which is marvelously detailed and animated. In fact, the overall animation is (as always) stunning, with beautiful images varying from lush landscapes to cluttered houses to cities on fire. The inclusion of small human details (like characters straightening out their clothes for example) lends the film a sense of charm absent in lesser animated films. Frequent Miyazaki collaborator Joe Hisaishi once again provides a wonderful score that perfectly matches the visuals and tone of the film.
Howl's Moving Castle doesn't quite reach the heights of Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. There's something lacking, possibly the fact that it feels more unfocused and random, and seemingly drifts from one event to the next. The characters' impact on and interaction with the outside world doesn't seem as significant as in those films. It's not a major complaint however - just because it falls short of the brilliance of its predecessors doesn't mean it isn't a great film in its own right.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
24 Season 1 is sillier than I remember
I've been re-watching the first season of 24, which I first saw years ago. The second time around is not as entertaining, sadly. I will always maintain that 24 is one of the best made shows on TV - it's got great acting, directing, visuals, and production values and is easily the most tense and thrilling show I've seen. It's a shame that the plots are so utterly nonsensical. I loved watching all the seasons thus far on their initial run, but even the first time around it was clear that there were holes that make the big one in the ozone look insignificant.
Watching Season 1 a second time with the foreknowledge of what is to come is a somewhat painful experience, because the contradictions and the lack of what I like to call logic are laid bare. I get the feeling I'll be sticking to brand new 24 from now on, once I finish Season 1 (my thoughts on that at a later date). For now, some of my issues so far (major spoilers ahead):
Watching Season 1 a second time with the foreknowledge of what is to come is a somewhat painful experience, because the contradictions and the lack of what I like to call logic are laid bare. I get the feeling I'll be sticking to brand new 24 from now on, once I finish Season 1 (my thoughts on that at a later date). For now, some of my issues so far (major spoilers ahead):
- Why is the kidnap plan to grab Bauer's wife and daughter so incredibly convoluted? Couldn't they have just busted into the place and chloroformed them? Luring them out of the house with theatrics and then spending hours driving around in circles, and for what? And why did Gaines hire two inept kids to do his dirty work for him, when he seems like such a professional?
- The Alan York character who accompanies Teri Bauer is so obviously not a bad guy until he mysteriously turns into one half way. Seriously, not only is the guy over-earnest to the extreme, he does things no competent bad guy would do. He almost gets arrested after arguing with a cop - he's later depicted as a cool and competent bad guy, so why would he have risked blowing his cover like that? He asks to speak to his 'daughter' on the phone when Kim calls Terri, an unnecessary and risky proposition. He goes to the hospital where his 'daughter' is, with no idea what condition she's in beforehand - if she had been conscious, wouldn't she have pointed out to people that he wasn't her father? And why the hell does he drive around with Terri for so long, couldn't he have just conked her on the head?
- Does stealing a key card from a photographer really warrant paying a shit load of money and blowing up a jet airliner? Seriously? Couldn't they have grabbed him after he landed and taken it? And why on earth was the key card shipped to the guy in Europe, when he could only use it in the US - surely they would be more likely to issue it to him after he arrives, especially since it's so valuable? Is it really that hard to fake one of these? Gaines gets some of his people into the secure complex in any case, like the guy who intervenes when Jack tries to pass off a message to someone, how'd he manage that? How many planes did he blow up to get them access? In season 5, a key card is obtained by mugging someone in a parking lot. In season 1, they do it by BLOWING UP A PLANE! Doing this also attracted the attention of CTU. How come Palmer's assistant didn't realize that the photographer should have been dead? She spoke to him while he was on the plane, and the explosion of the plane was big news, wouldn't she have noticed that the guys flight had been prematurely cancelled?
- Nina Myers is meant to be an insider, yet time and time again we see her doing her absolute best, above and beyond the call of duty, to help Bauer. What kind of mole does that? Hmm, maybe she wasn't a mole till the writers decided to maker her one at the end.
- CTU is a phony organization. I mean, in terms of being a realistic depiction of an organization. Why is it filled with so many moles and petty, small minded people? Doesn't this high security, specialist group screen the people they hire? And how come they always have time for petty bickering and politics in the middle of a crisis? From my personal experience, people in a team tend to pull together in crisis situations, especially if they're familiar with each other as CTU people surely must be. But no, these asshats screw around when lives are at stake.
- Why does Tony Almeida have so much time to NOT WORK? Seriously, in the middle of a crisis he seems to have an inordinate amount of time to spy on Nina while pretending to read something out of a file.
Big Brother is Watching Racist?
There's been a bit of a brouhaha over the goings on in the Celebrity version of the Big Brother TV show over the last week or so. The details are well documented on the Wikipedia page. Basically, Indian actress Shilpa Shetty and some of her British housemates didn't get along very well, resulting in some verbal sparring that led thousands of people to complain to a media watchdog about racism on the show. One contestant in particular, Jade Goody, was singled out as the prime culprit and drew the ire of the media and the viewing public - she was subsequently 'voted off' the show by viewers.
I haven't actually seen the show, but I've read most of the controversial comments that have been made. Do I think they're racist? Yes - they're certainly derogatory comments that allude to the fact that Shetty is Indian. But I still find it to be a bit of a murky issue - did the comments come about purely because of her being an Indian, or was it because there was friction between her and the others that led to them using racial taunts to attack her? I've read accounts where people have accused Shetty of being arrogant and perhaps manipulative. I guess my point is, people will say things that they perceive to be hurtful towards others when they're angry, regardless of whether they actually believe in what they're saying or subscribe to that point of view. That doesn't excuse what was said, but one has to consider the possibility that the comments weren't necessarily motivated by race.
It's strange to look at the scale of the reactions, particularly against Goody who seems to have been singled out despite not being the only culprit. Still, it's hard to work up any sympathy for someone whose livelihood is based on public image and nothing more (seriously, she's a reality TV celebrity!). I think the media has milked this for all its worth and sensationalised it, both in England and in India. And I can't also help but wonder if Channel 4 didn't secretly encourage the furore as well by denying racism on the show - it sure did help their ratings, although it ultimately cost them sponsors and a lot of good will.
After Goody's eviction, media focus seems to have shifted to Channel 4, and on why they didn't stop the show or intervene. I'm not sure why this is, and I don't agree with it. Surely the whole point of the show is to see a bunch of people interacting in an enclosed place (like in The Thing, only without the violence and death), and to observe the friction that results? It's not a scripted show, it's one where people are essentially competing against each other, and as far as I'm aware Channel 4 doesn't have any control over what they do. I would have thought this sought of thing is about the only interesting aspect of Big Brother - heck, I can't think of anything more compelling coming out of the show. Isn't this what the show's supposed to be about? It's probably the best Big Brother has ever been.
The subject that is being addressed now is the wrong one, in my humble opinion. Focusing on the fate of Channel 4 and Big Brother seems pointless. The controversy that erupted was a good thing, and it raised some interesting questions which are being obscured by all the hoopla surrounding how Goody and Channel 4 should atone for their sins. The events that took place ought to have been an opportunity to debate racism - what it is and in what form it exists today, and why is it still here?
Is racism still prevalent in Western society, and what defines it? There seems to be an element of surprise in some quarters, almost as if this sort of thing is unheard of. It seems to me to be the exposure of something that is very real but doesn't often get aired in public broadcasts. Are people truly not aware of it, or is there a racist underbelly that people are just choosing to ignore? I don't know if Goody's words were racially motivated or not, but surely the use of those words in a racist manner didn't come out of thin air - their use as insulting ammunition was probably inculcated into her by society. Such insults may even be common enough to not be considered particularly offensive or truly racist.
Goody's defenders have claimed that it's not a case of racism because Goody is clearly ignorant and unaware of the racial connotations of what she said. Is that really a reasonable excuse? Isn't racism inherently a form of ignorance? I'd like to see people considering why such ignorance persists, why such racist attitudes prevail, and what should be done to address it. The stuff that happened on the show was trivial, there are far worse instances of racism taking place in the world. On the bright side, I don't believe racism to be an endemic problem - the actions of a few ignorant people aren't representative, and the thousands of complaints and the consequences for those involved are an indication of that.
Despite the misguided media focus right now, it appears that the notion of racism still being a relevant issue has entered the public consciousness. That alone may be a good first step in fighting it. Until, of course, the next big hot topic comes along and enraptures everyone, leaving this one as just another hazy memory. And with that, I bring this rambling post to an end.
I haven't actually seen the show, but I've read most of the controversial comments that have been made. Do I think they're racist? Yes - they're certainly derogatory comments that allude to the fact that Shetty is Indian. But I still find it to be a bit of a murky issue - did the comments come about purely because of her being an Indian, or was it because there was friction between her and the others that led to them using racial taunts to attack her? I've read accounts where people have accused Shetty of being arrogant and perhaps manipulative. I guess my point is, people will say things that they perceive to be hurtful towards others when they're angry, regardless of whether they actually believe in what they're saying or subscribe to that point of view. That doesn't excuse what was said, but one has to consider the possibility that the comments weren't necessarily motivated by race.
It's strange to look at the scale of the reactions, particularly against Goody who seems to have been singled out despite not being the only culprit. Still, it's hard to work up any sympathy for someone whose livelihood is based on public image and nothing more (seriously, she's a reality TV celebrity!). I think the media has milked this for all its worth and sensationalised it, both in England and in India. And I can't also help but wonder if Channel 4 didn't secretly encourage the furore as well by denying racism on the show - it sure did help their ratings, although it ultimately cost them sponsors and a lot of good will.
After Goody's eviction, media focus seems to have shifted to Channel 4, and on why they didn't stop the show or intervene. I'm not sure why this is, and I don't agree with it. Surely the whole point of the show is to see a bunch of people interacting in an enclosed place (like in The Thing, only without the violence and death), and to observe the friction that results? It's not a scripted show, it's one where people are essentially competing against each other, and as far as I'm aware Channel 4 doesn't have any control over what they do. I would have thought this sought of thing is about the only interesting aspect of Big Brother - heck, I can't think of anything more compelling coming out of the show. Isn't this what the show's supposed to be about? It's probably the best Big Brother has ever been.
The subject that is being addressed now is the wrong one, in my humble opinion. Focusing on the fate of Channel 4 and Big Brother seems pointless. The controversy that erupted was a good thing, and it raised some interesting questions which are being obscured by all the hoopla surrounding how Goody and Channel 4 should atone for their sins. The events that took place ought to have been an opportunity to debate racism - what it is and in what form it exists today, and why is it still here?
Is racism still prevalent in Western society, and what defines it? There seems to be an element of surprise in some quarters, almost as if this sort of thing is unheard of. It seems to me to be the exposure of something that is very real but doesn't often get aired in public broadcasts. Are people truly not aware of it, or is there a racist underbelly that people are just choosing to ignore? I don't know if Goody's words were racially motivated or not, but surely the use of those words in a racist manner didn't come out of thin air - their use as insulting ammunition was probably inculcated into her by society. Such insults may even be common enough to not be considered particularly offensive or truly racist.
Goody's defenders have claimed that it's not a case of racism because Goody is clearly ignorant and unaware of the racial connotations of what she said. Is that really a reasonable excuse? Isn't racism inherently a form of ignorance? I'd like to see people considering why such ignorance persists, why such racist attitudes prevail, and what should be done to address it. The stuff that happened on the show was trivial, there are far worse instances of racism taking place in the world. On the bright side, I don't believe racism to be an endemic problem - the actions of a few ignorant people aren't representative, and the thousands of complaints and the consequences for those involved are an indication of that.
Despite the misguided media focus right now, it appears that the notion of racism still being a relevant issue has entered the public consciousness. That alone may be a good first step in fighting it. Until, of course, the next big hot topic comes along and enraptures everyone, leaving this one as just another hazy memory. And with that, I bring this rambling post to an end.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
United 93 (2006)
United 93 (2006)
There was a bit of controversy surrounding this film around the time of its release, which is a shame, because it overshadowed the question of whether the film was actually any good. Well, it is. Away from all the hoopla it's clear that United 93 is an excellent and unique work from writer / director Paul Greengrass.
There's not much to tell about the story that people who haven't been hibernating in a cave for the last few years don't already know. It's about the plane that didn't reach its target on September 11. It covers events on the day leading up to the plane's crash in a field in Pennsylvania, cutting back and forth between the passengers, the flight crew, air traffic controllers, the FAA, NORAD, and of course the terrorists. As the days events unfold, we see officials going from amused indifference to disbelief to panic, and we see the conflict on board flight 93 as the terrorists take over and the passengers are forced to deal with the situation.
What makes this film work is, in a word, verisimilitude. Everything that happens is reconstructed as far as possible from the facts that were available, with everything that's made up being done so through extrapolation from those facts. The obviously made up bits, such as conversations between passengers, never ring false. Greengrass made the film in a documentary style, with natural looking visuals and hand-held cameras following people around in real environments. The dialogue is completely realistic and feels unrehearsed - there are no 'big' speeches or quotable lines. The soundtrack is populated with ambient sound effects and the music is understated, used only to enhance mood. There are no 'name' actors - in fact, a few people are actually portrayed by their real life counterparts - and the film is better for it because making everyone on screen nondescript adds to the believability of what is depicted.
The pacing is admittedly a bit off in the mid section of the film - there are too many jumps to air traffic controllers and NORAD personnel, and some of the time their jargon filled dialogue is not entirely clear. That caveat aside, the film is a tense experience that builds up to the key events on the plane, and even though there are no surprises it still manages to be nerve racking. The final third of the film focuses entirely on the events on board the plane, and is the strongest and most harrowing segment.
Ultimately the film manages to be dramatic despite not having dramatic moments - it is unsentimental and nonjudgemental and simply plays out the events as they might have happened. Having read a few reviews of the film after watching it, I've come to agree with Moriarty's take at AICN, in that the film's essentially apolitical* and that differing views can be mapped onto it. Greengrass merely presents the facts in as real a way as possible, and by doing that I believe he also accurately recreates the mood and feelings that would have accompanied those events, which is what elevates United 93 above a run of the mill docudrama.
It's hard to say how will the film hold up. I think it's a fair criticism that it presents minimal context for the days events, but I feel that it presents enough to stand on its own regardless of the viewer's level of knowledge. At the least, it works as a compelling dramatic thriller. More likely it'll stand the test of time as an encapsulation of certain key events from a significant day in history. Either way it'll certainly be looked back on as a fine piece of filmmaking.
* One thing I should point out is the depiction of a German passenger on the plane as being cowardly, as noted here. I confess that I didn't notice that the man counseling negotiation was also the only non-American on board, and also have to admit that it's easy to read something into that.
There was a bit of controversy surrounding this film around the time of its release, which is a shame, because it overshadowed the question of whether the film was actually any good. Well, it is. Away from all the hoopla it's clear that United 93 is an excellent and unique work from writer / director Paul Greengrass.
There's not much to tell about the story that people who haven't been hibernating in a cave for the last few years don't already know. It's about the plane that didn't reach its target on September 11. It covers events on the day leading up to the plane's crash in a field in Pennsylvania, cutting back and forth between the passengers, the flight crew, air traffic controllers, the FAA, NORAD, and of course the terrorists. As the days events unfold, we see officials going from amused indifference to disbelief to panic, and we see the conflict on board flight 93 as the terrorists take over and the passengers are forced to deal with the situation.
What makes this film work is, in a word, verisimilitude. Everything that happens is reconstructed as far as possible from the facts that were available, with everything that's made up being done so through extrapolation from those facts. The obviously made up bits, such as conversations between passengers, never ring false. Greengrass made the film in a documentary style, with natural looking visuals and hand-held cameras following people around in real environments. The dialogue is completely realistic and feels unrehearsed - there are no 'big' speeches or quotable lines. The soundtrack is populated with ambient sound effects and the music is understated, used only to enhance mood. There are no 'name' actors - in fact, a few people are actually portrayed by their real life counterparts - and the film is better for it because making everyone on screen nondescript adds to the believability of what is depicted.
The pacing is admittedly a bit off in the mid section of the film - there are too many jumps to air traffic controllers and NORAD personnel, and some of the time their jargon filled dialogue is not entirely clear. That caveat aside, the film is a tense experience that builds up to the key events on the plane, and even though there are no surprises it still manages to be nerve racking. The final third of the film focuses entirely on the events on board the plane, and is the strongest and most harrowing segment.
Ultimately the film manages to be dramatic despite not having dramatic moments - it is unsentimental and nonjudgemental and simply plays out the events as they might have happened. Having read a few reviews of the film after watching it, I've come to agree with Moriarty's take at AICN, in that the film's essentially apolitical* and that differing views can be mapped onto it. Greengrass merely presents the facts in as real a way as possible, and by doing that I believe he also accurately recreates the mood and feelings that would have accompanied those events, which is what elevates United 93 above a run of the mill docudrama.
It's hard to say how will the film hold up. I think it's a fair criticism that it presents minimal context for the days events, but I feel that it presents enough to stand on its own regardless of the viewer's level of knowledge. At the least, it works as a compelling dramatic thriller. More likely it'll stand the test of time as an encapsulation of certain key events from a significant day in history. Either way it'll certainly be looked back on as a fine piece of filmmaking.
* One thing I should point out is the depiction of a German passenger on the plane as being cowardly, as noted here. I confess that I didn't notice that the man counseling negotiation was also the only non-American on board, and also have to admit that it's easy to read something into that.
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Colour of Magic (1983) by Terry Pratchett
The Colour of Magic (1983) by Terry Pratchett
Confession: This is the first Terry Pratchett Book I've read. (I really shouldn't put these confession things in here, because I'll be confessing to not having read / watched a load of 'holy' geek properties) For a long time, I knew nothing of Pratchett's works except for the fact that they were fantasy based and sported funky eye-catching cover art. I later discovered that they were comedy fantasy stories with a fairly large fan following - five of his books were in the top 100 of the BBC's Big Read survey, a feat only matched by one Charles Dickens. I determined to give the books a try straight away. Years later, I finally have.
The Colour of Magic (the title refers to the eighth colour of the Discworld, the magical colour Octarin), as with all of the Discworld books, takes place in the fantasy universe of the Discworld (presumably, I can't say for sure since I haven't read any others), a disc shaped world that rests on the backs of four elephants, which in turn stand on the back of a giant turtle that's hurtling through space. That little piece of information is presented right at the start, and you know what you're in for from there on in - outrageous comedy. The 'heroes' of the tale are Rincewind, a greedy, cowardly magician who only knows one spell, Twoflower, a naive, happy-go-lucky tourist from an isolated country, and the Luggage, Twoflower's magical chest with legs.
There is no plot to this tale - it's essentially one long road trip featuring the trio wandering and stumbling from one adventure to the next. They flee a burning city, escape from the clutches of an ancient evil monster, get embroiled in the politics of an upside down mountain state populated by a large number of imaginary dragons, and skirt dangerously close to the edge of the world. Rincewind tries desperately to avoid danger, while Twoflower runs into it headlong because, being a silly tourist, he's ignorant of the danger and wants to experience as much as possible.
The book is written in simple and accessible prose, and the absurdist situational humour and hilarious dialogue come at you thick and fast. The book parodies fantasy clichés and specific fantasy universes, as well as real world concepts like tourism and insurance. It also lampoons technology and science to some extent, by presenting familiar technology that's actually driven by magic and not the laws of the physical world! Another running gag throughout the book is the notion that these characters are pieces in a game that is being played by the gods, their fates determined by the roll of some divine being's dice.
It's a light read, and is a refreshing break from reading more 'serious' books. I've said before that I've found comedy in books to be more miss than hit (that's probably indicative of how little I've read, truth be told), but Pratchett's first Discworld novel definitely works for me. I can see the appeal, and from what I can tell he's set this book up as an introduction to a whole Universe full of comedic potential. I look forward to reading more from this series.
Confession: This is the first Terry Pratchett Book I've read. (I really shouldn't put these confession things in here, because I'll be confessing to not having read / watched a load of 'holy' geek properties) For a long time, I knew nothing of Pratchett's works except for the fact that they were fantasy based and sported funky eye-catching cover art. I later discovered that they were comedy fantasy stories with a fairly large fan following - five of his books were in the top 100 of the BBC's Big Read survey, a feat only matched by one Charles Dickens. I determined to give the books a try straight away. Years later, I finally have.
The Colour of Magic (the title refers to the eighth colour of the Discworld, the magical colour Octarin), as with all of the Discworld books, takes place in the fantasy universe of the Discworld (presumably, I can't say for sure since I haven't read any others), a disc shaped world that rests on the backs of four elephants, which in turn stand on the back of a giant turtle that's hurtling through space. That little piece of information is presented right at the start, and you know what you're in for from there on in - outrageous comedy. The 'heroes' of the tale are Rincewind, a greedy, cowardly magician who only knows one spell, Twoflower, a naive, happy-go-lucky tourist from an isolated country, and the Luggage, Twoflower's magical chest with legs.
There is no plot to this tale - it's essentially one long road trip featuring the trio wandering and stumbling from one adventure to the next. They flee a burning city, escape from the clutches of an ancient evil monster, get embroiled in the politics of an upside down mountain state populated by a large number of imaginary dragons, and skirt dangerously close to the edge of the world. Rincewind tries desperately to avoid danger, while Twoflower runs into it headlong because, being a silly tourist, he's ignorant of the danger and wants to experience as much as possible.
The book is written in simple and accessible prose, and the absurdist situational humour and hilarious dialogue come at you thick and fast. The book parodies fantasy clichés and specific fantasy universes, as well as real world concepts like tourism and insurance. It also lampoons technology and science to some extent, by presenting familiar technology that's actually driven by magic and not the laws of the physical world! Another running gag throughout the book is the notion that these characters are pieces in a game that is being played by the gods, their fates determined by the roll of some divine being's dice.
It's a light read, and is a refreshing break from reading more 'serious' books. I've said before that I've found comedy in books to be more miss than hit (that's probably indicative of how little I've read, truth be told), but Pratchett's first Discworld novel definitely works for me. I can see the appeal, and from what I can tell he's set this book up as an introduction to a whole Universe full of comedic potential. I look forward to reading more from this series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)