Sunday, 6 July 2014
I actually bought the Blu-ray months ago but for some reason, possibly its length (172mins), possibly it's assumed complexity, I kept putting it off.
Okay, I was confused somewhat by it at first but it wasn't long before it clicked and I got it. It actually isn't that complicated it's just a matter of understanding the structure. There are six individual narratives presented in chronological order of the their internal events. These narratives are intercut with each other so that, while the stories are very different, each sheds light on and affects the others. The intercutting is one of the things that makes this film so amazing and if it didn't it should have got masses of awards for editing.
The acting is outstanding. Tom Hanks gets the best of it because he's in it most, or it seems like it, though it's very much an ensemble piece. He plays a vile seagoing rogue in the historical slavery sequence, a London gangster turned author in the present, a sleazy hotel owner, a primitive with a guilty secret living in the aftermath of worldwide collapse, and more. Hugo Weaving appears as a recurring villain most notably in the contemporary comedic sequence as the brutal (female!) nurse of an old peoples' home from which Jim Broadbent is trying to escape. We all know that Halle Berry is a good actress (still underrated in my opinion) and she delivers the goods as a crusading journalist in the early days of feminism (the 70's) in an almost Shaft-noir type thriller and in the farthest future setting as a woman from a dying but high tech society trying to contact extra-planet colonies; again, and more. And all that is just the tip of the iceberg.
A weakness is that it can too easy to be distracted by trying to work out who the actor is under layers of makeup -Hugh Grant playing a 70-something and a heavily tattooed and scarred future savage cannibal, for example, and in the latter case, I assume, for no reason other than it's a very good joke (though the two characters are not as dissimilar as it might appear).
Characters can play variations of their nature throughout their different lives and, for at least one, there is a final salvation.
The dialogue is literate which is no surprise coming from a complex literary modern novel as it does. The technical aspects and the photography are exemplary.
Am I stating the obvious when I say that I loved this film and intend to watch it again soon in the expectation that I'll enjoy it even more?
But it is a film which polarises people. For everyone who, like myself, find it bold and daring and a near-masterpiece there will be others who consider it boring and a case of the Emperor's new clothes -they're wrong of course- but give it a chance and find out for yourselves.
(I've come to the end of this review and I haven't mentioned directors Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski, and Lana Wachowski who created this fascinating original film. Shame on me.)
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
For absolutely no reason whatsoever other than my own amusement (I've an odd sense of humour) I decided to take a series of photos of things I can see when sitting on my couch today at 7.00pm. I may do a followup of things I can see from my computer chair (it swivels round so there'll be more than just the computer screen).
The next few photos are closeups of things previously seen.
My mantlepiece which I'm in the process of re-organising. Far left is a figurine of Gollum from vol 3 of the Lord of the Rings de luxe box set which was previously on the hearth. I moved to counterpoint the newly acquired figurine (with several points of articulation) of Godzilla modelled on the 2014 film. It cost £25 and if that seems a lot you should look up Godzilla figurines on Ebay and prepare for a shock. The film itself was reviewed a couple of posts ago in this blog. Here's a closeup.
There's something odd about this fireplace. I didn't realise it until a friend pointed it out a few weeks ago.
So that's my living room where I spend much of my time. Amateur psychologists can start psychoanalysing me- NOW!
Tuesday, 24 June 2014
I rarely, if ever, listen to music in the house. Stupid really as I've a got a neat Bose CD player. But mostly it's on CD in the car or, less often when I'm not using the car but am out and about, on my Ipod. In the last few days while browsing Amazon I came across really cheap multi-disc (usually 3 but one has 5) Rock music compilations starting with NME Classics: 61 Classic Tracks From The History of the NME which I picked up second hand (around four quid and change including postage). As you'd expect, it's quite eclectic and mostly covers the 70's and 80's.
I thought this sounded a good idea and ordered a cheapo like new copy of Ultimate Collection: Driving Rock 100 Hits, a 5-disc set. When I came to play it/copy it to my PC, disc 5 turned out to coated with some white stuff and wouldn't (play that is) but it cleaned off okay. (I wonder if I should have sniffed it?) Now as someone who never does anything by halves, I also ordered (this time at only a fiver each through Prime -free postage) Greatest Ever Soft Rock The Definitive Collection (54 tracks) and Latest and Great Guitar Heroes (58 tracks, and included the name of the lead guitarist on the listing which was nice).
So, 212 tracks and a total price that worked out at £1.00 for one hour of music which is pretty good value no matter how you look at it but given that the quality of the music is also pretty high and I only had a grand total of 8 tracks already duplicated in my collection then I really can't complain at all.
Not that I'm going to let that stop me.
Oh, well maybe a tiny carp, a minnow-scule of a criticism but nothing really fishy. 31 of the 212 tracks are duplicated between the four sets, two particular tracks are shared by three of them which works out roughly at about 14%, so I'm really only getting 171 different tracks which I didn't have before. Considering they came from three different labels, that's not such a bad ratio and I wouldn't have not bought them all (probably) if I'd poured over the track listings before ordering.
As each individual CD has a running time of a minimum of 75 minutes (usually more) that works out at about 19 hours continuous playing time so I'll be listening to them in the car for quite a while. Plus, of the tracks I've heard in the past, there are none I dislike and as for the stuff I haven't I imagine I'll like quite a bit of it and may even lead me to investigate further. All in all a win-win.
I do still have one on order: Greatest Ever Prog Rock The Definitive Collection. I think there's a 2-track overlap and I'm surprised there's that many. As it's got Owner of the Lonely Heart on it I can now get rid of the Yes collection I picked up at our charity shop for coppers.
Time to go for a ride I think.
Time to go for a ride I think.
Tuesday, 3 June 2014
I watched my first Japanese giant monster movie back in 1963 at a local flea pit. It was The Thing (one of the many titles of the first Mothra movie) and was rated X (no-one under 16 allowed) because the British Board of Film Censors thought giant monsters would upset children, despite mostly lacking the slightest trace of gore, when in fact they were its likely biggest audience. Since then I've seen most but not all of the Godzilla movies (maybe missing about three) and several other similar/related Japanese films like Rodan, etc. So I'm quite well versed in this eccentric subgenre.)
The first problem with doing Godzilla seriously is that you can only do it once and it's already been done back in 1954. There are two versions of this film, the Japanese original and the slimmed down with added Raymond Burr American version which is in every respect inferior to the film from which it was edited. Gojira, to give it its proper name, is a bleak movie in which the monster clearly symbolises the atomic bomb which had been used only nine years earlier on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cut from the American print are the quieter moments which focuses on individuals. One brief scene has a young mother in the rubble, while noise of destruction continues off-screen, cradling her young child and murmuring, "Hush, we'll be with your father soon." That is, not to put too fine a point on it, dead.
If you only see one Godzilla movie then this should be it. All the others pale in comparison and all you can do next is to make a series of giant monster fights. Rather than repeat giant monsters every other sentence, I'll use the Japanese term kaiju to stand for giant monsters and the giant monster sub-genre itself. That said, this post is actually a review of the new American British-directed version but after seeing it I felt like watching the most recent era of Japanese movies which run from 1999 (with Godzilla 2000) to 2005 (ending with Godzilla: Final Wars which, so far, it is, though the Japanese also whipped out Godzilla 2000 after the critical disaster of the American Godzilla 1998) and have just completed doing so and will be commenting on, though I've also just got the Blu-ray of Godzilla 1998 which I'll watch before completing this post. And if I was speaking that sentence aloud I'd be out of breath by now. Let's take a breather anyway and look at some DVD covers.
On second thoughts, let's not. The new series of Godzilla is technically the best of the three eras, the special effects notably the models, the detailed miniatures and the kaiju themselves, with the puny humans being less irritating and/or boring. There is some use of cgi but it's carefully done and the kaiju are always, always, always, men in suits. Unless they're giant moths, flying skinny insects, or spiders, but including Mothra larvae. Of the first three, the best is easily the third with its multi-monsters and elements of mysticism, though there's always magic around when Mothra's involved as her spokesperson are two tiny women who hold hands all the time and speak in unison but aren't twins.
This is one of the top 3 Godzilla movies ever.
The one below, not above! And there's a neat put down of Godzilla 1998.
A new incarnation of Mechagodzilla marked another revamp of Godzilla himself and Tokyo S.O.S. is a direct sequel albeit with mostly new characters. They're both reasonable fun and everyone's favourite giant moth is back but that's about it. Godzilla: Final Wars, however, has everything a G-fan would want (except Mechagodzilla) and, alas, even more.
A group of young people have mutant genes making them faster, stronger, and more resistant to human damage than ordinary people. They're so tough that, with big guns, they can take down one of the lesser kaiju Ebirah the monster lobster. There's also a super-submarine that can fly and go underground as well as under the sea and a few years ago it took down Godzilla, burying him/her at the South Pole.
Just as well as a sneaky bunch of aliens have disguised themselves to look like humans, secretly unleash all the monsters from previous Godzilla movies, pretend to rescue the Earth from them, and also lie about wandering planet that's going to destroy Earth in a few years unless we co-operate with them. But really they're slimy ugly things who just want to eat us.
It looks like they've won but a small group of humans and mutants escape in supersub and free Godzilla who, with a little help from Mothra, takes on all the other monsters one, two, even three at a time. Godzilla 1998 version, here called Zilla, is casually brushed aside by the real one causing the villain to throw a tantrum for its being so tuna-eating useless.
It's big, dumb, stupid and didn't make as much money as everyone expected but I love it.
The second problem with doing Godzilla, if not seriously, but properly is what to do about the puny humans and this where we come to-
And that is the film's major weakness and has been pointed out by just about every reviewer so don't expect any devastatingly original insights from me here. With the exception of Bryan Cranston who gets offed somewhat under halfway through, you just don't give a flying fuck about any of the characters. They aren't annoying, they just aren't interesting. Aaron Taylor Wotsisname is Soldier-technician solely concerned about getting back home to make sure his wife and son are okay. While he gets involved in some fantastic set-pieces you just don't care about him as a person. Ken Watanabe is Intensity-sama, The lively vivacious British actress Sally Hawkins is Ms Infodump, Elizabeth Olsen is Nurse Working-wife in Peril, Juliette Binoche is Mrs Blink and you'll miss her, and none of the other characters raise even a remote flicker of interest.
Honestly, all the Japanese movies I've mentioned so far have more interesting characters than this one which is really really sad. Even worse, so does Godzilla 1998.This is a much and unfairly maligned film which I've just watched since typing the previous sentence. The problem is that the Japanese are right: this is not Godzilla. If they'd given it a different title/name it wouldn't have attracted anywhere near the crap on from a great height criticism it received. It's a good fun giant monster movie (not kaiju in this case which has to be a man in a suit) with a good cast (including Jean Reno, Matthew Broderick, Hank Azaria, Michael Lerner, and Harry Shearer) and engaging lead and supporting characters who are proactive rather than reactive -the main problem with G:2014. At two hours I never once felt the urge to fast forward through any of it. There's also a decent selection of extras on the 2009 Blu-ray (which only cost me a fiver) and I'll probably watch them tomorrow.
However, back to Godzilla 2014 and what it actually does get right. And also wrong.
Big complaint from many reviewers is that the title character hardly appears in his own movie. However, much as I would want to see more of the big guy, the director has it right on this score. Let's face it, the idea of giant monsters on the rampage is a silly one and there's little you can do to disguise it unless you create a mystique by building up the suspense about when he's going to appear and what he's going to look like when he does. Similarly for the other two kaiju featured in the film. Holding them back, showing only glimpses increases the expectation and this works well in terms of the film when it finally does show its hand. By this time you're psychologically prepared to take the damn things seriously. And leaving the audience wanting more is lot better than leaving them wanting less.
Of course they're cgi, not men in suits which should be a shame but isn't. The kaiju are well done and the set pieces of destruction and the fights with Godzilla are very well done indeed. The special effects are magnificent. In fact you can't fault the technical level of the film.
What didn't set so well with me was the sheer size of Godzilla, by far the largest he's ever been in any movie. It just didn't feel right. He's too damn big and too unstoppable even though the other creatures give it at fair shot, at least briefly. Also it's too easily accepted that he's the good guy who just wants to stop the other creatures from breeding and thus ending up destroying humanity if they do. You get the ludicrous sight of the U.S. navy acting as his escort across the Pacific to L.A. rather than trying to blast him to bits.
Overall I really liked what was good about it and could tolerate the not so good.
As we all now know it's become a blockbuster with a second film commissioned with the same director which poses the question: how are they going to do it without it becoming either a monsterfest or a repeat of the first film? I'd prefer the former provided it has a really good human story to provide the film's spine. Can anyone think of a third alternative?
Sunday, 11 May 2014
Quick Quiz: What's the connection between these two CDs?
If this was a pub quiz, the question would be on the hard side. If this was a music quiz it would be easy.
The Answer: Aimee Mann.
And to those of you who said: who? your musical education is sorely lacking.
Til Tuesday (forget the apostrophe which is annoying) was Aimee Mann's band and she wrote, either singly or in collaboration, all the band's songs. You could call them intelligent pop-rock with great hooks, good harmonies, and great and very distinctive lead vocals from Mann who also played bass. If you can't afford all three albums (which I'm now regretting not buying instead of this compilation) then this compilation is essential. That said, apart from one big hit they never really enjoyed the commercial success they deserved.
Five years after the band split up, and due to contractual problems, Mann finally emerged in 1993 as a solo artist and proceeded to release, somewhat erratically, a series of excellent albums. Typically they enjoyed massive critical acclaim and lousy sales condemning the talented Mann to cult status. There is one compilation available but it was released by Mann's previous label and she is vociferous in asking people not to buy it. Her own authorised compilation has yet to appear. When it does, grab it.
Meanwhile you can enjoy her collaboration The Both with Ted Leo, another cult artist and one of whom I'd never heard. They recently toured together and enjoyed it so much they went into the studio and produced this excellent album. What makes it special is that it's a genuine collaboration. All the songs, apart from one by Phil Lynott, are co-written. Vocals are dictated by the song's content and harmonies are plentiful. Leo's electric guitar gives Mann's more laid back style a good jolt of energy making this a definite rock album rather than singer-songwriter territory and Mann adds substance to Leo's rockist style. The result, an album acclaimed by the critics, loved by everyone who buys it, and almost certainly doomed to mediocre sales. Me, I want them back in the studio together and I want Mann to release her authorised compilation of her solo work.
Basically, Aimee Mann is great. Give her a listen whether it's Til Tuesday, her solo stuff, or The Both. She's so good that her and her band appeared in an episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer where she was heard to say, "Man, I hate playing vampire towns."
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
I'll get to that in a minute, but first something else.
1. On an actor.
Is this phrase racist? A popular black actor.
1. On an actor.
Is this phrase racist? A popular black actor.
Permit me to explain the context. I was watching TV when a trailer flashed up for tonight's Holby City, HC being one of two medical drama soaps I watch. In the trailer it was revealed that the arrival of a possibly extrovert new character could cause a fuss and bother for the regular cast. I smiled when I saw who it was -Don Gilet, a popular black actor who's been regularly working on TV for some time now. I remember him in lots of things, notably a cop series The Night Detective set up the road in Newcastle. Gilet played the lead. Not long ago he played a psycho killer in Eastenders and I remember him playing Donna Noble's deceitful fiance in Doctor Who. Good addition to the cast, I thought, and while I always watch HC I was actually looking forward to tonight's episode.
And then I thought to myself: Whoah Nelly! Did I just think of Gilet as a popular black actor rather than just a popular actor. I wouldn't of think of fill in your favourite name as a popular white actor would I?
So, is the phrase racist? It obviously wasn't intended to be as I find Gilet a good and engaging actor who always brings a certain something to whatever role he plays. But the question remains: is the phrase itself racist? I could have called him a popular bald actor for example, but I chose to single him out as black even the parts he's often played aren't race-specific.
Here's a Holby City photo of the worthy gentleman in case you don't know who I'm talking about. (To be honest, I forgot his name and had to look it up but that's just an ageing failing memory.)
2. Is This a Christian Country?
And on that note I'll leave and return to today's main dish: David Cameron and how dare he call this a Christian country!
Cue outrage, frothing at the mouth, racism, whateveryouhaveism, ignoring minority group feelings, the insensitive swine, pandering to the conservative heartland or what have you.
As regular readers or even anyone who's read anything about me in the sidebar will realise, I'm an atheist with no time for organised religion so you'd naturally expect me to be one of the hounds baying for our not particularly beloved Prime Minister's blood.
Well I would be if history wasn't on his side.
Britain is a Christian country. Its history, literature, and traditions are steeped in Christianity. It seems pointless to provide any examples because it's all pervasive and the contemporary secular tone of our era doesn't change that. Britain is traditionally a Christianity country and that Christianity shaped our society for both good and ill. We may well be in or emerging into (hopefully) a post-religious era but that doesn't affect the past and there is a lot in our past to be proud of. From it we've emerged as the most open, in every sense of the word, of all western nations with our acceptance of that which and who is different. We may no longer need religion but we can't deny it, deny Christianity, in shaping what we have become. So, yes, in that sense we are and remain a Christian country and it is nothing to be ashamed of or to deny.
Just don't expect a photo of either Dave or Jesus in this blog.
Tuesday, 15 April 2014
BOOK/MAGAZINES/DVD: XEROX FEROX by JOHN SZPUNAR, MONSTER!: 2, WENG'S CHOP: 5 (all 2014); CREATURE (2013)
For much of my life I had an uneasy fascination with horror movies which was hindered by my belief that I was too squeamish and often looked at the gory/scary bits over the tops of my glasses which meant everything over two feet away was a blur. That became pointless after two cataract operations about fifteen years ago which resulted in me only needing them for reading and, at first, only just. By then, however, I'd already discovered that I wasn't particularly squeamish anyway and was busy exploring all those films I'd never dared even watch before and discovering joys like The Evil Dead, Re-Animator, and so many more. In the process I also developed an interest in cult and exploitation movies, things with an oddball, offbeat charm, though perhaps 'charm' isn't the right word.
What I missed out on during that period was the plethora of 'fanzines' (I've put the word in quotes because it has a different much more amateur meaning for me as a once active member of Science Fiction Fandom) dealing with horror/exploitation/cult movies. These fanzines do range from the admittedly, amateur but also include professional magazines like Fangoria and the UK's The Dark Side (i.e. they were printed on glossy paper and could be found in chains like WH Smiths). I did pick up a few related books, however, like the excellent four volume series DVD Delerium to enhance my knowledge and guide me to movies I'd like which DVD D still does even after multiple readings. So, having been a member of what is now called, and more respectfully (just), geek culture, it's no surprise that I'd be interested enough to pick up-
It's a massive 800 page volume consisting of interviews with 42 individuals who played a significant role -usually as editor/publisher/writer of horror film fanzines (with a considerable overlap with cult and exploitation as there's a definite mindset which makes it highly probable you'll be into all three to varying degrees. To be honest, it isn't the sort of book you sit down and read straight through. I did try that but eventually I moved it to my toilet and placed it near the loo seat so I could dip into it while having a crap. This isn't an insult as It's where I go through my DVD Deleriums over the course of a year.
(It's written/compiled by John Szpunar whose surname I pronounce in my mind as Spooner. Sorry, dude.)
It's interesting to me partly because there are clear links to SF fandom and also to Comics fandom. One of the earliest dabblers was the late SF fan Bhob Stewart and, much later as a reviewer of horror fanzines in The Dark Side, UK SF fan Steve Green. The very first interview is with writer/artist Steve Bissette who was part of the team on DC's Swamp Thing which helped transform Alan Moore into !Alan Moore!
As you'd expect if you have any knowledge of geek culture, most of the people involved are intelligent, talented, literary, and arty but basically normal ordinary people with a rather specialised interest. They are not weirdo freako neurotic oddballs, except for the handful that are. But shake any tree... So I found it interesting, learned a lot of new stuff and when I've finished this review will pop it on my Amazon Marketplace shelf (literally -I have a shelf in a cupboard of all the stuff I have available for sale on Amazon Marketplace) because while I enjoyed it it isn't the sort of book I'm likely to re-read.
It may be coincidence or I may be displaying my lack of knowledge, but publication of this has coincided with what may be a minor resurgence of the horror fanzine.
After a series of covers of varying effectiveness, they've hit the jackpot with this slick piece which hits all the right bases, especially in the background. (You'll have to trust me on this because I couldn't find a bigger sharper image.) Can you name all the movies referenced? I think I got about 70% of them, maybe more.
Anyway, Weng's Chop is more broad-based than just being a horror fanzine, though it doesn't short-change the horror fan either, as it covers cult, exploitation and just downright odd movies like the look at Jungle movie babes which is the opening piece in this issue. It also includes, along with a load more, the Johnny Wadd movies (porn starring John Holmes), Mexican monster movies, Indian exploitation, as eclectic a bunch of film reviews as you could find anywhere, and even stranger stuff. And all of it written by knowledgeable people who can write. Incidentally, the magazine has gone from being a slim smallish paperback to a large-format 260 page monster and it's still quite reasonably priced -I paid £7.47 for this issue (post free as I'm on Prime). Look like it's going to be a wild and crazy ride and I'm clinging on while it lasts.
Monster! is a spin-off from Weng's Chop. It is purely devoted to monster movies. That is MONSTERS pure and simple: monster movies. Got that? No slashers allowed. And this slim 60 page magazine could have been made for me. I loved monsters long before horror. I still remember, age around 9, seeing Ray Harryhausen's giant stop-motion octopus in It Came From Beneath The Sea at a cinema in Scarborough while on holiday. I remember exactly where I was when I saw King Kong (still my favourite all time movie ever) for the first time -in a Liverpool cinema on a double bill with, bizarrely, Don't Lose Your Head (before it gained the Carry On hyphen prefix).
Despite being a slim little cheaply produced (printed by Amazon, as is WC) paperback with lots of photos, there is also plenty of reading material to enjoy. If they can get it out on a regular basis, it may have the honour of being kept in my loo.
It opens with a five page look at a cheapo 1959 ripoff of Creature from the Black Lagoon called The Monster of Piedras Blancas which I remember showing in Sunderland in the early 60's but never got to see. It's so cheap that you never see the monster in the water despite it being aquatic, though it is quite gory for the time. Needless to say that the piece made me want to see it immediately. And, at the back, is a list of all films mentioned and their availability. Or lack of it in this case. Then there's twelve pages devoted to last year's critical and audience flop, the widely despised Creature written by Steve Bissette which made me want to get hold of it and so I did from Amazon for the acceptable price of £2.46 (post free cos I'm on Prime) and see review below. There's Hong Kong and Indian monster movies. One of the former took my fancy but I could only find a single copy available for £36.00 so screw that.
Only three quid. Great magazine. More please. Now!
Creature opened just long enough for audiences to decide they didn't want to see it -Bissette was alone in the cinema when he saw it the first time and the audience doubled the second- and for critics to shit on it from a very great height. Bissette, while not pretending it's an undiscovered masterpiece, argues that it aint all that bad. And he's right.
There's is plenty in it to pick fault with if you decide you don't like it. But if you can go with the flow then it's quite reasonable fun. After a prologue in a which a young woman, strips naked and goes for a swim in the bayou and gets her legs bitten off, we meet three young couples who just got lost and shortly thereafter they meet a bunch of seedy and sinister locals, led by cult actor Sid Haig, who it soon becomes apparent have seedy and sinister designs on our six (six?) heroes. It's not long before they're being stalked by the creature who seems to be some kind of human-alligator cross. Who will survive? Spoiler 1: the likeable black dude and his likeable girlfriend. Usually the black guy is notoriously the first to go (standard rule in horror movies). Spoiler2: it wasn't an accident they got lost, it's a trap.
It's all done reasonably efficiently and it's certainly competently made in terms of production values, photography, and acting. The monster suit certainly looks good but it's here the budget shows its limitations. The jaw never moves. The headpiece is a complete unit so the mouth has to be open all the time. They also obviously ran out of money by the time they got to shoot the climax because -massive spoiler!- you don't see the hero kill the monster. Talk about breaking the rules of horror movies. You always see the monster die even if it comes back to life just as the credits roll. Oddly enough it kinda sorta maybe works if you've gone with the flow and quite like the movie, which I did. Or, you might want to wrench the disc from the player and jump up and down on it. I could cite other examples of dumb things but I really didn't care while I was watching it. As far as I'm concerned I got my £2.46 worth.
And soon: Godzilla 2014.
I feel faint with excitement.
Sunday, 13 April 2014
I picked up Season 1 last year on a whim and enjoyed it a lot, so much so that I watched it again just before Season 2 arrived which I then watched (all 13 episodes) in a couple of days and enjoyed it at least as much.
The premise is superficially simple. A group of terrorists in 2077 are about to be executed but somehow escape to the present (2012) dragging along a Protector (cop) with them. Their intent is to change the past so that their future never materialises. The cop wants to stop them and get back to her own time and her husband and son.
The execution is far from simple. Our hero Kiera befriends Alec a teenage genius (who will become very powerful by her time), gets in with the local cops and partners up with good looking cop Carlos. Villains do villainous ruthless things except they think they're heroes and the problem is that they actually might be.
There's a flashforward at the beginning of each episode which gradually reveals more and more about Kiera's world which starts to look more and more like a dystopia run by and for the benefit of mega-corporations. It soon becomes apparent that Kiera was set up to go back in time, possibly by the old Alec.
The more the series goes on, the more devious it becomes. The bad guys turn on each other. Not everyone is what they seem. Not every thing is what it seems. Is Kiera there to stop the bad guys (Liber8) from preventing the future to happen as it did which does not seem to be a good thing? In which case she actually may be the villain. Or is everything pre-determined? And then, towards the end of Season 2, we get the appearance of a third party with a different agenda that suggests a different possibility.
Basically this is really good intelligent,well thought out TV science fiction. There's plenty of action, plenty of character beats, more mysteries than you can count, and it's really impossible to predict what's going to happen next as revelation piles on revelation. In at least one case a man who is accused of murdering millions, and actually has done that, but the situation is far from what the viewer has been led to believe.
Here's a photo of some of the cast. Speculation on time travel in the series is continued below.
From l-r: ambiguous guy, our hero, good guy, bad guy, good guy (for now), very very bad guy.
How this series is going to end: the three possibilities.
The scenario which annoys me the most: the closed loop. Everything is self-contained. The future dictates the past which makes the future possible. See also: Dr.Who-Blink, Robert Heinlein's "All You Zombies". I absolutely hate closed loop stories because they depend on there not being a first cause which makes them logically impossible. It also makes the series totally pointless and if the series ends this way, fans will burn down the studio. I think it's the least likely option but I could be wrong.
The past is changed, therefore the future is changed. The fun with this scenario is how the future is (being) changed. It makes everything open-ended.
Changing the past does not change the future. It creates a new world with a different future; in other words, the alternate world shtick. This possibility is hinted at near the end of Season 2.
I think that whatever happens, whichever of these three happens, Kiera will end up being re-united with her son and, possibly, her husband.
I also happen to think that time travel is one of science fiction's most stupid tropes because on any logical level it doesn't make sense. Unless you accept that travelling to the past automatically creates a new alternate world. I'm not saying it doesn't make for entertaining and thought provoking stories because it most certainly does, as does the parallel/alternate world concept.
Anyway, Series 3 will be on Sky later this year and I'll be glued to it. Unless, of course, the past is changed and the show was never given the green light in the first place and you never read this post.
Monday, 7 April 2014
MOVIE REVIEWS: THE MACHINE (2013), THE HIDDEN FORTRESS (1958), FRIDAY 13th (1980), FRIDAY 13th PART 2 (1981)
This has been hailed as the best British Science Fiction film since Moon. Well, I thought, on reading that comment, it wouldn't take much as I thought Moon was very overrated, admittedly one of the few who had that reaction. So it's hardly going to be surprising when I tell you that The Machine is certainly a lot better than that film, though it's not exactly perfect either.
It's set a couple of decades in the future when the West's economy is on the skids as a result of a cold war with China. A secret government unit is trying to create cybernetically enhanced soldiers by experimenting on those severely injured in battle. If they don't work they're callously disposed of. Computer expert Caity Lotz is hired by cyberneticist Toby Stephens (who works for evil Denis Lawson) because she's created a computer which can pass the Turing Test -i.e. when talking to it from elsewhere it's impossible to tell if it's human or not. He uses an experimental machine he's created to map her brain (which he also uses on his young dying daughter) and when she's murdered by Chinese agents uses it to create a humanoid robot. What's interesting is not that Lotz's personality reappears in the machine, it doesn't, but the machine appears to have a consciousness and begins to the explore the world around it -not the physical world, but the world of moral choices which naturally brings it into conflict with Denis Lawson who wouldn't know a moral choice if it bit him on the arse.
What's not so good about the film. The science for one thing. It's not bad science, I was just a bit confused about exactly what science they were doing. It's almost all set indoors/underground/at night which makes for a murky viewing, though it's tonally appropriate for the film. I was never really sure about a group of subjects as to whether they were humanoid robots with/without bits of brains in them or cybernetically/surgically enhanced humans. Maybe I should watch it again and pay more attention. Though it could be because there are no fucking subtitles on a fucking Blu-Ray disc which is fucking inexcusable and fucking annoying as hell when you're somewhat deaf like me!
Still, there's a lot good about it too.
The cast for one. You'd expect Stephens and Lawson to be good and they are. But it's Caity Lotz who is the revelation. A friend of mine (also called Ian but isn't me) saw her first appearance in the TV series Arrow and declared her to be a useless actress. All I can say to that is: her and Jennifer Lawrence, crap, crap, crap. She is good as the human scientist but her part as the machine is subtle and nuanced and riveting. Plus, as a trained gymnast, she also does most of her own stunts. Plus, she's gorgeous. Up yours, other Ian.
Despite the low budget and the murk, it looks good. And sometimes hideous. A character who appears early in the film has had part of his skull blown away and just covered with skin -I've seen this in real life, though here it's cgi, and to my shame I find it repulsive to look at.
And there's Caity Lotz. And a bitter-sweet sting in the tail.
So, flawed but good and intelligent, which, when you see what abortions pass off as SF movies these days, is no mean achievement.
Every so often I like a dose of authentic samurai drama and/or a fix of legendary director Akira Kurosawa.
This is what passes for Kurosawa being playful. Two farmers have gone off to war thinking they'll get rich but their side loses. General Toshiro Mifune has to save the Princess and the gold in order to get the clan's ruling family up and running again and get back home all the while being hunted by the victors. The farmers join up with General and Princess. And that's the plot in full.
The two farmers, however, are actually the main characters and they are as venal and as stupid people as you've ever seen in a film. They think of nothing but themselves and not even of each other. If one can gain something over the other (usually gold) they'll try and get it. Throughout the film whenever there is a chance of them to gain an advantage without hesitation they take the selfish option and every time it makes things worse for them. And they never learn. They even consider raping the princess while she sleeps and while the general is off somewhere.
For all that it is quite a likeable film if, for me, a touch overlong at 138 minutes. There's an introduction by George Lucas because, as well all know, don't we, it was one of the inspirations for some little SF movie of his.
Surprisingly, given my love of horror movies, this is the first time I've seen this one. I have seen Jason X (or Jason in space) which is a highly enjoyable piece of gory fun, though it isn't canon as there were more FT13 movies made after, and Freddie Vs Jason which has its moments but not enough of them. I did see a clip of one of the killings not long after it originally came out and thought it was hideous and that put me off for quite a while. However, I've reading a few books/magazines that deal with exploitation cinema like the older (British) Shock Xpress and the newer (American) Weng's Chop which put me in the mood to check out stuff I hadn't seen before.
Over 30 years on Friday 13th is far less shocking than it was at the time and that includes the scene -Kevin Bacon is lying on a bunk when an arrow erupts from the front of his throat makes a mess- that made me want to run over the hills and far away. Now I just admire how effectively it's done and it still looks convincing even by today's standards thanks to gore effects maestro Tom Savini.
There's really not a lot to say about this film. It's a highly competent slasher which holds the attention throughout. It also introduces tropes which have become cliches. I do think the blurb on the box shouldn't have given away the killer's identity as, possibly, even now there might be someone who doesn't realise that Jason isn't the killer in this first installment.
Friday the 13th Part 2, unlike the previous film, holds back a while on the killing after the initial opening which is mostly a recap, otherwise it's the same stalk and slash now with added Jason who hasn't yet found the iconic hockey mask. Apart from a mean-spirited killing of the nice guy in the wheelchair, it's pretty much same as it ever was.
I've got Part 3 on my pile to watch but I may quit while I'm ahead after that as I've plenty more films to watch. Like the recently acquired super-special edition of Dario Argento's Inferno to watch among others.
Wednesday, 2 April 2014
GRAPHIC NOVEL: BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOUR -JULIE MAROH (2010/2013) and FILM REVIEW: BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOUR dir. ABDELLATIF KECHICHE (2013)
Okay, I bought this mainly because I was so fascinated by the film and also frustrated by the film's confusing timeline that I thought the graphic novel might help with this and clarify my thoughts on the film. Which it did. If you haven't read my review of the film a couple of posts ago, please check it out first as this post is a postscript to it.
It's important that I show you the above two images because I'll be making a point about them later on. If I could have figured out how to include a clip from the film I would.
The graphic novel begins with Emma visiting the parents of Clementine (Adele in the film) after Clementine's death. The rest is a flashback with the only narrative coming in the form of extracts from Clementine's diary (often referred to in the film but never quoted from). Other than that (plot differences aside) the structure of both is similar.
The graphic novel, however, is focussed on the relationship between the two young women and is very much a work of lesbian fiction. It also provides a clearer timeline than the film, for which I was grateful, as it made it easier to understand a significant aspect of how the story developed in the film as stages were signified and the span of the story covers Clementine/Adele's life from 15 to 30. It's delicately done and I've no doubt that, as a graphic novel, it makes a substantial contribution to the genre of gay fiction,
But, and I'm not underestimating its importance to that, that's all it does. Kechiche's film, while substantially adhering to the GN's text, turns it into a transformative experience by broadening the substance of the text into something which transcends its genre roots. It is still a film about an enduring affair between two young women but it is so much more than.
The film is focussed on Clementine (now Adele) and her life beyond her problematic relationship with Emma. The demonstration she attends in the book is supporting a railway strike, in the film it is significantly a protest against cuts to education. Adele's sexuality is never really specifically defined as lesbian and she has sex with boys/men. Her inner life is explored as well as the inadequacy she feels when surrounded by Emma's arty friends and the significant contrast between her working class parents whom she keeps ignorant of her true relationship with Emma while Emma's parents happily accept her as their daughter's lover.
There's been a lot of fuss over the explicit sex in the film but really, apart from the scissoring, it's not much different in terms of the amount shown in the book. The difference is, and I know this is obvious, the former consists of still images and realistic but still stylised drawn images on paper. In the film it is two real young women making love. The graphic novel consists of frozen moments, panels, in other words selected extracts of the act itself. The film depicts movement with one act flowing into another. In the graphic novel the reader accepts and appreciates the aesthetic style of what is shown. In the film there is no such distancing effect.
I'm making it obvious that, as a work of art and irrespective of format, I prefer the film. Would I have preferred it had I read the graphic novel first? I like to think not, though I can hardly make a definitive statement on that, as preconceptions always colour an opinion. I can certainly understand why a gay audience would prefer the book because it is aimed directly at depicting their experience whereas the film opens it out, transcending its origins so that it speaks more directly to a wider audience. But I still think that, as an adaptation, the director has done the author proud and many people will be guided to the source material as a result.
Monday, 31 March 2014
It immediately ocurred to me to compare this to the Twilight films and to Ender's Game to the detriment of both. In the case of Ender's Game, it's based on a science fiction novel (albeit the middle part of a trilogy) but unlike that movie it doesn't water down its source material. And, really, there is no comparison to Twilight which is a cliche-ridden trite vampire romance. Catching Fire (and I also include its predecessor in this) is vastly superior to both.
This series is rich in substance, packed with subtext, drenched with genuine emotion, and feels completely believably real.
As the film opens, Katniss is back home in District 12, the most depressed, downtrodden and oppressed of the 12 districts, though most of the others aren't much better. She's become a symbol of hope to the masses though, as she admits to the President who wants to destroy her, all she wanted to do was survive. Despite that she's forced by events to be that symbol and, at first, even her phony boyfriend, previously a bit of a wimp, displays more moral strength than she does. As they go on nationwide tour to publicise their victory of the previous year and demonstrate how powerful the government is, discontent spreads. So, in order to first destroy her heroic image and then kill her, a new Hunger Games is announced consisting of previous winners which then takes up the second half of the film.
The second part of a trilogy (though the films have been extended to a quartet and may the inventor of the word quadrilogy burn in hell forever) is always the hardest to pull off but this works well building on the first film and intensifying certain aspects of it. It'll be interesting to see how the two films based on the third book do when there are no Hunger Games to focus on.
Jennifer Lawrence is, as I've said before, the best young (under 25) actress around and here she displays as thoughtful a nuanced performance as she does in more mainstream roles.
Two films in, this is the best blockbuster series around: exciting, intelligent, thoughtful.
Saturday, 29 March 2014
Yes, this really is a terrific film but there is one thing about it which makes it, at times, a problematic watch. There is no clear time scale or indication of how much time has passed. Now this may be because of cultural indicators; there may be signifiers which are clear to a French audience but not to non-French viewers, or it may be deliberate. The only one time when the age of one of the protagonists, Adele, is stated is when it's her 18th birthday; everything else is left for the viewer to work out for themselves. It's not helped by the blurb on the DVD box which states that the age of Adele at the beginning of the film is 15 when it seems clear, to me at least and it could be my misreading, that she is in the French equivalent of the UK's sixth form and she has to be 17. I then, naturally, assumed that only a few months passed between the opening of the film and her birthday. But this may not be the case. Shortly after that, she (seemingly) goes straight from school to teaching a reception class with no indication of college in between. She is also now living with Emma. If, for no other reason though there are many others, I'm going to have to give this a second viewing to see if it becomes clearer.
As the film opens Adele is in the full flush of confusing exploratory adolescence. She's in love with literature (which she's studying at school) and ideas and philosophy, and just beginning to explore her own nature, who she is becoming, though her girlfriends seem to be more interested in talking about sex. She finds a slightly older boyfriend at school and has sex with him but things don't seem to work out for reasons she's not sure of. It's around this time she sees a blue haired girl walking around hand in hand with another girl. When one of her girlfriends kisses her, Adele finds herself responding but, later, when she wants to take it further the girl says it was just a spur of the moment thing and didn't mean anything. After school, and after having had a fight with another girl who accuses her of being a lesbian which she denies, she goes to a gay bar with a male friend, wanders off as he's more interested in snogging a guy, and finds herself in a lesbian bar where she meets Emma who briefly looks after her. It isn't long (or is it? I'm not sure) before they meet up again and eventually fall in love.
And that's pretty much the first half of the film. In the second half Adele and Emma are living together. Emma's painting seriously, having completed her degree in Fine Art and Adele is her muse. Adele is teaching full time.
That's all you need to know about the key events and the film's structure, at least without me spoiling it for you. Now I can talk about it.
And we all know why the film is so controversial so let's get to it. There are two very explicit scenes of lesbian lovemaking separated by a short gap. But if anyone is tempted to watch this film specifically for those scenes then they're wasting their money. Everyone knows you can download for free off the Net videos of girls kissing, and both softcore and hardcore lesbian porn. So, are these scenes justified?
The simple answer to that is that there's no simple answer because it partly depends on how you view the film. If you are calling it a film about a lesbian romance then, I suppose, yes it is. However, that isn't what the film is about. The focus is always Adele, not Emma. It's Adele's story, the story of an intelligent working class girl trying to discover who she is and about how her experiences affect her and how she changes. Even though her long love affair with Emma forms the central core of the film it's a long way from being the whole of it. That said, it is the centrepiece and the love scenes reveal the intensity of their feelings for each other and their intense desire for each other and form a strong contrast with one scene of Adele's sex with her boyfriend. So, yes, the scenes were justified. Whether or not they were justified in being so long is another question and one I'm not going to answer.
However, there is so much more to the film than that. It's a film of many nuances in which important things can be revealed by the hint of a gesture. Sensationalistic (if that's what they are) sex scenes aside, this is a low key film and actress Adele Exarchopoulos is absolutely stunning as Adele (which came first, I wonder, was the character named after the actress or was it just a coincidence?). Her performance is so convincing and naturalistic that she takes your breath away. Also, mostly makeup free throughout, she is very beautiful but again in a naturalistic way. In contrast and as a personal reaction, I didn't find Lea Seydoux (excellent though she is) as Emma anywhere near as appealing; there was just something about her face and her teeth which put me off. But, though the film covers many topics such as class, politics, sex roles, etc, it's never overt, never hammering home any message, though they may be there subtly embedded. Instead it unfolds gradually, easily over its three hour length and it never feels like three hours.
Is this a classic film, deserving of all its awards? Maybe. Brilliant directing, superb acting, riveting to watch, etc. One thing I do know is that it's one which will repay repeated viewings as things I missed the first time, though they were always there in plain sight, reveal themselves and I intend to watch it again soon.
Monday, 24 March 2014
Well, it's as decent an adaptation as you could expect given an enormous budget which dictated a rating that meant it had to be suitable for kids. Despite that though it was always going to be a simplification of the novel. For all that, it did make an attempt to keep the spirit of it despite being watered down.
The cast is good and Asa Butterfield as Ender is excellent. Harrison Ford is fine as does his grumpy win at all costs commander. The supporting cast, young and old, do what is necessary. And the special effects are terrific.
While I quite liked it and never found it dull there just seems to be something missing. By that I don't mean the reduction of Ender's brother to a cameo role and the complete omission of the political text in the form of Demosthenes which would have been too intellectual for a film that had to appeal to a younger audience. Also omitted are the effects of time dilation. Perhaps it just lacks the intensity of the book and might have been more effective as a TV miniseries where there would have been more room to explore both ideas and characters.
So, though I quite moderately liked it, if anyone wants a cheap copy 'like new', mine will be up on Amazon by the time you read this.
Update: It sold within three hours.
Friday, 21 March 2014
After getting my arse kicked by a couple of mates over the previous post -and yes guys I will get round to putting your comments in the comments section- I thought I'd go for something a bit lighter.
I'm coming to the end of a Doctor Who marathon; that is all the box sets of the new Who: the Eccleston one, the three Tennant ones plus Christmas Specials and the half season, and two of the three Smiths (the third is too close). So, what to follow them up with?
Well, films/tv series I'm not going to mention include: Lois & Clark Season 2, Flavia the Heretic, The Ghastly Ones/Seeds of Sin (by writer/director Andy Milligan whose name will crop up later), Combat Shock, Naked Lunch, Superman Blu-Ray Box Set, Dogma, Universal Monsters Blu Ray Box Set, and a few more.
Watered-down Dr Who, perhaps. Kids TV, certainly. But I make no apologies or excuses. Good kids TV/books/films are simply good TV/books/films that can be enjoyed by all ages. Plus it's good to see the character again after her four year stint on Dr Who back in the 70's and to see the sadly late Elisabeth Sladen who, by all accounts, was an even nicer person than the character she portrayed.
As I seem to be connecting the dots then the next to watch has to be-
I've read the books and they are very good teenage SF novels. I enjoyed the first film and Jennifer Lawrence is the breakout young actress of the last ten years simply because, with only Saoirse Ronan on her heels, she's the best young actress to turn up in the last ten years.
As a Science Fiction reader for pretty much all of my life I can state, with little fear of contradiction, that the novel on which the following film was based is one of the best SF novels of the 80's.
It's a shame that the controversy over author Orson Scott Card's homophobia and objection to gay marriage has obscured why the book was filmed in the first place, though it's deeply ironic on several levels that the name given to aliens was changed from buggers in the book to formics in the film. It's very probable that Card didn't know that bugger was a derogatory British term for a gay man, a theory which is supported by the two immediate sequels in which the hero Ender attempts to make amends for his act of genocide. Most of the novels by Card which I've read contain strong humanitarian elements and a well of compassion and it's a shame that these have been tarnished by his bigoted Mormon faith.
I'm also a bit of a fan of cult movies, schlock horror, grindhouse, and the like. Having recently read an interesting piece about writer/director Andy Milligan, whose oeuvre covered psychodrama, horror, early gay cinema and sometimes all of them at once, I thought I'd see if I could find any cheap and came across this one, not only in Blu-Ray but issued by the BFI (the prestigious British Film Institute for you non-cineastes) but with an excellent booklet containing essays by film director Nicholas Winding Refn, well-known writers on horror/cult movies Stephen Thrower and Tim Lucas, and biographer (Neil Young, et al) Jimmy McDonough.
Although American, Milligan came over to London and, when not looking for rough trade, made a few films there and made them fast and cheap as always. Nightbirds (1970) is a psychodrama and the disc also includes another complete movie The Body Beneath. One of the things about Nightbirds is that it stars Berwick Kaler who happens to be a local lad. He comes from South Shields just four miles up the coast on the mouth of the River Tyne. He's possibly best known to soap opera fans for a stint in Coronation Street but has made his living for the last decade and a bit masterminding (writing/directing and probably playing an ugly sister in) the annual pantomime in a York theatre. He also appears in a bit part in The Body Beneath as well as all the other London movies Milligan made. He also contributes a commentary to Nightbirds.
Moving on swiftly we come to an award-winning subtitled teenage lesbian psychodrama which, if one of the lesbians had been a flesh-eating alien, would have a ranked 100% on Ian's criteria for a perfect movie. Curiously there actually is a film which almost matches that description except that it's British, it never came within shoelace-sniffing distance of an award, and the carnivorous alien is humanoid who can look human and comes between a lesbian couple who live in an isolated cottage. It's called Prey and was directed by Pete Walker in the late 70's. And it's not actually that bad. This one, however, is, and I'm sure you've guessed-
And there we have it, my near-future viewing. Feel to make comments on my obvious dubious character made on the choices and comments on them therof above. I reserve the right to review any or none in future posts depending on whether I can be bothered or not.