I don’t normally dislike a book for the quality of writing. Sometimes I will bemoan a particular habit or tone of voice – like King’s strange turns of phrase – but I’ve very rarely gone into a book thinking ‘I wonder if this has ever been edited?’. I’m surprised Shadowmagic has managed to get through the trials of the publishing world. I decided to look up Lenhan’s resume, sure in my impression that he’d be a young, first time writer with not much under his belt. Correct on the first timer, wrong on everything else. He’s a fifty year old illusionist and entertainer, who voiced the talking toaster in Red Dwarf. I have to wonder if he got published because of who he is and who he knows rather than because someone genuinely read the book and thought it was sterling stuff.
The story revolves around Conor, the son of a one handed man, who is randomly attacked by some strange people on horseback. He’s knocked out and when he reawakens he finds out he has a mother he never knew about, a murdering uncle and aunt and less chance of survival than a slug at a hedgehog convention. He manages to escape said murdering relatives and thus begins a journey through a magic land.
What Lenahan does get right are the ideas, which I’m not entirely sure were all original, but they were shiny enough to continue enticing me. Talking trees – mental communication before anyone starts thinking of Pocahontas – spells fuelled by gold or tree sap and a rite of passage that can create new lands.
Unfortunately, the plot is so riddled with holes, it falls apart for me. A quick list of some of the most glaring problems (few spoilers coming up here so skip if you feel the need):
1 The whole reason Conor is in trouble is a prophecy saying that he will be the ruin of the magical land. Except, if he hadn’t been kidnapped by his evil uncle in the first place, he’d have never been in a position to ruin anything. I could understand this if the uncle had come up with a reason to kidnap Conor days before he unfolded his master plan but no.
2 Without giving too much away, the prophecy sort of changes tack at the end of the book. It goes from ‘The son of the one handed man must die, in case he buggers up this land’ – I’m paraphrasing – to ‘The son of the one handed man must be sacrificed because…um’. Consistency if you’d be so kind.
3 The magic spell that transports Conor and his father into the land is never explained and one of the characters they meet very earlier on in the book could have performed the spell to send them back again – and does…at the end of the book – but there’s never any particular explanation about why they aren’t sent back immediately. This could have easily been solved by making the spell difficult to perform, or place specific or in need of a particular ingredient.
Then there are those writing quality problems I was chuntering on about before. First off, when introducing a character, it’s a good idea to show them in their natural environment. So…Doctor Who scrabbling around the Tardis or Frodo in the Shire before it all goes tits up. We never get this sort of introduction to Conor. There’s two and a bit pages where Conor helps his Dad put a shirt on and explains a few things but it’s ‘infodumping’ a lot of the time – all tell, no show. And a lot of it is about his Dad. Boring, boring and bad.
From a published book, you tend to expect a good level of literacy as well as a decent writing skill, especially from a children’s book. These are the writers of tomorrow you’re writing for! The sentence: ‘To my right the trees changed to beech but not the thin spindly trees I was used to, but spectacular white-barked beeches with girth and height of Californian Redwoods’ makes me cringe. Two ‘but’s in the same sentence? Two mentions of ‘beech’ and ‘tree’?
Perhaps I’m being too fussy. But this sort of this keeps cropping up. It feels like Lenaham hasn’t gone through enough stages of editing, because that sentence, and others, should have been picked up. There’s an opportunity to get some great description in there. That second ‘tree’? I’d change to ‘sticks. The ‘beeches’ to something like ‘colossi’ or perhaps ‘towers’. And I wonder how many teens actually know how big a Californian Redwood is?
On the front cover, it’s called ‘A Lord of the Rings for the 21st Century. Only a lot shorter. And funnier. And completely different.’ Yes, I’d agree with the shorter and certainly the completely different but funnier? I’ve read the first book of the LotR series and, I suppose, it’s not exactly a bag of laughs or, indeed, any other container of a joyous emotion. But then, neither is Shadowmagic. The blurb includes the phrase ‘it will make you laugh on nearly every page.’ I think I smiled twice throughout the whole book. Could have been an involuntary spasm. Hard to tell.
I do not recommend Shadowmagic. Ever. Do not read it.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Where Afterlife went wrong
4/5 stars
The Resident Evil films are a perfect blend of story and fight scenes, just enough of the first, heavy on the second. But that’s fine; if you’re watching them for the love story, you need to work on your choice of films.
Fourth in the series (of the live action films), Afterlife is not bringing out any new surprises on the basic format and I can see most of the plot coming from a mile away. It’s what we expect from Resident Evil films and Afterlife delivers.
Unfortunately, someone on the directing team has been watching too many Matrix films recently. Here’s a list:
Mr Smith has a new face! But it’s so similar, I actually had to look up the actor playing Albert Wesker (not the best evil guy name by some margin) to make sure it wasn’t the same guy who did Mr Smith. They share a love of wearing sunglasses indoors, moving faster than the camera can pick up and generally kicking ass. On the sunglasses note, Wesker throws his at two of the characters for no reason other than, I assume, to make use of 3D. It didn’t distract the characters in any way and he immediately puts them back on again afterwards. Resident Evil wins the Least Subtle Film Ever award.
Bullet time, now used in completely pointless places! I can get the use of bullet time when either one of two things happens: someone avoids a bullet but only just or someone gets shot, significantly. Like Trinity did. Resident Evil appears to feel the need to use bullet time just to show a zombie getting shot.
Falling out of a window while still shooting! That famous scene in The Matrix Reloaded, where Trinity goes backwards through a window and has a falling fight scene with an Agent. That one? Well, it’s copied, almost move for move. Why, Resident Evil? Can’t you come up with your own?
All this makes me want to kick Resident Evil in the shins and tell it to come up with some ideas of its own.
But I still enjoyed the film. Axeman is a severe cutie – I want to take him home – and the overall acting skill is sublime. The characters feel like real people, the kind of people you actually want to survive. At no point was there the Horror genre staple: a cheerleader-like character who I want to feed to the zombies. And, yes, predictably, most characters die. But I’d feel a bit cheated if they all survived.
Afterlife has been set up with no ending, not as such. There is a clear indication, along the lines of a big neon sign, that another film is in the making. And I really really want to see it. Right now.
I should quickly justify the four stars rating. If Afterlife had made itself out to be a serious drama that dug deep into what it is to be human, I would have asked Axeman to kill everyone ever involved in that decision. But it isn’t. You get what you pay for. Except for the expectation that Neo is going to walk across the screen, looking suitably dour.
If you like the Resident Evil films you will be neither surprised by nor disappointed in Afterlife (unless the Matrix parallels kill you inside). It’s a suitable sequel to the other three and has set up an interesting premise for the fifth.
Stupid, annoying, but loveable. Go watch it.
The Resident Evil films are a perfect blend of story and fight scenes, just enough of the first, heavy on the second. But that’s fine; if you’re watching them for the love story, you need to work on your choice of films.
Fourth in the series (of the live action films), Afterlife is not bringing out any new surprises on the basic format and I can see most of the plot coming from a mile away. It’s what we expect from Resident Evil films and Afterlife delivers.
Unfortunately, someone on the directing team has been watching too many Matrix films recently. Here’s a list:
Mr Smith has a new face! But it’s so similar, I actually had to look up the actor playing Albert Wesker (not the best evil guy name by some margin) to make sure it wasn’t the same guy who did Mr Smith. They share a love of wearing sunglasses indoors, moving faster than the camera can pick up and generally kicking ass. On the sunglasses note, Wesker throws his at two of the characters for no reason other than, I assume, to make use of 3D. It didn’t distract the characters in any way and he immediately puts them back on again afterwards. Resident Evil wins the Least Subtle Film Ever award.
Bullet time, now used in completely pointless places! I can get the use of bullet time when either one of two things happens: someone avoids a bullet but only just or someone gets shot, significantly. Like Trinity did. Resident Evil appears to feel the need to use bullet time just to show a zombie getting shot.
Falling out of a window while still shooting! That famous scene in The Matrix Reloaded, where Trinity goes backwards through a window and has a falling fight scene with an Agent. That one? Well, it’s copied, almost move for move. Why, Resident Evil? Can’t you come up with your own?
All this makes me want to kick Resident Evil in the shins and tell it to come up with some ideas of its own.
But I still enjoyed the film. Axeman is a severe cutie – I want to take him home – and the overall acting skill is sublime. The characters feel like real people, the kind of people you actually want to survive. At no point was there the Horror genre staple: a cheerleader-like character who I want to feed to the zombies. And, yes, predictably, most characters die. But I’d feel a bit cheated if they all survived.
Afterlife has been set up with no ending, not as such. There is a clear indication, along the lines of a big neon sign, that another film is in the making. And I really really want to see it. Right now.
I should quickly justify the four stars rating. If Afterlife had made itself out to be a serious drama that dug deep into what it is to be human, I would have asked Axeman to kill everyone ever involved in that decision. But it isn’t. You get what you pay for. Except for the expectation that Neo is going to walk across the screen, looking suitably dour.
If you like the Resident Evil films you will be neither surprised by nor disappointed in Afterlife (unless the Matrix parallels kill you inside). It’s a suitable sequel to the other three and has set up an interesting premise for the fifth.
Stupid, annoying, but loveable. Go watch it.
Hey, Stargate Universe, cheer the hell up!
3/5 stars
I’m a solid fan of the Stargate series. SG1 is as close to the perfect programme as I’ve ever seen, occasionally formulaic but otherwise a shining example of good science fiction. Stargate Atlantis is its slightly disfigured but ultimately loveable cousin.
Stargate Universe, to complete the picture, is the whiny kid in the corner that you really want to like but annoys you to hell and back.
Here’s the basic plot: people, stuck on alien ship, in an unknown galaxy and unable to get home. Survival, struggle, strife. Massive scenes where everyone laments about how bad it is and generally looks depressed.
That’s my main problem with Universe, which you may have guessed from the title. It takes itself so seriously, that the otherwise awesome characters take on this hand-to-forehead-its-so-terrible tone.
Talking of the characters, most of them are 2D and there purely to move the plot forward. I wanted to stab Chloe in the face for most of the first season and, while I understand she’s meant to be the unlucky bystander that got pulled into things she wasn’t meant to, her scenes feel like they’ve been ripped from something set in a high school.
The only characters I’m interested in are Eli Wallace, Nicholas Rush and, possibly, Everett Young. All three of them qualify for ‘actual human’ status- they manage to appear more realistic than a cardboard cut out. Eli is the most likeable, although if you peer at him long enough, you can see the faint outlines of an arrow pointed at his head saying ‘good guy, token geek’.
Rush’s sense of honour appears to be as flexible as Rolf Harris’ wobbly board but that’s fine, he clearly has an agenda and is following it realistically. Robert Carlyle is a fantastic actor and plays Rush very very well.
Young is another matter. I can’t decide whether he deserves a medal or a knuckle sandwich. Probably both. He goes from reasonable Colonel to complete idiot, has the leadership skills of a hermit and in no way deserves the description ‘handsome, capable, former SG team leader’ or indeed, ‘like the Jack O'Neill of ten years ago’. No, no he isn’t. The man doesn’t understand the word ‘humour’, which was O’Neill’s forte. That said, he does come off as human - a flawed, annoying human, but of our race none the less.
Despite all that, Universe is still bringing in big audiences. The story lines are completely new, with the possible exception of Darkness which has echoes of Atlantis’ beginning episodes. They charter new characters, worlds and generally use the series to try out unexplored avenues. It lacks SG1’s focus on the Stargate and the missions through it, instead opting for a more human angle - Universe is about the people, trapped on an alien ship in an unknown galaxy and how they deal, or fail to deal, with it. You genuinely feel for the characters, even a few of the cardboard ones. And, now in its second season, Universe has set up some pretty big questions, which I’m eager to see answered.
So, watch it and give it a chance, especially if you liked SG1 and Atlantis. But line up some comedy after watching. You’re going to need it.
I’m a solid fan of the Stargate series. SG1 is as close to the perfect programme as I’ve ever seen, occasionally formulaic but otherwise a shining example of good science fiction. Stargate Atlantis is its slightly disfigured but ultimately loveable cousin.
Stargate Universe, to complete the picture, is the whiny kid in the corner that you really want to like but annoys you to hell and back.
Here’s the basic plot: people, stuck on alien ship, in an unknown galaxy and unable to get home. Survival, struggle, strife. Massive scenes where everyone laments about how bad it is and generally looks depressed.
That’s my main problem with Universe, which you may have guessed from the title. It takes itself so seriously, that the otherwise awesome characters take on this hand-to-forehead-its-so-terrible tone.
Talking of the characters, most of them are 2D and there purely to move the plot forward. I wanted to stab Chloe in the face for most of the first season and, while I understand she’s meant to be the unlucky bystander that got pulled into things she wasn’t meant to, her scenes feel like they’ve been ripped from something set in a high school.
The only characters I’m interested in are Eli Wallace, Nicholas Rush and, possibly, Everett Young. All three of them qualify for ‘actual human’ status- they manage to appear more realistic than a cardboard cut out. Eli is the most likeable, although if you peer at him long enough, you can see the faint outlines of an arrow pointed at his head saying ‘good guy, token geek’.
Rush’s sense of honour appears to be as flexible as Rolf Harris’ wobbly board but that’s fine, he clearly has an agenda and is following it realistically. Robert Carlyle is a fantastic actor and plays Rush very very well.
Young is another matter. I can’t decide whether he deserves a medal or a knuckle sandwich. Probably both. He goes from reasonable Colonel to complete idiot, has the leadership skills of a hermit and in no way deserves the description ‘handsome, capable, former SG team leader’ or indeed, ‘like the Jack O'Neill of ten years ago’. No, no he isn’t. The man doesn’t understand the word ‘humour’, which was O’Neill’s forte. That said, he does come off as human - a flawed, annoying human, but of our race none the less.
Despite all that, Universe is still bringing in big audiences. The story lines are completely new, with the possible exception of Darkness which has echoes of Atlantis’ beginning episodes. They charter new characters, worlds and generally use the series to try out unexplored avenues. It lacks SG1’s focus on the Stargate and the missions through it, instead opting for a more human angle - Universe is about the people, trapped on an alien ship in an unknown galaxy and how they deal, or fail to deal, with it. You genuinely feel for the characters, even a few of the cardboard ones. And, now in its second season, Universe has set up some pretty big questions, which I’m eager to see answered.
So, watch it and give it a chance, especially if you liked SG1 and Atlantis. But line up some comedy after watching. You’re going to need it.
Outcasts
5/5 stars
Outcasts
I have very little faith in British TV. Most of it is eye-stabbingly awful. I’m looking at you BBC3. You and your ‘Hotter Than My Daughter’.
And then there’s Outcasts.
I’ll be honest. I downloaded the first episode from iPlayer and then ignored it for a good six weeks. But when I finally got round to watching it, Outcasts was ready and waiting to surprise me.
This is what I was expecting:
A low budget, poorly scripted show with more holes than swiss cheese. There’d be some actors working their socks off but ultimately being pulled down by the rest of the cast. And the sort of special effects last seen on the old Daleks (sink plungers included). What I got was something entirely different and wonderfully surprising.
Here’s the basic premise: Something bad happened back on Earth and the human race has been shipping itself to a new planet. Ten years after the first landing, things are going alright, people are surviving. But there’s unresolved history, new arrivals and some seriously bad weather, the kind only seen in the extreme wildernesses and Wales.
Cue drama. What I love third best about Outcasts is its unwavering focus. It’s about humanity - what it is to be human and where the moral lines can or will be drawn when survival is uncertain. Outcasts isn’t too interested in going heavy with the science fiction elements either. The touches of sci-fi are delicate and while they’re occasionally plot-moving touches, they don’t retract from the humanity angle. Most of the science is glossed over but what isn’t is done convincingly and with as much realism as any science fiction show can.
My second favourite thing about Outcasts is the characters and the actors behind them. Each character has been carefully crafted and all of them have shady history, vices or bad personality traits. This, in my opinion, is essential. Evil antagonists are boring, good heroes even more so. But blur the line between the two, as Outcasts does, and you get something approaching reality, as well as interesting and diverse characters.
So far, I've grown most attached to Cass Cromwell, whose heart is in the right place even if his temper isn’t. Portrayed by Daniel Mays, of Ashes to Ashes fame, Cornwell tries to do well but like all of the best heroes in sticky situations, he has to make difficult choices and deal with the consequences.
Also making an appearance is MI5 drama Spooks’ Hermione Norris, Battlestar Galactica’s Jamie Bamber, Eric Mabius of Ugly Betty and CSI: Miami fame and Liam Cunningham who recently appeared in Clash of the Titans. Not the most impressive of films to have on your CV but he plays President Tate in Outcasts, which brings me on to my next point.
My favourite thing of the series: President Tate’s eyebrows. I get hypnotised with how pointy they are. Then he raises one and I can’t help being surprised he doesn’t slice bits off the furniture when he turns around.
So. Would I recommend Outcasts?
Yes, wholeheartedly and without reservation. Even if you’re not big on sci-fi, Outcasts may just surprise you. It’s small enough to not warrant much press but it’s an oasis in an otherwise dead and depressing desert. Give it a go.
--
Outcasts was cancelled on 14th March, due to poor ratings.
Outcasts
I have very little faith in British TV. Most of it is eye-stabbingly awful. I’m looking at you BBC3. You and your ‘Hotter Than My Daughter’.
And then there’s Outcasts.
I’ll be honest. I downloaded the first episode from iPlayer and then ignored it for a good six weeks. But when I finally got round to watching it, Outcasts was ready and waiting to surprise me.
This is what I was expecting:
A low budget, poorly scripted show with more holes than swiss cheese. There’d be some actors working their socks off but ultimately being pulled down by the rest of the cast. And the sort of special effects last seen on the old Daleks (sink plungers included). What I got was something entirely different and wonderfully surprising.
Here’s the basic premise: Something bad happened back on Earth and the human race has been shipping itself to a new planet. Ten years after the first landing, things are going alright, people are surviving. But there’s unresolved history, new arrivals and some seriously bad weather, the kind only seen in the extreme wildernesses and Wales.
Cue drama. What I love third best about Outcasts is its unwavering focus. It’s about humanity - what it is to be human and where the moral lines can or will be drawn when survival is uncertain. Outcasts isn’t too interested in going heavy with the science fiction elements either. The touches of sci-fi are delicate and while they’re occasionally plot-moving touches, they don’t retract from the humanity angle. Most of the science is glossed over but what isn’t is done convincingly and with as much realism as any science fiction show can.
My second favourite thing about Outcasts is the characters and the actors behind them. Each character has been carefully crafted and all of them have shady history, vices or bad personality traits. This, in my opinion, is essential. Evil antagonists are boring, good heroes even more so. But blur the line between the two, as Outcasts does, and you get something approaching reality, as well as interesting and diverse characters.
So far, I've grown most attached to Cass Cromwell, whose heart is in the right place even if his temper isn’t. Portrayed by Daniel Mays, of Ashes to Ashes fame, Cornwell tries to do well but like all of the best heroes in sticky situations, he has to make difficult choices and deal with the consequences.
Also making an appearance is MI5 drama Spooks’ Hermione Norris, Battlestar Galactica’s Jamie Bamber, Eric Mabius of Ugly Betty and CSI: Miami fame and Liam Cunningham who recently appeared in Clash of the Titans. Not the most impressive of films to have on your CV but he plays President Tate in Outcasts, which brings me on to my next point.
My favourite thing of the series: President Tate’s eyebrows. I get hypnotised with how pointy they are. Then he raises one and I can’t help being surprised he doesn’t slice bits off the furniture when he turns around.
So. Would I recommend Outcasts?
Yes, wholeheartedly and without reservation. Even if you’re not big on sci-fi, Outcasts may just surprise you. It’s small enough to not warrant much press but it’s an oasis in an otherwise dead and depressing desert. Give it a go.
--
Outcasts was cancelled on 14th March, due to poor ratings.
Monsters
5/5 Stars
There’s something behind you! But you don’t know where because you’re blindfolded, in a dark room and only have a post-it note for a weapon!
Relax. It’s already eaten your brain.
Monsters is the sort of horror film I like. Where you see so little of the creatures that you forget what they look like and suffer an embarrassing moment trying to remember their names.
The monsters are there, make no mistake, but you’ve no idea where. They loom over the entire plot like the huge walking octopuses they are, but they’re so big, they’ve fused with part of the background and, for most of the film, stay there.
That sounds like a criticism. It’s not. Horror movies should never be about the creature under the bed. They should focus on the quivering child, too scared to sleep. It’s humans that make a horror movie scary. If there’s no one to die, no one to loose everything they have, where’s the drama?
The real piece de la resistance, though, are the two protagonists; Andrew Kaulder, a photographer, and Sam Wynden, the daughter of Andrew’s boss. They fight to get home, travelling through territory ‘infected’ by walking octopuses. Scoot McNairy, who played Andrew and Whitney Able, depicting Sam, acted their socks off, aided by incredible dialogue. Often it’s what they don’t say that’s most poignant, and there are scenes where Andrew and Sam’s only reaction is to stare silently. I can only applaud whoever was brave enough to allow long minutes to pass without a single word. That says something of the actors, the script and the flawless direction.
If I had to have a criticism, it would be that the CGI is obvious. You can generally tell what’s been added in later. But it’s a small complaint and it didn’t hamper my enjoyment one iota.
I suppose, I might add, I wanted there to be…more. The ending is sudden but incredibly brilliant. It leaves you with a question, one that I want desperately to be answered but also one that I don’t think should be. Like Inception, it wants you to make up your own mind, it wants you to think.
And that is all good, if you ask me.
There’s something behind you! But you don’t know where because you’re blindfolded, in a dark room and only have a post-it note for a weapon!
Relax. It’s already eaten your brain.
Monsters is the sort of horror film I like. Where you see so little of the creatures that you forget what they look like and suffer an embarrassing moment trying to remember their names.
The monsters are there, make no mistake, but you’ve no idea where. They loom over the entire plot like the huge walking octopuses they are, but they’re so big, they’ve fused with part of the background and, for most of the film, stay there.
That sounds like a criticism. It’s not. Horror movies should never be about the creature under the bed. They should focus on the quivering child, too scared to sleep. It’s humans that make a horror movie scary. If there’s no one to die, no one to loose everything they have, where’s the drama?
The real piece de la resistance, though, are the two protagonists; Andrew Kaulder, a photographer, and Sam Wynden, the daughter of Andrew’s boss. They fight to get home, travelling through territory ‘infected’ by walking octopuses. Scoot McNairy, who played Andrew and Whitney Able, depicting Sam, acted their socks off, aided by incredible dialogue. Often it’s what they don’t say that’s most poignant, and there are scenes where Andrew and Sam’s only reaction is to stare silently. I can only applaud whoever was brave enough to allow long minutes to pass without a single word. That says something of the actors, the script and the flawless direction.
If I had to have a criticism, it would be that the CGI is obvious. You can generally tell what’s been added in later. But it’s a small complaint and it didn’t hamper my enjoyment one iota.
I suppose, I might add, I wanted there to be…more. The ending is sudden but incredibly brilliant. It leaves you with a question, one that I want desperately to be answered but also one that I don’t think should be. Like Inception, it wants you to make up your own mind, it wants you to think.
And that is all good, if you ask me.
Battle Los Angeles, a film for those who dislike originality
3/5 stars
Battle Los Angeles, or BLA as I will now refer to it, has no surprises or confusing plot lines. Seriously, if you get confused, you are no longer in possession of any brain cells. If you’re looking for bog-standard aliens invade Earth movie, you could do worse than BLA.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing to be at standard level but it feels like a missed opportunity. Some of the more enterprising aliens invade movies out there – Monster, District 9 – are pushing the basic story, taking us into unfamiliar and fascinating areas. BLA, against this, is a step back.
Which is such a shame. It made me cry at one point- I don’t cry much – so it’s not all explosions and stupidity. The script slips into wince-worthy areas on occasion. Otherwise, the characters are well rounded and the dialogue snappy.
I can also praise BLA for its realism, as far as that goes in a sci-fi film. People get hurt and stay hurt: characters you care about die: the writers has spent time figuring out how the aliens might work and, most importantly, countdown timers actually work in real time- as opposed to the majority which live in the stretchy time dimension.
Aaron Eckhart plays the main character, Staff Sergeant Nantz – and you will remember the ‘Staff Sergeant’ bit, they repeat it so often. His face is amazing. He appears to be permanently on the verge of bursting into tears, which is an odd expression for a marine. That said, he’s the one who made me cry, so perhaps it’s a crafty way to make me sympathise.
Like him, the rest of the cast is well chosen. Michelle Rodriguez pops up, to absolutely no-one’s surprise, as the spunky girl ready to show the guys what she’s made of. I get the impression there’s a catalogue in every casting agency’s cupboard and under ‘Tough girls’, Rodriguez’s name is at the top of a very short list. She’s heavily type cast, but then Rodriguez plays it so well. The other women in BLA are equally useful. At no point did it feel like a character had been put in for sex appeal, which immediately bumps up BLA in my estimation. Only bad movies feel the need to go for sex appeal.
You’re probably wondering why I’ve yet to tell you the basic plot. BLA is so unoriginal, you can probably guess the major plot points. I watched ten minutes of the movie and already knew how it was going to end. This is not because of foresight, divination or because I’m clever (I’m not). Look away now if you don’t want to know what happens.
Retired/retiring cop/soldier is drafted back in against his/her will because, damn it all, them aliens are invading and said protagonist steps up to the mark, to do what needs to be done. The middle bit of the movie is fluid so insert your own dance routine/explosions. It’s not really important what happens here but a few things usually ensue. The protagonist finds out a few things about the aliens and he/she often finds out where their command base/important equipment is. This second element is always the alien’s Achilles heel and will result in them losing the battle/war.
The end goes one of two ways. The Achilles heel is stabbed and all the aliens, planet wide, are destroyed or forced to leave Earth. Or the heel is stabbed and the way in which it is stabbed is passed around the world so, they too, can cause foot injuries.
There are so many ways in which this formula could be improved, including throwing it out the window. While I personally didn’t like District 9, I can praise it for originality and for having the courage to be different. The idea of aliens in general has been used long before the first moon landings and it’s limited to imagination only. There’s so much of the iceberg left to explore and we need to start asking for something more imaginative.
Do it or Staff Sergeant Nantz will start crying, and no-one wants that.
Battle Los Angeles, or BLA as I will now refer to it, has no surprises or confusing plot lines. Seriously, if you get confused, you are no longer in possession of any brain cells. If you’re looking for bog-standard aliens invade Earth movie, you could do worse than BLA.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing to be at standard level but it feels like a missed opportunity. Some of the more enterprising aliens invade movies out there – Monster, District 9 – are pushing the basic story, taking us into unfamiliar and fascinating areas. BLA, against this, is a step back.
Which is such a shame. It made me cry at one point- I don’t cry much – so it’s not all explosions and stupidity. The script slips into wince-worthy areas on occasion. Otherwise, the characters are well rounded and the dialogue snappy.
I can also praise BLA for its realism, as far as that goes in a sci-fi film. People get hurt and stay hurt: characters you care about die: the writers has spent time figuring out how the aliens might work and, most importantly, countdown timers actually work in real time- as opposed to the majority which live in the stretchy time dimension.
Aaron Eckhart plays the main character, Staff Sergeant Nantz – and you will remember the ‘Staff Sergeant’ bit, they repeat it so often. His face is amazing. He appears to be permanently on the verge of bursting into tears, which is an odd expression for a marine. That said, he’s the one who made me cry, so perhaps it’s a crafty way to make me sympathise.
Like him, the rest of the cast is well chosen. Michelle Rodriguez pops up, to absolutely no-one’s surprise, as the spunky girl ready to show the guys what she’s made of. I get the impression there’s a catalogue in every casting agency’s cupboard and under ‘Tough girls’, Rodriguez’s name is at the top of a very short list. She’s heavily type cast, but then Rodriguez plays it so well. The other women in BLA are equally useful. At no point did it feel like a character had been put in for sex appeal, which immediately bumps up BLA in my estimation. Only bad movies feel the need to go for sex appeal.
You’re probably wondering why I’ve yet to tell you the basic plot. BLA is so unoriginal, you can probably guess the major plot points. I watched ten minutes of the movie and already knew how it was going to end. This is not because of foresight, divination or because I’m clever (I’m not). Look away now if you don’t want to know what happens.
Retired/retiring cop/soldier is drafted back in against his/her will because, damn it all, them aliens are invading and said protagonist steps up to the mark, to do what needs to be done. The middle bit of the movie is fluid so insert your own dance routine/explosions. It’s not really important what happens here but a few things usually ensue. The protagonist finds out a few things about the aliens and he/she often finds out where their command base/important equipment is. This second element is always the alien’s Achilles heel and will result in them losing the battle/war.
The end goes one of two ways. The Achilles heel is stabbed and all the aliens, planet wide, are destroyed or forced to leave Earth. Or the heel is stabbed and the way in which it is stabbed is passed around the world so, they too, can cause foot injuries.
There are so many ways in which this formula could be improved, including throwing it out the window. While I personally didn’t like District 9, I can praise it for originality and for having the courage to be different. The idea of aliens in general has been used long before the first moon landings and it’s limited to imagination only. There’s so much of the iceberg left to explore and we need to start asking for something more imaginative.
Do it or Staff Sergeant Nantz will start crying, and no-one wants that.
Avatar: The Last Aizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Everything likeable about the cartoon Avatar is lost in this film. It’s like the director read the story but failed to actually watch it. Sokka’s name is pronounced wrong and he has about as much humour as a particularly grumpy corpse, Aang is the most boring child I’ve ever had the displeasure to see (his name is pronounced wierdly too) and Zuko is even more annoying than he is in the cartoon (yes, it’s possible).
Uncle Iroh is…thin and dull, if believable. Oh and they’ve done something to Appa’s face. It’s creepy. In fact, a lot of the animal’s faces are creepy.
Firelord Ozai is acted well but there is little menace to him and that renders the epic quest to defeat him…less than epic. It’s like trying to fight a damp sponge.
The bending is portrayed quite well, on the whole, though the moves which characterise it are done so quickly they remind me of nothing but bad kung-foo movies.
The story is butchered, too. Back story is flashed through, important moments are given mere seconds of screen time and the script is…monumentally awful (Sokka spends most of his lines stating the bleedin’ obvious).
The sense of fun is nowhere to be seen in Avatar and there is nothing to like about the characters. It’s not been given the time it needs to rival the cartoon or even come close to watchable. Kyoshi Island, for instance, has been squashed together with the Earth-Benders ship prison, which is now based in a mine…so it doesn’t work). There’s a particularly bad scene where Aang, Katara and Sukko decide to find teachers (it’s a strange one where the camera is so close to the actor’s faces you feel a bit indecent) and they random add to the list ‘save the world’. Sukko comes out with ‘shall we try it?’ and Aang replies ‘yes, we should.’
No. This is not good dialogue, this is moving the scenes along in the shortest possible time.
What would have been good would be six films, two to each book. Instead, it’s an awful movie with awful characters, script and acting. Safe to say, its doubtful there will be a second one.
Uncle Iroh is…thin and dull, if believable. Oh and they’ve done something to Appa’s face. It’s creepy. In fact, a lot of the animal’s faces are creepy.
Firelord Ozai is acted well but there is little menace to him and that renders the epic quest to defeat him…less than epic. It’s like trying to fight a damp sponge.
The bending is portrayed quite well, on the whole, though the moves which characterise it are done so quickly they remind me of nothing but bad kung-foo movies.
The story is butchered, too. Back story is flashed through, important moments are given mere seconds of screen time and the script is…monumentally awful (Sokka spends most of his lines stating the bleedin’ obvious).
The sense of fun is nowhere to be seen in Avatar and there is nothing to like about the characters. It’s not been given the time it needs to rival the cartoon or even come close to watchable. Kyoshi Island, for instance, has been squashed together with the Earth-Benders ship prison, which is now based in a mine…so it doesn’t work). There’s a particularly bad scene where Aang, Katara and Sukko decide to find teachers (it’s a strange one where the camera is so close to the actor’s faces you feel a bit indecent) and they random add to the list ‘save the world’. Sukko comes out with ‘shall we try it?’ and Aang replies ‘yes, we should.’
No. This is not good dialogue, this is moving the scenes along in the shortest possible time.
What would have been good would be six films, two to each book. Instead, it’s an awful movie with awful characters, script and acting. Safe to say, its doubtful there will be a second one.
The Adjustment Bureau
2/5 stars
(Caution, spoilers hide in tall grass.)
I like Matt Damon. He appears in good films and I like his acting style.
It’s such a shame he got involved in The Adjustment Bureau. If you’re looking for a stupid action film, this won’t quite fit the bill and it’s not Inception clever or Pirates of the Caribbean funny. It slips between all of these and the main genres as well. There’s romance and a sort of thriller tone as well as an action movie theme. Oh and there’s a sniff of fantasy or perhaps sci-fi. And this is the problem. It can’t decide what it wants to be so it becomes a jack of all trades.
The basic premise revolves around chance and the ‘Adjustment Bureau’ who tweak things to make sure the planet continues following ‘the plan’ which is devised by ‘the controller’. The employees of the bureau are sort of, sort of not angels, only they have no wings and wear hats.
The story follows David Norris who’s running for the senate. He loses and, right before his speech, he meets a girl. That is the last time he is meant to meet her. But when the Adjustment Bureau fail to tweak his day, he gets on a bus and meets her again. From there on in, chance pulls the two together as the Bureau struggle to pull them apart because it doesn’t adhere to the plan.
Let’s get the praise out of the way. The characters are very well portrayed and acted. Norris, who I continue to think is called Bourne, is very likeable, funny and easy to connect with. I particularly enjoy Damon’s fighting noises which went something like ‘mmrh erp the prph’. The girl played by Emily Blunt, is equally fun to watch. Harry Mitchell, one of the Adjustment agents, played by Anthony Mackie, has a good screen presence and was let down only slightly by the lack of good script.
Otherwise, the characters were okay but not sparkling.
Unfortunately that’s all the praise, if you can call it praise, I have for The Adjustment Bureau.
The aforementioned jack of all trades thing bugs me. It’s a mix of Borne and The Matrix, with a romantic comedy driving the plot. And it’s strange, like banana and coffee – not unpalatable but not something you’d try more than once.
Then there’s the product placement, one of America’s more annoying habits. One of Norris’s political buddies walks into the room and practically screams the line ‘Are you still watching CNN?’ My immersion disappeared completely and that annoyed me greatly. I’d like to say that good movies don’t need product placement but maybe they’re just craftier about it. Take The Matrix. Neo could be tattooed with thousands of tiny Coca Cola logos or maybe that orgasm cake is sponsored by Nestle. Who knows?
My last rant concerns the romance part of the story. Because right up until the end, I was just about running with it. The Adjustment Bureau was getting away with it. And then Norris and the girl got surrounded by armed guards and decided that their only tactic was to kiss passionately for a good fifteen seconds. Yup, that’ll save you. Annoyingly, the film then let them get away with it and the happy ending slid into view like a leery uncle, slapping a moral on for good measure. I think it went along the lines of ‘if you believe/trust in love, everything will work out’ but I’m not sure because I was too busy throwing up.
So, would I watch it again? Not if you taped me to a chair and threatened my cat.
(Caution, spoilers hide in tall grass.)
I like Matt Damon. He appears in good films and I like his acting style.
It’s such a shame he got involved in The Adjustment Bureau. If you’re looking for a stupid action film, this won’t quite fit the bill and it’s not Inception clever or Pirates of the Caribbean funny. It slips between all of these and the main genres as well. There’s romance and a sort of thriller tone as well as an action movie theme. Oh and there’s a sniff of fantasy or perhaps sci-fi. And this is the problem. It can’t decide what it wants to be so it becomes a jack of all trades.
The basic premise revolves around chance and the ‘Adjustment Bureau’ who tweak things to make sure the planet continues following ‘the plan’ which is devised by ‘the controller’. The employees of the bureau are sort of, sort of not angels, only they have no wings and wear hats.
The story follows David Norris who’s running for the senate. He loses and, right before his speech, he meets a girl. That is the last time he is meant to meet her. But when the Adjustment Bureau fail to tweak his day, he gets on a bus and meets her again. From there on in, chance pulls the two together as the Bureau struggle to pull them apart because it doesn’t adhere to the plan.
Let’s get the praise out of the way. The characters are very well portrayed and acted. Norris, who I continue to think is called Bourne, is very likeable, funny and easy to connect with. I particularly enjoy Damon’s fighting noises which went something like ‘mmrh erp the prph’. The girl played by Emily Blunt, is equally fun to watch. Harry Mitchell, one of the Adjustment agents, played by Anthony Mackie, has a good screen presence and was let down only slightly by the lack of good script.
Otherwise, the characters were okay but not sparkling.
Unfortunately that’s all the praise, if you can call it praise, I have for The Adjustment Bureau.
The aforementioned jack of all trades thing bugs me. It’s a mix of Borne and The Matrix, with a romantic comedy driving the plot. And it’s strange, like banana and coffee – not unpalatable but not something you’d try more than once.
Then there’s the product placement, one of America’s more annoying habits. One of Norris’s political buddies walks into the room and practically screams the line ‘Are you still watching CNN?’ My immersion disappeared completely and that annoyed me greatly. I’d like to say that good movies don’t need product placement but maybe they’re just craftier about it. Take The Matrix. Neo could be tattooed with thousands of tiny Coca Cola logos or maybe that orgasm cake is sponsored by Nestle. Who knows?
My last rant concerns the romance part of the story. Because right up until the end, I was just about running with it. The Adjustment Bureau was getting away with it. And then Norris and the girl got surrounded by armed guards and decided that their only tactic was to kiss passionately for a good fifteen seconds. Yup, that’ll save you. Annoyingly, the film then let them get away with it and the happy ending slid into view like a leery uncle, slapping a moral on for good measure. I think it went along the lines of ‘if you believe/trust in love, everything will work out’ but I’m not sure because I was too busy throwing up.
So, would I watch it again? Not if you taped me to a chair and threatened my cat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
