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.
Sunday, 17 July 2011
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.
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
The Gunslinger Pt. 2
Around a month ago, I write a review of The Gunslinger. To sum up my initial reaction, The Gunslinger left me confused and alienated by colloquialisms and a lack of information. I promised I’d read to the end.
In hindsight, I wish I hadn’t. As I progressed through The Gunslinger, the points I’d made in my article kept coming back to me. Time and time again, I found myself actually noting down phrases that had put me off. I wasn’t really reading it for fun anymore, just sheer bloody mindedness and as an example of ‘how not to do it’.
There’s one quote that leaves me spluttering with rage. Maybe that’s over the top but King seems to be able to bring out my worst emotions. It’s towards the end of the book, but don’t worry. I could stick whole chapters in this review and it wouldn’t count as a spoiler.
‘The Stranger is a minion of the tower? Like yourself?’
‘Yar. He darkles. He tincts. He is in all times. Yet there is one greater than he.’
Darkles. What the hell does that mean? I had to look it up. Darkles: ‘To appear darkly or indistinctly, to grow dark, to become gloomy.’ And tincts? Dictionary.com was unsure. I went on about a colour or tint but that doesn’t really make sense in the context. Who knows? Maybe it means ‘to turn into a rainbow’.
My point, I think, is that this is really obscure wording which I had to go online to find out the meaning to. I used to have to do that when I was ten and I was reading my first adult book. Since then, not so much. I get the sense that King either read the dictionary as a child or overuses his thesaurus. Possibly both.
My other major problem was the lack of information King was prepared to give me, in terms of what is going on. And, having started that way, King continues this throughout the entire book. Two hundred and thirty ages pages and I am as clueless as I was on page one. Something is going on and there’s been a journey but I’m buggered if I know what any of it means.
We get some back story on the gunslinger’s character, which is nice, in some ways. But I’d actually have preferred not to know about that – mystery is always more interesting in characters – and would much rather have had some information on why the gunslinger is chasing the man in black and how he knows where the man is. It’s never explained. It almost feels like King tried to think of something, couldn’t and decided to offer something vague about the gunslinger knowing the right way regardless.
Having read the whole thing, my last complaint is that the ending chapters are pants. Completely and utterly unwashed pants. They make little to no sense and simply set up the next book, like those films that everybody hates where the director couldn’t help but put in a shot of the monster’s toe twitching. It screams ‘COME BACK AND SPEND MORE MONEY TO SEE HOW IT ENDS! PLEASE, WE NEED THE MONEYS.’
[Spoiler alert, skip the next paragraph if you want to read The Gunslinger.]
The man in black is set up as the villain of the piece. And all that happens when the gunslinger catches him, is they sit across a campfire and discuss ‘the tower’ and some random people who haven’t been mentioned until now, the man in black does a tarot reading then buggers off. That’s it. I was at least expecting the gunslinger to try and shoot the damn man. It was all so boring.
Luckily, the end chapters are short, which is about the only thing in their favour. The last chunk of my book was taken up with a chapter from the next book. I’m not even slightly tempted to read it.
I’m really glad I read books in between reading this. Devoting a week of my life slogging through The Gunslinger would have been torture. And that is my recommendation. If you really really want to read some King, have a few other books waiting for when you get bored. Alternatively, read some of his horror. It might be a bit better.
In hindsight, I wish I hadn’t. As I progressed through The Gunslinger, the points I’d made in my article kept coming back to me. Time and time again, I found myself actually noting down phrases that had put me off. I wasn’t really reading it for fun anymore, just sheer bloody mindedness and as an example of ‘how not to do it’.
There’s one quote that leaves me spluttering with rage. Maybe that’s over the top but King seems to be able to bring out my worst emotions. It’s towards the end of the book, but don’t worry. I could stick whole chapters in this review and it wouldn’t count as a spoiler.
‘The Stranger is a minion of the tower? Like yourself?’
‘Yar. He darkles. He tincts. He is in all times. Yet there is one greater than he.’
Darkles. What the hell does that mean? I had to look it up. Darkles: ‘To appear darkly or indistinctly, to grow dark, to become gloomy.’ And tincts? Dictionary.com was unsure. I went on about a colour or tint but that doesn’t really make sense in the context. Who knows? Maybe it means ‘to turn into a rainbow’.
My point, I think, is that this is really obscure wording which I had to go online to find out the meaning to. I used to have to do that when I was ten and I was reading my first adult book. Since then, not so much. I get the sense that King either read the dictionary as a child or overuses his thesaurus. Possibly both.
My other major problem was the lack of information King was prepared to give me, in terms of what is going on. And, having started that way, King continues this throughout the entire book. Two hundred and thirty ages pages and I am as clueless as I was on page one. Something is going on and there’s been a journey but I’m buggered if I know what any of it means.
We get some back story on the gunslinger’s character, which is nice, in some ways. But I’d actually have preferred not to know about that – mystery is always more interesting in characters – and would much rather have had some information on why the gunslinger is chasing the man in black and how he knows where the man is. It’s never explained. It almost feels like King tried to think of something, couldn’t and decided to offer something vague about the gunslinger knowing the right way regardless.
Having read the whole thing, my last complaint is that the ending chapters are pants. Completely and utterly unwashed pants. They make little to no sense and simply set up the next book, like those films that everybody hates where the director couldn’t help but put in a shot of the monster’s toe twitching. It screams ‘COME BACK AND SPEND MORE MONEY TO SEE HOW IT ENDS! PLEASE, WE NEED THE MONEYS.’
[Spoiler alert, skip the next paragraph if you want to read The Gunslinger.]
The man in black is set up as the villain of the piece. And all that happens when the gunslinger catches him, is they sit across a campfire and discuss ‘the tower’ and some random people who haven’t been mentioned until now, the man in black does a tarot reading then buggers off. That’s it. I was at least expecting the gunslinger to try and shoot the damn man. It was all so boring.
Luckily, the end chapters are short, which is about the only thing in their favour. The last chunk of my book was taken up with a chapter from the next book. I’m not even slightly tempted to read it.
I’m really glad I read books in between reading this. Devoting a week of my life slogging through The Gunslinger would have been torture. And that is my recommendation. If you really really want to read some King, have a few other books waiting for when you get bored. Alternatively, read some of his horror. It might be a bit better.
Friday, 3 June 2011
The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
I’m away from home for six days and I brought The Hunger Games along with me, presuming I’d be busy and therefore not have to time to read it quickly. My first night away and I’d already dived in. The next morning, I’d finished it. I didn’t even realise I’d read through the night until the sunlight was streaming through the windows. My immersion was ruined once throughout the entire book and I’m pretty sure that was because I’d been up for so long.
It’s difficult to find fault with The Hunger Games. It’s a truly vivid story, full of loss, hope and betrayal. And more loss. Actually, if the title hasn’t tipped you off to the amount of misery contained in these 454 pages, then listen well when I say, there’s a lot. And yet, despite that, there is always hope. Collins weaves a sturdy tale but it’s her protagonist, a mix of strong nerves and humanity, who really steals the show. If you fail to engage with sixteen-year-old Katniss, there is something wrong with you.
Here’s the basic premise. It’s sometime in the future, America. There’s one huge city, called Capitol, and twelve other smaller cities that circle it. The smaller cities, known as districts, rebel against Capitol, but they lose. Their punishment is the Hunger Games. Two children from each district, from the age of twelve to eighteen are chosen at random and have to enter an arena, to fight to the death. The last child standing gains their life and extra supplies for their district for the year.
I can’t really tell you any more than that without ruining some of the plot. (If you really want to avoid all spoilers, don’t read the blurb. It gives one of the first events away.) But the premise interested me and Collins’ writing delivers what that premise promises.
I suppose if I had to come up with something about it that I didn’t like, it was that I immediately wanted to go out and buy the next one. I can’t. I’m not close enough to a book shop and it’s half six in the morning.
It’s not often that I read a book I enjoy so much, I cannot find a single thing I thought could have been done better (other than, y'know, sellotaping the second book to it). And I view that as a good thing or these reviews would be incredibly difficult to write.
So, not only do I recommend you read The Hunger Games, I think you should read it right now. Yes, this very second. Go on.
It’s difficult to find fault with The Hunger Games. It’s a truly vivid story, full of loss, hope and betrayal. And more loss. Actually, if the title hasn’t tipped you off to the amount of misery contained in these 454 pages, then listen well when I say, there’s a lot. And yet, despite that, there is always hope. Collins weaves a sturdy tale but it’s her protagonist, a mix of strong nerves and humanity, who really steals the show. If you fail to engage with sixteen-year-old Katniss, there is something wrong with you.
Here’s the basic premise. It’s sometime in the future, America. There’s one huge city, called Capitol, and twelve other smaller cities that circle it. The smaller cities, known as districts, rebel against Capitol, but they lose. Their punishment is the Hunger Games. Two children from each district, from the age of twelve to eighteen are chosen at random and have to enter an arena, to fight to the death. The last child standing gains their life and extra supplies for their district for the year.
I can’t really tell you any more than that without ruining some of the plot. (If you really want to avoid all spoilers, don’t read the blurb. It gives one of the first events away.) But the premise interested me and Collins’ writing delivers what that premise promises.
I suppose if I had to come up with something about it that I didn’t like, it was that I immediately wanted to go out and buy the next one. I can’t. I’m not close enough to a book shop and it’s half six in the morning.
It’s not often that I read a book I enjoy so much, I cannot find a single thing I thought could have been done better (other than, y'know, sellotaping the second book to it). And I view that as a good thing or these reviews would be incredibly difficult to write.
So, not only do I recommend you read The Hunger Games, I think you should read it right now. Yes, this very second. Go on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
